Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?
First, everyone agrees it was a terrible creative to start with. Second, everyone agrees creative directors are to blame for scam ads and for fomenting the belief among newbies that awards are the only way to creative moksha. In light of the Ford Figo incident, we asked top agency chief creatives and brand custodians to weigh in on the practice, and how the industry should deal with it
The question is why have scam ads not been called out strongly before? In my experience, I had come across one such instance with my brand at that time - Pepsi. I distinctly recall an ad maligning the competition. It was outright offensive but positioned as if it was issued in public interest on behalf of Pepsi. It was by an agency that claimed to have done the work for us in Asia Pacific but won an award in India. I had raised a stink the moment I came to know about it because we had nothing to do with the ad in question. The irony was that the creative chief still wanted to brush the issue under the carpet. Due to the strong exception taken by us as clients in that one instance, we did not have to face another case of such scam ads.
The problem today is it has become easier to beat the system. What does published mean now in the digital age? There is a large number of digital creative expressions practically every day. Usually agencies in the digital space work on short deadlines and within clear parameters. Client supervision is not very stringent. This makes it even more mandatory for agencies to put the client's interests right at the centre. Any violation should receive swift punishment.
The last thing we would want to do is to have to police agencies. That is why there are contracts. After all, the agency is supposed to be first an agent of the client. Advertising agencies are not art-houses-they need to put out great creatives that appeal to their clients' customers and have their clients' approvals. Advertising agencies and all their work have to be on behalf of a client. If they want to enter art contests there are several such avenues. Just don't bring your clients' brand into the picture.
The ads that have kicked up this storm are not just offensive but they are plain dumb. Brands have reputations and for an agency to take that lightly calls into question the raison d'etre of the client-agency relationship. The best relationships are often long-term and are built not on the awards won but on the number of customers wooed.
To curb scam ads, we should have clients and award organisers insisting that clients sign off on the entries, and not a junior team member at that. The thing is, when the intent is flawed, there is little one can do about it. Why should any fraternity reward those ads that are meaningless in the advertising eco-system-that is, ads that have not done anything for the clients they represent?
My view is that all major agencies are complicit in this. It shows a total lack of judgement, especially when such offensive ads masquerade as clever advertising.
Vibha Paul Rishi
executive director, brand & human capital, Max India
It is unfortunate when we all start believing and justifying that scam ads are part of the creative culture in advertising. It is one thing when people say this. It is quite another when industry veterans state it. People generalise that politicians are corrupt. But what would you say when politicians actually start believing and justifying how corruption is part of their culture?
Scam ads, pro-active ads and one-offs…there are many names for this practice. To me, the definition is simple. It is dishonest advertising that has been created purely to increase the chances of winning awards.
It is the most alluring short-cut, which young creative people could take to be famous. It is the most gleaming platform they could hope for to demonstrate their creativity. Their ECDs want them to do it. The agency head's incentives depend on it. Their organisations and networks are asking for more work like that. Why, they are even made to believe that they are contributing significantly to the creative growth of their respective organisations. It is a criminal waste of talent and great disservice to the creative potential of these youngsters in our country.
I know this from experience. In the past, I have done a few as well. Eventually, I discovered how meaningless each of those awards were to me. I realised how myopic it was making me as a creative person.
How do you stop this menace? Here's what I did. When I started Creativeland, I sat down with my core team and explained my perspective on scams and awards. I told them that I was not in a hurry to make Creativeland successful. If we were to build Creativeland from scratch, we needed to do it honestly, on genuine success stories. We decided not to run after awards. We destroyed every bit of material that anyone created just for awards in the organisation. We even let go of a few people who didn't agree with us.
Eventually, success stories started pouring in and our work culture became even better. Also, we have won awards. In fact, we have won some significant ones, including Five Grand Prix, three 'agency of the year' awards and other gold/silver/bronze awards. All these were won by dint of work that has successfully built brands in the market.
In the last two years at the awards in Goa, despite winning even the integrated campaign Grand Prix, I have felt heavy hearted. I have realised, it is time to take a stance even as minority. So, here I am on an award-hunger strike. I don't feel like winning here. I won't be able to celebrate my wins even if they are on real work. It is not a fight or angst. It is a very personal self-inflicted, heart-felt stance against what I strongly think is wrong practice. And it brings me peace to stay out. That's all.
Sajan Raj Kurup
founder & creative chairman, Creativeland Asia
The culture surrounding advertising awards can now only be described as a disease - one which the industry has voluntarily embraced and actively legitimised. The Ford scam ad issue carries an air of foreordained inevitability about it, thanks to the toxic mix of sanctioned self-indulgence and cavalier cluelessness that characterises the industry.
Awards in advertising are an extreme form of self-contained self-congratulation. Advertising may be part of popular and public culture, but creative awards are jealously controlled by the industry, which allows no other stakeholder any voice; indeed it does not allow a voice to anyone but people from the creative function. By doing so, advertising chooses to incorrectly define its own product as some form of creative output whereas in fact what it produces are solutions to problems faced by businesses in the real world. By locating the notion of brilliance only in the idea of creative ideation, the industry sells itself short, for in reality it does so much more.
To make things worse, it sells itself the lie that awards matter to anyone but themselves. It is true that creative excellence is an important criterion for agency selection, but what gets clients "I want to work with these guys' is not an obscure print ad that reeks of dishonest cleverness that might have happened to win a silver somewhere but work that connects with people at an emotional level.
The most distressing aspect of the controversy is the utter cluelessness on display. That agencies can be somewhat unencumbered by the forces of reality is not exactly news, but one would have to be living under a very large rock to believe that an ad like this would not evoke outrage.
The ad is offensive and the spontaneous nature of global reaction is proof of its inappropriateness. The other sign that the industry has lost touch with reality is in ignoring the impact of its actions on its clients that run businesses in the real world.
The problem is the deranged seriousness with which the awars are taken. Scam ads are not a problem by themselves - one could have a category for pro-active ideas.
The mistake is to call scam ideas advertising, for only that which has been created with an honest intention to address a real life challenge and do so in the voice of the brand, should be given that label.
Today the only real purpose served by an industry body is to organise awards. There is little interest in engaging with the upstream issues of the day. The industry keeps lamenting that it is not taken seriously enough but perhaps that act of overdue charity should begin at home.
Santosh Desai
MD & CEO, Future Brands
