On Adweek online, I offered to host a dialogue about award shows. There’s a lot of invective and hyperbole going on in the Twitterverse about Award Shows and the One Show in particular because this year’s judges deemed the 911/WWF ad worthy of a merit.
Without giving a value judgment to the ad itself, which I find a bit nonsensical more than offensive (though it is that as well) it seems to be sparking a debate about the value of the award show. Let’s make it a healthy debate.
I want to make it clear, I am not an apologist for award shows. There are too many of them, they’re too expensive, and it’s unclear as to their value to our business. That said, there a few shows that I love, in particular the One Show, The Kellys, CA and D&AD. They’re not perfect but they are what they are.
As far as the One Show, I can tell you, we really do try to weed out the fake work, or as I like to call it, Faux-bono. But it’s much more difficult than you think. This is a common topic at our board meetings and during judging.
During the judging we:
- We ask judges to flag work they think might be scam.
- We check each winning piece by asking for a tear sheet, a media plan and/or a letter from the client.
- No agency names/creative names are listed on the work while judging.
-No discussion is allowed while judging.
When we do discover fake work we do one or a combination of the following:
We strip the agency of the award.
We ask for the pencils back if given
We ban the agency/team from entering the next year.
Lastly, I’d like to remind everyone accusing the One Show of being all about greed that we are a non-profit. No one is making tons of money here, it just isn’t happening. If we have a good year it goes towards things like education, programs to further diversity in our industry and of course, into running the following year’s show and process. I served as chairman for 5 years for free as do all board members.
So back to the original point of this post, we have an all day board meeting coming up and I’d like to present some of your thoughts on what we might do to make the show and the process better.
If you’re going to be hater, and accuse all work of being fake, I ask you to step out from behind your anonymity and name the names and the work and more importantly, the proof that the award winning work you’re referencing is fake. Seriously.
Okay, have at it.
I love that the One Show is nonprofit and makes good use of entry dollars. If more shows were like that, I’d entertain entering more. But fake ads aren’t far behind the ones carrying a flimsy media schedule for the sake of legitimacy. They may as well be banned too.
We’re small budget, so we don’t have the money to enter a lot, or the time. But when we lose accounts over agency x because of their stack of awards (creating that feeling of safety for the prospect — awards? sign us up!) it becomes a shame especially when those awards were won unfairly. Back in the day when surgeons were validated by the amount of blood wiped on their coats, saving lives was little more than an afterthought. And the man who stood up and suggested that washing hands between surgeries would prevent infection and save more lives was ostracized. No blood on our coats? How will our genius be measured?
For many agencies, I see awards as being the priority. The afterthought is the business they’re supposed to help. Celebrating innovation, creativity, and unique observations that help a business grow, or a harmful social perception change, is a great thing. But if the celebration is only for validation, ego, or to land new business unethically, well, the people we’re supposed to be helping are the ones who are losing over our “winning.” And that just sucks.
[...] when former One Club Chairman David Baldwin continued the dialogue on his blog, I made my suggestion to fix [...]
I will take this suggestion to the board. I personally think it falls into the ‘throw the baby out with the bath-water’ but you never know and I promise it will be heard. I also sincerely thank you for the suggestion, I really appreciate our members giving us their thoughts and participating.
Agencies in Asia always do scam, then get a letter from a client to prove it ran…. and run it once in an obscure magazine. Then they walk around like high priests of morality. This cunning ploy ruins the best intentions on your part. You guys really need to make this as watertight as possible. How about this–all ads to be accompanied by a media schedule. After finalists have been shortlisted, you use the media schedule to determine if an ad ran just once in some dodgy place. Surely that can be ascertained, right? Entries with hazy credentials stay at Finalist status, only entries that are backed by credible and realistic media schedules are considered for Gold, Silver & Bronze. Also, please look at tighter rules in the Poster/Outdoor/Collateral Category as this is where the most scam is perpetrated.
Was there a statement of some sort? I cannot find it on teh interwebs.
