As we enter another awards season, agencies are likely to find themselves embroiled once again in that old ideological chestnut: the value of scam ads. Behind closed doors, many agencies in Asia have teams devoted to the 'craft'. The purpose? Awards, ego boosting, media exposure. The well of euphemisms for scam runs deep -subsidised work, proactive, pro bono - but most creatives would rather be damned than be labelled a scam king.
While technically, scam is not fully-commissioned work, many agency chiefs will turn a blind eye if it means adding statuettes to the agency's shelf. Just sit through any awards show and you'll undoubtedly hear people mutter 'scam' as some of the winners are announced. Giveaway signs of suspected scam work include high-budget campaigns for unknown clients, unlikely media placement, or one-off print ads that don't fit into a marketing campaign.
Legendary creative Neil French, who has long defended the practice, finds it harmless. "Most agencies have to struggle along doing supermarkets and other retail stuff," he says. "But given the chance, they might be able to produce stand-out work."
"Is it a scam to subsidise the work done for a client, so that the excellence of that work reflects on the agency? Of course not. It's a normal business-getting expense."
But John Hegarty, worldwide creative director and co-founder of BBH, disagrees. Calling it 'fool's gold' he says:"(Scam is) completely irrelevant to the proper business of advertising. The art of advertising is to use creativity as a means of achieving effectiveness. Without that, the whole process is hollow."
Eugene Cheong, regional head of copy at Ogilvy & Mather, however, notes that "gencies are so profit-driven now, they aren't willing to take on small 'Matchbox ads'" he says. "It's the agencies that perpetuate a money-first motivation which are the ones going out and accusing people of scam."
"This whole business is run on envy. There are a lot of people out there not doing so well, and they try to tell everyone what should and shouldn't be done. I don't think they have enough talent to do anything great or award-winning; these are the guys who are doing the badmouthing."
But Hegarty doesn't budge. "Scam is often financed by agency networks keen to push their agency up the list of creative ranking tables - something that's ultimately quite meaningless. At it's best, it's an internally irrelevant posing contest between creative departments."
Ironically, associating it with posing isn't far from what French has in mind. "Scam is much the same as the Paris or Milan fashion-fairs, which feature models that look like no normal human being and wear clothes that no one will ever see in the street."
In fact, French blames awards juries for perpetuating the grudge against advertising's own haute couture. "Some juries are dumb enough not to ask themselves simple questions and reward blatant scams. But that's a fault of the judging system, not the agency that pulled off the con." Perhaps this motivated French to take the matter into his own hands this year, with the launch of his own catwalk - the World Press Awards.
But Hegarty is still wary. "There are plenty of creative teams which have portfolios full of award-winning scam ads - who turn into ineffectual, quivering messes when it comes to creating real, effective work for real clients."
