OPINION: Calm down ... it's only advertising!

Let's try something. Among all the foot-stamping, face-slapping hissy-fits that are accompanying this year's pet witch-hunt, let's try a bit of honesty. In the first place, this is undignified. The whole thing underlines the absurd importance that agencies have started putting on awards. Our clients are merely having their suspicions confirmed: that advertising-people are self-centered, self-admiring children who care more about their own little world than they do about doing a good job for the people who pay them. In the second, it's pointless. Has nobody noticed that the people who make the most noise; the holier-than-thous, are the ones who believe that their utter absence of creative success is due to other people's scam ads? Whereas the plain fact is that if you gave 'em an award before the show, they still couldn't win one. And just for a moment, let's ask ourselves what everyone is so scared of, shall we? Presumably, some of these public-interest groups, like Bates, for instance, feel that scam-ads are more likely to win than the honest plodding they produce for their own clients. Well, come to think of it, that's true. But why is it true? I propose that the reasons are simple. They base on the fact that the grey mass of agencies care more about 'keeping the client contented', and not rocking the boat, than they do about advising him to take a bold step and stand out from the crowd. They accept deadlines from clients who pick a date out of thin air, in the hope that this will inject a note of urgency if not commitment. Meekly accepting this means that creative people have no time to throw away good ideas, and come up with great ones. It means that huge production-budgets take the place of ideas. And it means the work turns out to be workmanlike, worthy, and blah. It passes, unnoticed by the public; and, incidentally, by the juries. Has no-one noticed that marvellous, cheeky, hilarious scams usually come from agencies that also produce stand-out work for their paying clients? That's because they apply the same ethic to everything they do ... and because they still believe that work can be fun. Who cares if a few scams win awards? It's not the Olympics. It's just a game: a side-show. Anyone who gets all emotional about this stuff is merely underlining the fact that they don't really understand the business. They're the kids at school who nobody ever chose to be on a team. They complained about it to their parents and teachers. They never understood that nobody liked them because they were boring, and because they were natural cry-babies. Advertising award-shows are supposed to be fun. No client ever appointed an agency because it had won a gong at the Singapore Creative Circle Awards. It's not a profit centre (except for the organisers). If a young team produces a scam that gets noticed, and this gets them a job, we should be pleased for them. Instead, we tut away like old maids. And if you think your work isn't good enough to compete with those scams, you should re-think the way you work, and you should not waste your money on entering. Full marks to Bates for doing the latter. I just wish they could do so without making themselves sound so pompous. There's a third point. Already, there are plenty of instances of talentless nerds who get onto award-juries claiming that such-and-such an ad is a scam, purely out of envy and a wish to 'get even'. There are plenty of instances of this. In fact, a recent article in Campaign Brief suggested that my own (rather old) Kaminomoto ads were a scam. The fact that the writer later discovered otherwise and apologised to me doesn't erase the implication. The argument about what is and isn't a scam could dirge on forever. Does it mean that no small advertiser, who doesn't spend enough to satisfy Ken McKenzie, is eligible? Does it disqualify the brilliant one-off poster, or the topical single-hit? The answer is simple: 'legalise' everything and let the chips fall where they may. It's only bloody advertising! Nobody dies! This absurd witch-hunt has now been taken up by 'the media' - not because they care, or even understand - but because there's no news like bad news. The industry has only itself to blame: the point of advertising is to get results for our clients. That is the whole point. (Coincidentally most award-winning ads work better for our clients than boring stuff, because they interest and excite consumers.) The point of awards is to show off our talents, to explore new ways of communicating, to have some fun, and pat each other on the back. That's all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the business, as such. One more thing. If juries are good enough, they will weigh the difficulty of the client and the category into their thinking. In the main, at major shows, the big winners are big brands. The biggest problem is that jury-members are increasingly being chosen for political or financial reasons. They are basically unqualified for the job. So here's some advice. Never enter any awards show that doesn't publish a list of judges beforehand. If they do publish one, look at that list. Ask yourself if you care what these people think of your ads. If, as will increasingly be the case, you not only don't care, but have never even heard of the judges, why are you considering paying them to pass judgement on you? That's a far more relevant point than joining in the current 'hysteria-for-losers' silliness.

Sign In

Trouble signing in?

Reset Password: Click here

Contact Customer Support at

Customerservice@campaignasia.com