More to the point, can Asian agencies ever truly succeed at Cannes while this rule is in place? Under existing regulations, winners in charities and public service categories are excluded from competition for the top award.
The thinking behind the stipulation is that agencies working with a charity are given more freedom, which in turn allows them to create work that’s more emotional. This lack of restrictions and boundaries can potentially create an unfair battleground.
The trouble is that the barring of charity work rules out a huge number of contenders for the Grand Prix awards from various markets and across numerous categories. Indeed, at this year’s competition, some campaigns, such as Ogilvy’s Hospice work in the press category and Leo Burnett’s WWF in promo, were flagged up as Grand Prix standard — but by the nature of their categorisation, could not be considered.
In Dove’s case, it can be argued that corporate is a more fitting category for the campaign. Sure, the Self-Esteem Fund exists to debunk beauty stereotypes — the spot’s time-lapse video shows how much make-up artistry and photo retouching it takes to turn a pretty but normal woman into a beautiful illusion on a billboard — but it is ultimately about selling beauty products to those same female consumers.
Right or wrong (and I believe the campaign truly is deserving of the Grand Prix), the film jury’s decision and a call at a press conference by jury chairman and DDB global creative chief Bob Scarpelli for a changing of the rules may have opened up a can of worms for organisers.
On the one hand, the awards show exists to raise creative standards and motivate by providing a showcase for excellence. To that degree, outstanding work in public service deserves the same consideration.
Let’s not forget that, for profit or not, permitting the work to compete will inevitably result in an increase in entries for the festival’s organisers, helping improve the bottom line and hopefully result in further investment to improve the week-long festival.
But, there’s a very real threat to the show’s future that can’t be ignored.
Crucially, Cannes could see a larger number of scam ads filtering through to the top. Scam is particularly rife in some parts of the world, including Asia, and its domination at an award show could ultimately cost it its credibility — even if agencies in South America argue that clients will only buy and run work once its won metal.
Indeed, although most of the public service campaigns are beautifully-executed and speak out on worthy causes — just look at winners from Asia — they are likely to face a stream of queries difficult to address. Was the idea taken to the charity? Was the bar to get work approved lower? Did the ad genuinely run? Industry-wide, it also may fuel the enthusiasm to produce work for the purpose of creative points and peer recognition.
As for the jury, surely it would be morally indefensible to back a product ad against a campaign setting out to fight an important cause such as child abuse.
The industry is in a state of change and the responsibility of creative festivals such as Cannes is to provide a platform for debate to move our business forward.
But for the festival’s chair Terry Savage, recent events must indeed have a hint of deja vu — ironically, it was only a few years ago that Cannes organisers, after a series of questionable Grand Prix wins, bent under industry pressure and put in place the rule which is now under deliberation.
