The curious case of Saatchi & Saatchi’s prize winning ad for an out-of-business local printer

Last week saw the US-based One Show Design awards.

There weren’t many Australian winners. Indeed, Saatchi & Saatchi Sydney was the only agency to pick up two pencils.

But what is curious is their gold client – a local printer that seems to no longer be in business.  

It was a leaflet for a company called Chippendale Printers.

The curious case of Saatchi & Saatchis prize winning ad for an out of business local printer One Show Design Chippendale printing Mumbrella 1The curious case of Saatchi & Saatchis prize winning ad for an out of business local printer One Show design Chippendale printing Mumbrella 2The curious case of Saatchi & Saatchis prize winning ad for an out of business local printer One Show design Chippendale Printing Mumbrella 3

As one commenter put on Campaign Brief’s coverage last week: “Wow. That’s a client we all wanted. And a leaflet too?”

However, the leaflet is the kind of thing that may well amuse a creative awards jury with its post-modern analysis of typical promotional leaflets for printers. I suspect it might not trouble an effectiveness jury though.

It asks: “Is it just me or are sales brochures for printers really boring?”

It then satirises brochures’ propensity to feature images of printing presses before – and this is the touch the jury (if not your average print client) really will have loved – taking the mickey out of logos.

It’s hard to tell you too much about Chippendale Printers. The nearest I can find  is a company called Chippendale Printing.

By the looks of its website, the company has closed down. It’s reported to have gone into administration last month. Which certainly doesn’t do much for the work’s effectiveness credentials.

But let’s assume that this is not a scam ad. (The One Show has taken a hard line stance against scam ads this year, defining them as “ads created for nonexistent clients or made and run without a client’s approval, or ads created expressly for award shows”. The penalty for those who transgress is to be banned from entering for five years.)

But when something like this is the best Australia can apparently do, it does make me wonder what is the point of having international award competitions.

Even if this is technically within the rules – let’s assume that the client did indeed okay it – it’s hard to believe that this was a piece of business won in the usual way.

One suspects that the printer didn’t call a pitch and invite Australia’s best agencies to tender for the large budgets at stake before Saatchi & Saatchi battled through on its superior strategic and creative firepower and cracked the brief.

But this may well technically be within the rules of entry. It wouldn’t be astonishing to think that an ad agency and a local printers would already have a business relationship. And they might perhaps offer them the leaflet as bit of contra. So long as the “client” signed it off, then I guess it’s kosher for the award.

But where this gets depressing is that long after the detail of this award is forgotten, the agency will have this score on the board.

That becomes important when the various international and local rankings are tallied up.

Saatchi & Saatchi will now score better than other agencies that were perhaps busier working on bigger, more lucrative clients who might be somewhat more demanding in approving creative. I can think of recent examples of ECDs departing agencies in frustration at not getting their best work past big clients.

But the award achieves little as a barometer of advertising creativity on behalf of big clients with tough campaign objectives.

Indeed, my criticism probably applies more to what awards measure than it does to the agencies that find a way of winning.

So well done Saatchis on the gold pencil. It would be nice to see the same thing for some big clients though.

Tim Burrowes

May 16th, 2010 at 6:03 pm

Email This Post TwitterFacebookLinkedInMySpaceDiggSphinnTechnorati FavoritesDelicious

Comments


  1. Tom
    16 May 10
    8:04 pm

    2. Making popcorn…

  2. The tradition continues
    16 May 10
    8:09 pm

    3. (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) . That in itself is creative.

  3. Freddie from Chippendale
    17 May 10
    7:25 am

    4. Looking forward to a big run at Cannes. Team Ozzie Scam has been pumping out the bullshit. Just hope the Cannes boys don’t check out client lists too closely!

  4. Marion Jones
    17 May 10
    7:33 am

    5. Thanks for calling this out Tim, something Campaign Brief never would do. Keep up the pressure.

  5. Simon Rush
    17 May 10
    8:17 am

    6. Hate to intrude on a worthy rant with some facts but S&S werent the only Australian agency to win.

    US Sydney won gold at D&AD Design for a real client (SBS).

  6. mumbrella
    17 May 10
    8:32 am

    7. Hi Simon,

    I’m aware that you won with a long-established client (and well done). It didn’t seem fair to associate your name with the above piece for that very reason. I must admit I’d thought it was bronze rather than the gold you did pick up.

