So this is a sort-of continuation to my post about Peggy – the pointless tech peg.
And lets not forget the ridiculous buckwheat allergy tattoo.
While both of those have come from JWT’s Asia-Pacific offices, the issue is far more widespread than that.
So while this post is coming out today, it was actually written a while ago.
The day after I came back from judging an effectiveness award.
The day after I managed to get a submission chucked out. For being scam.
Everyone – bar the representative of the agency behind it – knew it was scam.
And yet, I was the only one who said it.
The only one.
And the only reason I got it removed is because I pointed out that based on their submission, they had failed to achieve the goals they claim they were asked to do on behalf of their client.
Now I’m not blaming the co-judges.
Nor am I trying to big myself up.
I just hate that this shit continues to happen.
And from the same bloody agencies, in the same bloody region, every bloody year.
[Since the last post, we’ve seen the launch of a whole host of campaigns with ‘questionable’ motivation. McCaan, Cheil, BBDO to name but a few]
The thing is I don’t actually have any problem with an agency wanting to show off their creativity by helping those who need help.
In fact I think that’s ace.
However, when they claim their actions are part of some genuine ‘business relationship’ with clear commercial imperatives, then I have a problem with it.
Look, I don’t want to screw anyone over or get anyone in trouble, but the way I see it is the people doing this – or more specifically, the people forcing their offices to do this – are basically trying to ruin mine, and anyone else who works in advertising’s, livelihood and so while I accept I’ll never be able to make it stop, I can try to make it a bit more difficult.
Or said another way …
I can try and make it a bit more beneficial for any NGO/Charity/Small Business that gets pulled into this annual farce.
The idea is simple.
No agency can enter a creative or effective award on behalf of an NGO, charity or business spending less than US$5000 per annum on marketing unless they can prove 3 years of continuous work … with each year covering a period of no less than 5 months.
That’s it.
I appreciate it won’t change things in the big picture … I know some of the guilty parties will find ways around it … but if we’re going to have to put up with this bullshit, let’s make sure agencies are doing something that gives back, rather than takes more away.
I’m sure there’s other ideas, other suggestions, that would be far more powerful [from creating categories that simply ‘celebrate agency initiatives’ to insisting all ‘effectiveness award winners’ are then audited by an external, independent force] … however as I appreciate that some of these NGO, charities and small business need all the help they can get … I feel this idea would aid their goals while forcing agencies to be a bit more engaged beyond just the 3 months leading up to the Cannes submission deadline.
So if you agree – or have another idea – I’d love to hear from you.
Take Our Poll