Where does Campaign Brief stand on scam?
Michael Lynch, boss of industry website Campaign Brief has questions to answer with agencies about his true position on scam, argues Mumbrella’s Tim Burrowes.
It can get a little boring when the trade press writes about itself, so my apologies if you find what follows a little tedious.
Doubly so, if you feel we’ve been writing too much about the topic of scam.
This morning I find myself the subject of some media coverage (if you count an item in the diary section of The Australian and a follow-up on Campaign Brief).
You see, this week, a couple of our journalists will be covering the Spikes advertising and awards festival in Singapore. Mumbrella Asia’s editor Robin Hicks has travelled from Hong Kong and our reporter Miranda Ward has made the trip from Sydney.
Initially, after we applied for accreditation, we were told we were likely to be turned down. The event is jointly owned by Haymarket Media and the organisers of the Cannes Lions. You may recall that we raised some unanswered questions about certain awards entries at the Lions in France. In the end we decided we would no longer cover the French event until there are changes.
Fair to say, the coverage has been among the most polarising in Mumbrella’s history.
In writing about the behaviour of certain agencies, we’ve lost some friends. Temporarily, I hope.
But the one thing we’ve always tried to do is to present the facts as we see them to our readers, rather than to write for our mates.
For our rivals, the annoyance of certain agencies with Mumbrella has been something of a bonus, particularly for Campaign Brief, which is read mainly be advertising agency creatives. From Campaign Brief’s point of view, the angrier a creative agency might be with us, the more likely they’re to be supporters of CB, I guess.
So it would certainly suit Campaign Brief for some agencies to be unhappy with us. The website appears to have been trying to rally something of a boycott by the upset agencies.
CB, for instance, reported that Leo Burnett had decided to boycott Mumbrella, something we were unaware of ourselves and that the agency’s CEO Todd Sampson insists is not true. In the same article, Campaign Brief also claimed that trade body Newspaper Works was also involved in a boycott. Information which came as news to the organisation itself, with which Mumbrella is in regular contact.
But, hey, who can blame CB – every title tries to use every argument to persuade an agency to place exclusives with them, don’t they?
But this is where things get a little murkier. You see, I think that Campaign Brief is trying to have its cake and eat it.
To demonstrate, I’m going to need to share some texts I received from Campaign Brief owner Michael Lynch. I’ve had them for a while, but I’m only able to put them in the public domain today.
My view as a journo is that a conversation should be off the record – whether in person, on the phone, by email or text – if you’ve got a reasonable expectation as a journo that the other person thinks it is.
And I’ve been having an ongoing conversation about scam with Lynch, via text message. Today he published some of that conversation. Which is fine by me. Clearly we’re on the record then.
Lynchy, it’s fair to say, has been egging us on, while perhaps taking something of a different position publicly.
Back in July, as our coverage of questionable entries into the Cannes Lions from Saatchi & Saatchi and DDB made ripples. Lynchy wanted us to push the boss of the Cannes Lions Terry Savage harder. He texted me: “Did you get Terry’s email? I’m sure you won’t accept that, pretty poor response. What we want is simply when and where the ads ran with proof. Both agencies have not provided that.”
I confirmed that we were asking further questions: “Yes – pushing him for more.”
Lynchy compared the organisation to the controversial global footballing body FIFA, predicting: “He won’t give any more. It’s like dealing with FIFA!”
He then had further unsolicited advice: “Demand from the agencies a proof of the ads, simple as that. They obviously didn’t run, the young team at Saatchi’s must be shitting themselves…”
Then all went quiet for a month or so.
The Australian’s media diary waded in, reporting that some agencies weren’t talking to us. Lynch seemed to know the article was coming, texting me at 6.30am on the morning of publication asking for comment so he could write his follow-up piece.
The comment thread that followed on Campaign Brief was highly negative about Mumbrella having gotten into the issue of scam. Anecdotally, a couple of people later told me they had posted supportive comments regarding our stance which had not appeared, although I’m sure they simply got lost in the CB spam filter.
The week before last, the organisers of the Spikes told Mumbrella they were minded not to grant accreditation. But eventually – despite us warning that we would give no undertakings about not writing about the issue of scam – the organisers decided to accredit our journos.
Once again, Lynch appeared to have the inside track. He texted me last week: “Tim, hear you are sending Miranda and Robin to Spikes. Need a comment on why the back-flip?”
Being clear that I wanted to refer his request for an on the record comment to our editor Alex Hayes – who made the call on covering the Spikes – I texted Lynch: “It’s not a backflip, we only ever talked about our position on the Cannes Lions. I understand the ownership structure of Spikes is different. Please go to Alex for comment.”