Apparently we issued a statement but it has not been reported yet. My understanding is that it will be issued eod. I will post a link if I see it.
Sorry, not ‘issued’ in the second sentence, ‘reported.’
Cool. I’m really excited to see how you guys respond to this. You have a real opportunity here.
I’m a dues-paying member of The One Club and have been for 10 years or so. And while it may be a logistical challenge (heck, it might be a nightmare), why don’t we open up the judging of the show to all the members? Do it with online voting if it’s possible.
From the front of annual you’re talking about a couple of hundred people, and you might get a better cross-section of the ad community than you currently do, and reduce the amount of “judges are just voting for their friends” talk. It seems there’s quite a lot of discussion this week not only about scam work, but that the entire voting system seems a little too insular. And it might put more eyes on the work looking out for scam ads. Just a thought.
Dan
David, with all due respect - of which I have a lot - I think you are misunderstanding people’s problem with the One Show’s recognition of this ad. I don’t think the questionable decision making lies in the fact that an illegitimate ad was allowed to sneak in - that’s the fault of the agency for knowingly submitting a bogus entry, the problem is that a group of judges decided to make a political statement by recognizing an entry based on the fact that it validates a controversial viewpoint, creative merits be damned. There have been great ads in the past that have used controversy in very effective ways (PETA comes to mind) but in this case the lack of creative insight (which was what: “Quit your bitching about 9/11 because the 2004 tsunami was so much worse”?) is so apparent that rewarding it is as “nonsensical” as the ad itself. I know that all judging is subjective, but in the resulting hubbub I have yet to read a single defense of the creative idea. In fact, just about everyone has agreed with your analysis of the ad which at best calls the panel’s judgment into question. Intentionally courting controversy, or worse, using an awards show platform as a political soap box is the real issue here I think.
Geeze, this debate has reached a tsunami of comments such that it exceeds my ability to comprehend. I’m moving back to the relative simplicity and civility of the Health Care debate.
But the best thing about all this may be Mark C.’s criticism above re judging standards. For too long older ECD’s from the biggest agencies have run ad shows. Standards, formats, openness to really revolutionary work have suffered mightily.
Everyone please stay tuned for a statement from the One Club this morning.
“Fake” print and spot ads have always been an ad show problem. But a bigger issue, in my opinion, is that ad shows no longer serve their original purpose: to show the best and most innovative work. This is because the submission, judging, and presentation formats are still based on spots.
Every show is struggling with how to best gather, judge, and present the best “Non-Traditional” work. You can’t count on seeing the truly new stuff at most shows any longer. And when the non-traditional Is chosen, you only get a glimmer of the real audience experience.
So now, more than ever, ad people go to shows to network and accept their own imperfectly chosen awards. It’s not surprising then, in this devalued context, that some would submit confusing, offensive, crap.
Great points, Steve. Do you have any thoughts on how to present non-traditional stuff? It strains the process of how to actually judge the work because of the very nature of the category.
I think the One Club and Clios have led the way, in part because they involved some of the leaders in the non-traditional arena, like Bob Greenberg with the One Club.
The best format to date was the Battle of the Brands, sponsored by the AICP (!) and the ANA (who put on some of the best conferences).
This show no longer exists, but it put the five finalists on stage, gave them 20 minutes to present their campaign, showing lot’s of elements, and then the audience voted for the best via remote devices.
There was also a panel of net-savvy judges, including clients, who commented, but did not vote - a sort of American Idol approach. Having clients involved is critical, as they are results oriented.
Normally judges try to navigate websites and read descriptions in just a couple minutes; as a result they have no idea about what the real experience for the audience was over time. Larger agencies that can put together slick films - appealing to spot oriented judges - tend to do better. And the amount of lying about results, which are critical in the new audience centric culture, is massive.
Full disclosure: you and I won a best creative award for the Art of the Heist for Audi at the Battle of the Brands in 2006 or something. We were beat overall by Nike basketball & @Radicalmedia with a great broadcast program, but it wasn’t that interactive. So even the Battle of the Brands wasn’t perfect!
right now most of the shows are treating cheaters like baseball treated steroid users in the late 90’s. make the punishment severe enough to really deter would-be cheaters.