    And while I hate to intrude on a worthy comment with a fact, I should probably point out that you actually won the award at One Show Design rather than D&AD Design. But congratulations nonetheless.

    Cheers,

    Tim – Mumbrella

  7. Simon Rush
    17 May 10
    9:41 am

    8. lol – touche

  8. Lynchy
    17 May 10
    10:15 am

    9. Hey Marion,

    CB has written tomes on scam ads (and exposing them and their practitioners, some of whom now longer in the business because we did) over the last 20 years, get your facts straight.

  9. Lynchy
    17 May 10
    10:21 am

    10. Tim, SBS was Gold at One Show Design: http://www.campaignbrief.com/2......html#more

  10. DTL
    17 May 10
    10:31 am

    11. And what do you think of this Saatchi & Saatchi award, Lynchy? You reported it in very glowing terms in Campaign Brief last week.

  11. Alison F
    17 May 10
    10:38 am

    12. I hate to say it, but it all seems rather dodgy to me. I can’t imagine how other agencies who may not have won must feel about this entry! And I am surprised to see that this is the best that Saatchi’s can put forward!

  12. Malkuth Damkar
    17 May 10
    12:31 pm

    13. Um, chippendale printers was a fairly well used printers. I definitely remember them. I had print based clients that used them as well, sad they have gone under. [self censored rant about offshore printing]

  13. indiancurry
    17 May 10
    1:05 pm

    14. @ Malkuth Damkar – Looks like your site is hacked by Moroccoans. A lot’s happening on this post, LOL …

  14. jc
    17 May 10
    1:30 pm

    15. I received this mailer as I am a Production Manager in an advertising agency in Sydney, Australia. It’s a real shame that Chippo’s have gone under too.

  15. Unfair
    17 May 10
    1:48 pm

    16. While upstairs at Saatchi’s have been devoting all their skills to brochures for late, great, Chippendale Printers, downstairs in Team Saatchi they’ve been busting their ….. for years on all the retail clients like David Jones to make the money upstairs get to waste on this sh*@ and the award entries that go with them.

  16. Phil Heaton
    17 May 10
    1:57 pm

    17. Chippendale Printing wins GOLD after death.Yes, sadly they are no longer in business and its the fault of the equity partner philosophy in print not because of the creative genius of Saatchi and Saatchi.I commissioned the suggested “scam” brochure with Saatchi.Their creative team worked long and hard to come up with a promo brochurethat would hit a market that was down on itself.It was meant to pock fun at the major trans pacific print groups that have raped print and to have a light hearted dig at ourselves.It suceeded because the email and calls of congratulations came flooding in from all quarters. It did raise the interest in a dying print company,isn’t that what advertising is suppose to do…lighten up guys it ‘s great that an Aussie agency did so well.Unit and praise a win

  17. madder with saatchi
    17 May 10
    2:20 pm

    18. Phil,

    How much did they charge?

    RIP

  18. Alison F
    17 May 10
    2:33 pm

    19. Now that’s an interesting question!!!

  19. Doug
    17 May 10
    3:56 pm

    20. Hey Phil – I hope it didn’t go under because you were the copywriter, chief spell-checker or quality control there?

  20. Ashley Mallet is my Homeboy
    17 May 10
    3:58 pm

    21. Lynchy you would have to agree given the new rules about intent they are flying very close to the sun.

    Glad they kicked some business to you Phil. We all know how the scam system works. “We will do a great job, you don’t have to pay us, just sign this form.”

    Many of us were hoping in 2010 the local industry would heed the global call and rise above.

  21. Scam-Wow
    17 May 10
    6:22 pm

    22. I can recall SMH doing at least one successful job a long time ago on a certain Cannes winner featuring animals.

    But uncovering scams is not something I’d ever associated with CB before.

  22. Lynchy
    17 May 10
    8:07 pm

    23. Yep Scam-Wow, that was in 2000. The CD that did that one was outed the year before by CB in a major 5 page article when he first arrived in Sydney – for producing scam ads in Asia and embellishing his CV with awards he didn’t win.