I then asked Alex not to respond to Lynch’s messages. I’ll be honest – it was a trap. I did this because I wanted Lynch to use what I’d said about the “backflip” in an article, so that it was clear our conversation was in his eyes on the record.
This morning it happened. The Australian (whose owner News Corp is the local representative of the Cannes Lions and Spikes, by the way) made its third attack in recent weeks on our coverage of scam. I was “sanctimonious” and scam is merely like “concept cars showcased at the Frankfurt Motor Show.”
The newspaper wrongly suggested we had made “desperate pleas” to be allowed to attend Spikes. I won’t speculate whether Lynch had a hand in this story appearing.
Shortly afterwards, Lynch used the article as a reason to publish another piece on Campaign Brief, and he published my note to him, although he’d deleted the line saying the comment wouldn’t come from me.
So he clearly sees our texts as on the record. Hence I feel able to share the above.
You already know our position on scam.
I wonder what Michael Lynch’s is? If you see him around the Spikes, be sure to ask him for me.
Tim Burrowes is content director of Mumbrella
I think you could of alluded to the tone of the conversations you had with Lynch without publishing the actual correspondence. Lynch made a mistake publishing comments made in confidence, but you’ve dignified that behaviour by doing the same thing yourself.
I applaud your efforts in exposing muddy practices, but some of this is sounding tit for tat.
User ID not verified.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your comment. If I believed that Michael Lynch felt the the conversation was in confidence, I wouldn’t have published it.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
This is not news.
User ID not verified.
for transparent journalism from Tim. Typically News Ltd are spoiling honesty, it’s what they do isn’t it?
Keep going Tim, dig deeper and deeper. “Keep the bstard’s honest”.
User ID not verified.
I asked you for a comment, which you provided. I did not publish anything else in our comment stream over a long time that clearly is off the record. And I won’t start now.
User ID not verified.
@boring: no, it’s editorial, and clearly labelled as such in the “features/opinion” column.
User ID not verified.
I’d much rather read critical, thoughtful pieces in Mumbrella than the hagiographic, press release-regurgitating guff that CB comes out with. I’m not one to usually give a rats when it comes to in-house tit-for-tats, but give them hell.
User ID not verified.
Is this what we signed up for? Tell someone who gives a fuck!
User ID not verified.
There was a time where CB was feared because of it’s close association with senior industry appointments. It could make careers back in the day and it was proudly on display in agencies everywhere. It had influence, and those involved were well connected to people that wielded influence inside those same agencies. Recruit leaders, get readers and so on. That’s no longer the case. Retirees read it and tend to it like a hobby farm. The rest of us look the other way. Move on.
User ID not verified.
Surely the bigger story here is that Tim appears to still be using iOS 5.
User ID not verified.
@boring… yes it is news – as Old Guard has hinted, there’s an unhealthy nexus. So tell me, who’s the real patsy here?
User ID not verified.
Link to Australian article is broken.
User ID not verified.
Hey Tim, I was in the audience at festival of dangerous ideas. Wanted to call out the news limited rep who claimed his journos were truth seekers. Bollocks. Mumbrella is showing true grit and true truth-seeking journalism, while news flirts and favours those with the purse strings.
Good on you
User ID not verified.
Keep calling it how you see it and we’ll keep reading Tim. Despite all the bluster, a scam is a scam is a scam. They can pretend all they like. Clearly, the truth hurts.
User ID not verified.
if we’re having a pop at CB, can we (edited by MUmbrella for legal reasons)
User ID not verified.
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
I just read the CB blog post ‘side of the story’ and it’s laughable how they are protecting their arses.
It’s clear that the assassination over there is trumped up. So few Mumbo+ comments…..it’s statistically impossible for the entire world to see it the same way.
It’s been made clear here how this has played out.
User ID not verified.
Thank god the Michael and Patsy Show is over. (Edited by MUmbrella for legal reasons).
User ID not verified.
Really poor form publishing all those text messages. I saw Lynchy’s story – he quoted one text – this is a violation.
User ID not verified.
Can’t imagine the Cannes red carpet will be as welcoming next year now these text messages have come to light. Press B accreditation anyone?
User ID not verified.
Tim, out of the 31 comments so far on our story, 11 were on your side, so Teeth Veneer obviously can’t count. Here’s the link to the story – which you chose not to link to – so your readers can judge for themselves: http://www.campaignbrief.com/2.....journ.html
Now, as to your big question – Where does Campaign Brief stand on scams? – this is the last comment from our story on the CB blog that pretty well sums up CB’s record on scam, which I mistakenly thought was well known, but obviously not to anyone new to the business:
As to CB, remember they have been scam-busters for decades. I recall Lynchy’s ‘Scams in Cannes’ stories going back to the early 90s, and particularly his exposure of the Guinness scam in Singapore (the campaign won three Gold Lions I recall). It turned out that the client wasn’t actually Guinness, it was a little ad pub in Singapore.