The ban is the answer.
Enforce it for obvious cheaters, and encourage other shows to ban entries who’ve scammed elsewhere.
The 911/WWF ad is a scam, entered on behalf of a client who wanted nothing to do with it. It’s a lie. If EVERY awards show banned the offending agency for three years, they’d be taking away exactly what the agency is so desperately seeking.
Sounds like effective social un-engineering to me.
Ten years ago, when I first started in this business, I would crack open a CA or One Show book, and be blown away by the caliber of work within.
“Wow. How the hell did they ever get that sold?” I’d ask. I was so green and naive. I had no idea how the award show circuit worked. All I knew was I wanted to be a part of it. I wanted those awards. And soon, I would have them.
It wasn’t long before I was moving around the country, and working with the very names I had seen in the books consistently year after year. I remember the “CA Wall”, where the creatives were “strongly encouraged” to have work pinned up and ready to roll before the deadline. The loads of re-prints being stored. It didn’t matter if the client ever saw or bought it, or if it was ever an assignment that didn’t make it. Hell sometimes it didn’t mater if it was even a real client. It was understood that getting the agency in the books wasn’t a bonus to a job well done, but a must if you wanted to keep your job.
And if you learned that one of your CD’s was a judge that year? OH BOY! Might as well call your buddies right then and there, ‘cause you’re in!
I fell for it, hook, line and sinker. And who wouldn’t? Who could resist the allure of winning these awards? Knowing how much it would hep your career?
And this was the same story no matter where I went. And the shops I went to were very well known.
We in advertising just love to bullshit ourselves, and each other. It makes sense, given the nature of our industry. We pretend to believe that a board game company would spend the money on a 5 piece full page spread magazine campaign. Or a condom/tatttoo/piercing shop. Or that a client would run a print ad with a tiny logo. And no legal.
But it didn’t matter. We, as an industry, always turn a blind eye.
Of course, there are a lot of shops that have done outstanding real work. I’ve been a part of some of them. But there’s always just as much spec work being churned out, and submitted along side the real work. And all of it gets in sometimes.
Again, we love the smell of bullshit.
I’ve always believed that award shows should simply be a celebration of creativity. Lets be honest about it and forget the nonsense. We say we hate steroids in professional sports, but we all know deep down that baseball would be incredibly boring with out them.
i don’t think anything will ever stop the flow of illegitimate work. agencies and creatives will always have a need to do a great ad, poster or tv spot. so they will do what it takes to satisfy it. real or not.
and they will always enter shows seeking praise for their work and confirmation of their talents.
so,… with that in mind, why not introduce a category for the work that is not real? or a show based on just that?
creatives may think twice about submitting their fakes into a legitimate show and consider entering a show that embraces spec work.
there is an interest to see great work, whether it’s real or not. it just needs to be categorized appropriately and showcased in the proper forum.
One more thing:
You need to guard against the big shops doing “other” campaigns for their clients. Ala Saatchi via Granger (who’s actually a nice guy, imho).
I can’t really blame him either, because it wasn’t “wrong”. Doing 2 campaigns for, say, Tide made sense in a big way. You run the real, focus-grouped campaign for the client, and you run the other “student” campaign, once, for the awards. Every one’s happy.
Even thought that’s “legit”, it’s not really legit. And we all know it. And the only way it worked is because YOU and the other shows let it.
Fix that.
Ed, here’s the deal, the One Show organization is taking the hit here as if it’s in collusion with the cheaters and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Basically, you have an organization of about 20 people trying to verify whether an ad is real over a very short amount of time before the show. They have to get through to people in different time zones, different countries, they’re blocked by assistants…etc. After the show the process continues until the book comes out. It’s really not a fair fight.
Maybe one idea is to submit a tear sheet with the reprint and attach it to the entry. That way a judge can look at the work in its native setting. We’d see whether headlines were changed, logos were cleaned up…etc.
