VIEWPOINT: We know it's wrong, you all know it's wrong ... so why
do you do it?
<p>So Jeffery Yu, head of the Hong Kong 4As, is on a mission to stamp
</p><p>out scam ads from being entered in legitimate advertising awards
</p><p>shows.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>Well, good for him - and good luck to him, for he faces a monumental
</p><p>task.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>The problem at the moment is that all too often, the judges know an
</p><p>entry is a scam, the agency knows it's a scam, the organising committe
</p><p>knows it's a scam, the audience sure as hell will know it's a scam - but
</p><p>nothing can be done because the definition of a scam ad is too
</p><p>lightweight.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>Right now, as long as an agency can prove that the client approved the
</p><p>ad and paid for the media buy, an ad will run, no matter that the client
</p><p>had no say or input in the creative, or that the ad ran in the most
</p><p>irrelevant of media, and probably only ran once.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>Clearly, this is where the first blood needs to be drawn.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>And where better to start the attack than in the agencies' wallets - to
</p><p>qualify, ads should have to run in relevant media (relevant to the
</p><p>product or service being advertised, relevant to the target market) for
</p><p>a minimum of three insertions, perhaps.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>Agencies should have to prove that the client did more than just approve
</p><p>the ad; they should have to prove that the client actually wanted the
</p><p>ad.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>But over and beyond this, a major shift in attitude within the creative
</p><p>community is required, and this is where Mr Yu faces his toughest
</p><p>battle.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>After all, who is it that told the industry that awards are prestigious,
</p><p>crucial to business, vital for job prospects and something which
</p><p>agencies simply have to have? So why are we now tut-tutting when some
</p><p>agencies will do anything they can think of to win these highly-prized
</p><p>awards?
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p><p>Still, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
</p><p><BR><BR>
</p>
by
|
09/29/2000
So Jeffery Yu, head of the Hong Kong 4As, is on a mission to stamp
out scam ads from being entered in legitimate advertising awards
shows.
Well, good for him - and good luck to him, for he faces a monumental
task.
The problem at the moment is that all too often, the judges know an
entry is a scam, the agency knows it's a scam, the organising committe
knows it's a scam, the audience sure as hell will know it's a scam - but
nothing can be done because the definition of a scam ad is too
lightweight.
Right now, as long as an agency can prove that the client approved the
ad and paid for the media buy, an ad will run, no matter that the client
had no say or input in the creative, or that the ad ran in the most
irrelevant of media, and probably only ran once.
Clearly, this is where the first blood needs to be drawn.
And where better to start the attack than in the agencies' wallets - to
qualify, ads should have to run in relevant media (relevant to the
product or service being advertised, relevant to the target market) for
a minimum of three insertions, perhaps.
Agencies should have to prove that the client did more than just approve
the ad; they should have to prove that the client actually wanted the
ad.
But over and beyond this, a major shift in attitude within the creative
community is required, and this is where Mr Yu faces his toughest
battle.
After all, who is it that told the industry that awards are prestigious,
crucial to business, vital for job prospects and something which
agencies simply have to have? So why are we now tut-tutting when some
agencies will do anything they can think of to win these highly-prized
awards?
Still, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