    He somehow survived that, but when he finally went too far the next year in Cannes for entering a print campaign that never ran for another agency’s client, featuring copies of award-winning photographs by a top Sydney photographer without his knowledge or consent – he was fired at the end of that week and has not worked in a major agency since. Cannes then stripped the agency of the Bronze Lion won.

    During Cannes in 2001 CB online outed a major Singapore agency for a ‘Guinness’ campaign that turned out to be a freebie for a Singapore bar that sold Guinness. The campaign won several Gold Lions that week but Cannes refused to strip the agency of those awards.

    CB has done several ‘Scams in Cannes’ articles over the years, we outed a NZ campaign that won a Cannes Outdoor Grand Prix in the early noughties (it was a cover story), and we regularly cover the topic of scam ads in CB Asia and on our blogs.

  23. Scam-Wow
    17 May 10
    8:27 pm

    24. Good for you. I never realised you had so actively fought against the promotion of scam ads. I’ve always been curious about where you draw the line, or the Lion.

  24. Lynchy
    18 May 10
    8:06 am

    25. I think where this story got off on the wrong foot was the understandable assumption by most of the above that the mainstream Saatchi creatives did this work at the expense of the big clients like Tooheys and Toyota. It was entered by Saatchi & Saatchi but was actually a mailer done by Saatchi Design, created by Saatchi Design creatives, for the Sydney printing firm six months ago, well before it went under.

    One Show Design and other major shows like D&AD have lots of design categories – logos, letterheads, business to business mailers – which anyone on any budget can enter. So Saatchi Design have every right to enter their best work into award shows, which this year also included the Sydney Writers’ Festival work that won Bronze at One Show Design.

  25. DTL
    18 May 10
    8:45 am

    26. So as it’s Saatchi Design, not Saatchi & Saatchi, presumably it won’t count towards S&S’s score in your creative rankings then, Lynchy?

  26. Phil Heaton
    18 May 10
    8:52 am

    27. Why are most of you scared to put your full or proper names to your comments ???$$ maybe , easier under the cloak of darkness.

  27. Lynchy
    18 May 10
    9:55 am

    28. DTL (what do those initials stand for?): As far as CB Rankings, whoever is listed as the agency, gets the points. So in this case, unless there’s some sort of official protest that’s upheld by One Show Design, Saatchi’s gets the points. Disappointed?

  28. Bab
    18 May 10
    11:56 am

    29. I’m starting think that S&S may have knocked you back from a job years back, as your obsession with them is bordering on vitriolic. What was the comment from S&S when
    you rang them for comment?

  29. mumbrella
    18 May 10
    12:06 pm

    30. Hi Bab,

    I’m not sure an obsession can be vitriolic.

    But no, never had a personal problem with them.

    To answer your question, the only conversation I’ve had with someone at S&S over this was off the record. In my experience they don’t tend to return calls asking for comment.

    Cheers,

    Tim – Mumbrella

  30. Bab
    18 May 10
    12:11 pm

    31. No worries, thanks for clearing up. It just seemed like a long bow to draw for an entire story to be based off a CB reader comment and then run as a ‘curious case’ rather than news. I guess my expectations are based on journalistic standards and shouldn’t be confused with ‘blog’ standards, which do tend to lapse without checks/balances.

  31. Detective Debbie Webb
    18 May 10
    12:28 pm

    32. Hey Lynchy have you been watching Underbelly? The Wood Royal Commission would be a fair comparison. You really have the stomach to stop scam? It would involve taking down many of your friends here and abroad and turning many agencies on their heads.

  32. Lynchy
    18 May 10
    12:59 pm

    33. Detective, I have been watching Underbelly but as far as I can tell, there hasn’t been many scam ads in Australia lately. If there were, they would be exposed by the likes of CB, B&T, AdNews or Mumbrella. Perhaps you can point to any you’ve seen to give us one or two to start with. Are there any agencies that you feel are guilty of late?

    If there is any scam that I can tell, it’s from some of those two-bit new media and PR shops that puts a video on YouTube of a stunt in the local mall, twitter about it – all with zero budget and call it an ad campaign. But even then, I don’t think there’s a law against not spending money promoting a client, is there? CB doesn’t cover many of these shops – so perhaps this a question for Tim to answer.