And who can forget Campaign Brief’s massive exposure of a certain ECD at APL Sydney. He was fired a year later when he entered the totally scammy print campaign for Taronga Zoo that won a Bronze Lion at Cannes.
Or CB’s ‘Grand Larsony’ expose of the Bug Bomb fly spray campaign that won the Outdoor Grand Prix for Grey New Zealand.
When print was king in OZ (and scams and ripoffs were everywhere), it was CB who always exposed them. CB even had a regular Deja View page, so don’t say CB is for scams.
The thing is these days, largely because of CB, there are very few examples of scam in Australia. Most OZ agencies do brilliant, integrated campaigns for big clients, in fact we lead the world, which is always championed by CB.
User ID not verified.
Michael, a Campaign Brief comment has gifted you your position on scam. Congratulations on now remembering where you stand on the matter. It’s not been clear since this debate started. You could have responded to this story with your position to begin with. You didn’t. It just shows how rattled you are by events that have unfolded.
Might be time to call it a day on this one mate.
User ID not verified.
Sleepless, I was going to ignore this whole thread but I felt that the CB side of the story was not coming through at all after several days. The comment I used pretty well summed up our case so why not. There are plenty of examples I can find over the years but I’ve got too much on to spend days in the archives.
As to giving up, no chance. CB is highly relevant to the Australian, NZ and Asian creative community – that’s why almost every major production company in Australasia advertises with us, both online and in print – and our CB App ranks highly in the Business App charts on iTunes in several countries in our region.
Our international Bestads site is important globally, with more than 118,000 members. The Bestads app is the best selling ad app in the world, ranked in the Business App charts on iTunes in more than 30 countries. That’s why we have worldwide chief creative officers the likes of Mark Tutssel, Amir Kassaei, Tony Granger and Matt Eastwood as regular contributors.
User ID not verified.
Lynchy,
it was Andrew Hornery when he was the Marketing writer at the Sydney Morning Herald who broke the story for APL and the Taronga Zoo ad. Page three two days running.
I remember it well.
User ID not verified.
Fact checker, CB never claimed that, although Andrew was on the phone to me several times in Cannes at 2am in the morning. CB did the four page story a year prior on that particular ECD’s scams while in Asia and the awards he falsely claimed.
When he was caught scamming again at Cannes a year later he might not have been fired by Lionel Hunt (APL was by then Lowe Hunt) had it not been for his previous form, which was exposed by CB.
User ID not verified.
This is what I hate about the industry.
Ego
noun
a person’s sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
It absolutely sucks that the leaders in the industry can’t come together to support each other on a serious issue.
I understand CB and Mumbrella have a business to run but your both ruining it for the rest of us in the industry, who continually strive to push the boundaries whether we are in PR, marketing, media or television. There are people in this industry who 5 days a week spend late nights pouring over briefs worried their jobs are on the line while their leaders are bitching and moaning about the egos…
I think both Mumbrella and CB should come together, hold an event for FREE and have an honest discussion with the industry about how they can move forward in the right direction instead of pampering to self interests.
How hard can it be?
User ID not verified.
“CB is highly relevant to the Australian, NZ and Asian creative community – that’s why almost every major production company in Australasia advertises with us, both online and in print…”
^^^THAT TELLS YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW!^^^
As a practising advertising creative, I have ZERO respect for Campaign Brief….I think the sole purpose they exist is to drum up business (big $$$$$$) for australian production companies. The machinations of such a business mission are complex and hidden, but smart readers can figure out what this entails…at least in terms of cozying up with senior agency creatives….plying them lots of booze…..throwing parties where a lot of production company reps are always working the crowd…these are just some of the more public manifestations of their business style.
Of course they are very, very selective at questioning scam IMO…. and when they do so, it is in a situation where you’d have to be blind not to report it. They also have a very heavy handed censorship policy to protect the hands that feed them.
Mumbrella on the other hand is a more holistic, broadbased and balanced (less biased) vehicle…which I prefer.
I’m of the view that the only people who can change the scam situation are clients themselves ….when clients start to realise what a detriment scam is to their business interests, only then will things start to change. Until then, anyone can take advantage of entry rules and stay on the right side of the law.
But if I was in your place, Mumbrella, I would not have gone to Spikes.
PS. Any reason this article does not appear on the mumbrella asia site?
User ID not verified.