I still say the ultimate responsibility here is on client and agency. Thousands of entries. And it did meet the requirements (the print one did, at any rate). What are judges supposed to do?
I do think shows can take action after the fact–maybe ban the agency for five years instead of one and print its name in a catalog of shame. I’d say print the client’s name as well as the client is much more likely to be taken seriously by the agency, but I guess you can’t always be sure the client had knowledge. Might make sense to also specifically ban the creative team on the account, by name, for a set period of time. Might be harder to track, enforce, but it adds a level of personal responsibility, i.e., it’s MY name on the line, not just the agency. (Of course, that might not be fair to low-level folks strong-armed into such things are forced to take one for the team).
But banning people–especially for that long–means turning down money–hard to do whether you’re a for-profit or not.
Just thoughts.
Ken, you know, I’m not sure it would be such a financial hit. For the One Club anyway, we need money to accomplish things, not to line bank accounts for the shows owners, because there are no owners. It might even cause more legitimate entries.
Guys:
Honestly, I thought this whole inbred business was finally in for a spanking after the JC Penny fiasco a few months back. But, strangely, nothing came of that.
Not enough bad taste, I suppose.
The suggestions outlined by Matt, above, are a great start. And I would also add some of the suggestions listed on the other sites, too, such as not putting the Agency or Creative’s names on the work (I know you guys don’t, but all the shows I’ve judged do). These are must-do’s for all award shows.
But the problem isn’t the blatantly fake ads, as you pointed out. It’s the ads that actually *could* be legit. From the well-produced TV spots by “big agencies” for a hole-in-the-wall “clients”, or those edgy print campaigns done by Y&R Nabu-Nabu, for a reputable “global brand” (ostensibly with the approval of the assistant to the assistant of the part-time sub-regional marketing consultant for that “global brand”), to the “Directors Cuts” and dreaded one-off “Atmospheric” Installations… THOSE are the kinds of ads that have ruled the shows for the past decade plus.
And those are the kinds of ads you MUST figure out a way to weed out.
And what about all the cheaters, over the years, who won all those ill-gotten awards? They’ve all moved up the ladder, thanks to their shelf-bending collections of career-making blood diamonds, and now they’re all in charge of the big, venerable, once-great shops. Telling the honest, real Creatives what to do, and how to be creative. Diverting precious man hours to win still more, and more precious awards… and, of course, losing clients by the truckfull.
Don’t get me wrong. Award shows are a good thing, if used correctly. But because this brand of cheating (and that’s what it is, really) has been not only tolerated, but perpetuated for so long, if you want to have a successful career in Advertising you have a simple, yet sad choice to make: cheat, or be cheated.
And DDB Brasil simply got caught cheating.
The good news is The One Show has a real opportunity to turn this unfortunate mess into pure PR gold.
Be honest. Be tough. And be truthful.
But lead the way, guys, and your Pencils will be once again the coin of the realm.
e
Don’t have them. Too many egos in the business for them to ever be truly legit. Do ads that are right for your client. If they work, you’ll be rewarded.
I’d like to add another dimension to this debate.
Anyone who attended Resfest 2005, would know this idea
was lifted from Strike Back Film’s ‘Flesh’ short film.
http://strikebackfilms.com/
“They’re not perfect but they are what they are.”
That’s no excuse for not trying to make them more perfect.
Banning the agency/team from entering the following year obviously isn’t working - judging by the rash of fake ads in award shows these days. Why not institute serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist?
My proposal is here: http://tinyurl.com/ljay8x
You’d better believe that if an ECD was looking at a personal 20-year ban, they wouldn’t let stuff like this slip through - on accident or on purpose. If awards matter so desperately to these cheats, you have the power to take that away from them and clean things up for good.
Zero tolerance is the only way to save The One Show brand from devolving into nothing more than a really expensive student competition.
The One Club board of directors are taking your thoughts into account, Either Kevin Roddy or I will be making a statement on behalf of the board tomorrow.