Seems we don’t disagree on much after all… hardly as amusing to other readers as flaming each other in true mumbrella fashion, though.

Our site is due for an update but there’s a few people – mostly with more important things to do, incidentally – who I think would complain if we dropped Pong from the new site. If you’re into retro games and are based in Syd then you may enjoy our occasional ‘Arcade Thursdays’ featuring everything from Master System to Super NES, to Wii on the boardroom plasma. Yes, typical agency stuff but great fun… helps with the ‘unfettered creativity’ too.

Gutsy clients = better creative
I totally agree. I also think there is way too much link testing going on, that inevitably leads to watered down creative, and not enough instinctive decision making.

Plus I like the ‘pong’ game on your website. ;->

Please don’t bring your rational, irrefutable arguments here while I’m trying to grandstand. It doesn’t help my cause.

I must agree that ‘if it’s not approved it’s not an ad’. The difference is, sometimes the reasons for the censorship/amendments are poor, and often more to do with people’s own insecurities and desire to ‘play it safe’ than whether or not it’s good for the brand.

Take the latest Toyota ‘Country Border Security’ ad (http://mumbrella.com.au/steve-.....eiled-9819). Toyota could easily have knocked this back on the basis that it scores points with a segment of their target market by poking fun at other segments. I mean really, how many Toyota 4WD owners have never had a latte? But they didn’t knock it back, and the ad is one of the best I’ve seen in years.

Gutsy clients = better creative. And by gutsy, I don’t just mean approving anything the agencies throw at them, I also mean gutsy enough to tell the agency to ‘shove it’ when their proposal is rubbish. And let’s face it, there’s plenty of that too.

If you want to be demonstrate pure, unfettered, creativity, there’s a job for that. It’s called ‘artist’. If you work in advertising you are bound to a commercial imperative and that implies client approval. If it’s not approved, it’s not an ad.

Nice – I do love a good acronym, but I think we’d actually see a higher standard in that category, so not sure about ‘CRAP’ in this case.

I like your thinking though, so how about the ‘BACK’ Awards: Brilliants Ads Clients Killed? You could then have the BACK Edition etc etc

The whole thing does raise the question though: do we need an ‘Open Section’ for ‘Those Ads That Didn’t Quite Make It Through The Client Approvals Process’? Anyone who’s worked on the agency side knows the best creative often gets killed off or beaten out of shape by clients very quickly, so that what the consumer sees is actually a poor excuse for what was originally pitched.

(Easy clients, I know WHY this is the case, I’m just saying…)

So, just like the proposed Steroid Olympics, who’s up for an Open Creative category? We could end up seeing some far better ads which are more representative of the creative companies’ true creative abilities as a result.

ie. Agencies paying for work to be done that the client OK’s.

Richard, how much did SEGA pay for ‘Offset the Evil’ for instance?