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

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