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.
