Bates Asia has pulled out of the Singapore Creative Circle Awards
(CCA) and said it would boycott the event until the Lion City could
prove it had proper measures to rid itself of scam ads.
The move came shortly after Bates Asia president Jeffrey Yu, in his
capacity as the chairman of the Hong Kong 4As, charged that the
Singapore 4As was not doing enough to prevent scam ads from making a
showing at the CCA (MEDIA, September 29).
The Singapore 4As has described the charge as "nonsense"; however,
chairman of the CCA 2000 judging panel Paul Ruta said that tougher
measures have been put in place this year.
"We've said from the outset this year that we will be asking for
verification that ads have indeed run," said Mr Ruta, who is also a
creative director with M&C Saatchi.
"This includes a letter of confirmation from the client, tear sheets or
a media schedule. As a result, this time around I think we have only a
minute number of entries - about one per cent - which are
questionable."
He admitted that last year there were no such verification procedures
but stressed that he was doing everything possible to make the contest
fair and above board.
Bates Singapore ECD Steinar Borge said that the majority of last year's
CCA winners were "obviously scam work".
But while he acknowledged the new verification procedures, he said his
agency would adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
"We really want to believe them, but we will not participate until they
have proved that they can turn this into a serious advertising
festival."
The issue comes as award shows around the world have adopted tougher
measures to clamp down on scam ads.
Recently, Lowe Lintas in Sydney found itself in the embarrassing
position of having to return a Cannes Lion after it was discovered that
the ad for Taronga Zoo was a fake.
Taronga Zoo was not a client of Lowe Lintas and the campaign, which won
a bronze prize in the press and poster category, never ran.
The industry, however, is uncertain about how to exactly define a scam
ad, which forms a major part of the problem because numerous definitions
abound.
But there is a consensus on a few points: the ad has to be produced with
the client's knowledge and consent and that it must run so that it is in
the public's eye.
Opinions begin to diverge from here: some say running an ad in a minor
niche publication or in a 3am television show is fine while others say
the line must be drawn to exclude these types of entries.
Mr Yu said that greater emphasis must now be placed on "ridding
ourselves of scam ads because it was devaluing the advertising
industry".
"The industry is not attracting enough talented people as it is. Our
task of getting new people is made much harder if we are categorised as
'scam doctors'," he said.
On being labelled a troublemaker, Mr Yu said, "I like to make trouble if
the issue is legitimate."
However, he stressed that this was not a shouting match and that he
would like to see a regionwide effort to stamp out scam ads.
(See also page 3 and Viewpoint on page 8.)
