Well apart from the obvious pun here - there is something terribly
important about the recent events surrounding the fake ad for WWF
perpetrated by those wacky boys from Brazil at DDB.
Firstly that an ad was created that could ever or should ever be
construed as offensive. Causing offense rather than causing one
to reconsider one's position, or to take action, or just to see the
world differently and enter a discourse is in many ways a waste of
everyone' efforts.
And I am sure there are some creatives that will argue the ad
actually does all of the above in a provocative and challenging
way, but, I just can't get past the laziness of it. It just reminds me
of something a student would do - or a junior team desperate to
impress a hard to please ECD. And if that had been the case
then one could forgive the impetuosity knowing that someone
somewhere would take the team aside and point out how you
can be more persuasive by rewarding the observer for their time
through subtlety, nuance, and perhaps an unexpected twist
between the image and the words. The sort of 'creative maturity'
that comes from hours of working at something you love doing.
But of course, this wasn't the case. This was a cynical attempt
to win an award with a fake ad and win a suitably impressed client.
Thing is - it wasn't a big idea, it certainly wasn't clever, it wasn't on
strategy for WWF which ultimately meant it wasn't client-winning.
In fact it was so badly received by the client in a way so publicly
outraged they issued this:
"WWF strongly condemns this offensive and tasteless ad and did not
authorize its production or publication. It is our understanding that
it was
a concept offered by an outside advertising agency seeking our
business
in Brazil. The concept was summarily rejected by WWF and
should never
have seen the light of day. It is an unauthorized use of
our logo and we
are aggressively pursuing action to have it removed
from websites where
it is being currently featured. We strongly condemn
the messages and the
images portrayed in this ad. On behalf of WWF,
here in the US and around
the world, we can promise you this ad does
not in any way reflect the
thoughts and feelings of the people of our
organization."
So exactly the opposite of what this ad was trying to achieve for both
client and one of my favorite agency groups of all time. Fail.
(Although rumor has it it wasnt faked after all - watch this space...)
So why did it win an award?
'The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11.
The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.'
Creative Directors: Sergio Valente, Rodolfo Sampaio, Julio Andery, Guilherme Jahara
Secondly, the One Show claims to be a bastion of creative excellence -
in fact 'the keeper of the flame' no less for advertising creatives all taking
calculated risks with new ideas. I applaud this but to award such witless
endevour brings the industry into disrepute whichever way you look at it.
What on earth was the criteria here? If I used some holocaust survivors in
a fake ad for soup for example - does a Merit automatically follow?
Shame on you.
Thankfully this has remained a moment of madness within the industry,
but it shows how people within the industry can still behave in a rather
unsavory manner. If we are not careful we will end up as reviled as bankers,
property developers, estate agents and car salesmen for goodness sake.
We are not all self-serving, unsympathetic and untrustworthy - but we
are capable of gargantuan charmlessness when left to our own devices.
Thirdly, I am glad that the powers within the One Show have decided
to put some sort of checks and balances in place on these now
seemingly morally corrupt industry awards. The fact that they had to make
a statement about how fake ads and bogus creative solutions for
non-existent clients is in fact 'cheating' is long overdue. We've all known it,
we've all polluted the well so to speak - so let's hope some common sense
will now prevail.
Here's what the One Club's board of directors including David Droga,
David Lubars,
Nancy Vonk and Nick Law have agreed on to be introduced
in 2010:
It is a pity that it had to come to this and I hope other awards take note.An agency or regional office of an agency network that enters an ad
made for a nonexistent client, or made and run without a client's
approval, will be banned from entering the One Show for five years.
The entire team credited on the "fake" entry will be banned from
entering the One Show for five years.An agency or regional office of an agency network that enters an ad
that has run once, on late-night TV, or only because the agency
produced a single ad and paid to run it itself will be banned from
entering the One Show for three years.
Ideas are our currency and creativity is the fuel that drives them. Let's
remember who we are working for and why. Let's also remember that we
are all in the business of helping our clients solve their business problems
- not using them to solve ours.
Just to put this in context, here is an ad from Humo - an irreverent
satirical magazine from Belgium that ran some time ago.
Award winning ad? You already know the answer to that.
Humo - award winner?
Recent Comments