  33. Al
    18 May 10
    1:17 pm

    34. ‘Big agency enters scam award’. Its a simple and appealing story that taps into many peoples’ gripes with the industry. Always nice to reap the rewards of controversy isn’t it Mumbrella?
    Probably best to get your facts straight before you stir up innuendo that this is a scam entry though. This is a totally legit piece of work.
    And yes, I work at S&S.

  34. Anonymous
    18 May 10
    1:27 pm

    35. In that case, how many agencies pitched for the business? What was the brief? How much was the contract worth?

  35. Alison F
    18 May 10
    1:36 pm

    36. It’s clearly getting a tad nasty in here on this thread, ha ha! However, I am still waiting to hear Phil Heaton’s response regarding what S&S charged for the work that he apparently commissioned as well as the response from Al in regard to the question above ie: who pitched, what was the brief and what were the billings???

  36. Urban Sumo
    18 May 10
    2:00 pm

    37. Someone should set up a ‘scam ad’ category in their awards programme. It would be a brilliant spectical and clients might retropsectively buy the work in some cases.

    Bit like having an olympics where it’s okay to se steroids.

  37. Al
    18 May 10
    2:41 pm

    38. Alison. Yeah, way too nasty on here. Just gets a little annoying when you see your agency get accused of foul play incorrectly.

    To be honest, I don’t know about the financial side of things, or the pitch. I’m on reception. But I couldn’t see anything on the One Show entry regulations that suggested it needed to be a piece of business that went out to pitch. It was a pamphlet. Not a multi million dollar account, so why would they have bothered with one?
    But here is a quote from the entry instructions on the One Show website.
    http://www.enteroneshow.org/information/faq/
    “we are requiring client contact information to verify your entry. You will be able to input this information when going through the entry process. The information will be kept confidential.”
    I don’t see why Saatchi would be expected to put that kind of information up on a blog thread. In any case, One Show had the info and found nothing suspicious.

    What I do know is that a client commissioned S&S to make a pamphlet. S&S made one good enough to win an award. I saw one of my mates and coworkers create it. It’d be nice to see him get recognition rather than accusations. End of story (I hope).

  38. Bugs me
    18 May 10
    2:49 pm

    39. I’ll tell you about an ad that’s not a scam but doesn’t present itself as it appears on the box.

    It’s the latest BT campaign. The spots look great on CB’s site but they’re not what’s gone to air.

    You see, the versions that run on my TV have a disclaimer across the screen for much of the ad.

    So what you might ask.

    Well, I just reckon to promote a commercial that will never go to air [because it fails to meet ACCC guidelines] is a bit tricky. Even trickier when it removes a bloody great big white line across the screen; especially when the whole campaign is based on the use of lines and can’t go to air without the line they’ve removed.

    We all have to deal with the ‘disclaimer elephant’ in financial advertising nowadays, you can’t avoid it, or run an ad without it.

    So, I find it a little ironic a campaign that claims to be so innovative presenting traditionally boring graphic messages in an attractive way should have to remove a traditionally boring graphic disclaimer message because it spoils the look of the ad.

    if they’d found an innovative way to do that then they would’ve really achieved something.

  39. Dragon
    18 May 10
    3:11 pm

    40. Alison F –
    pitch & brief ?
    - are you kidding!!! It’s a printer we are talking about – they usually have no marketing budgets…

    I have a feeling no money would’ve exchanged hands – it would of been a contra deal – you design my flyer and I’ll print your biz cards for free !!! Happens all the time…

  40. Alison F
    18 May 10
    3:25 pm

    41. Dragon- I think that is exactly what everyone is upset about – that the work had no budget, that it was contra and not subject to the usual terms of business.

  41. Jeremy
    18 May 10
    3:37 pm

    42. As director of the illustration agency that worked with Saatchi’s on this, I can confirm that there was a budget on this project. Of course I’m biased, but I’m struggling to understand what the fuss is about either way. This was entered into the one show *design* awards, in the *booklet/pamphlets* category. and won fair and square. The entry met all the requirements, and hardly qualifies as a ‘scam’ ad. So whats the problem exactly?

  42. Lynchy
    18 May 10
    4:09 pm

    43. Alison, no one’s upset about this except you, DTL and a few of the anon cowards above. If you want to join the conversation and be taken seriously, use your real name, not a scam name. (WTF does F stand for?) Same goes for DTL, Freddie from Chippendale, et al…..

  43. Anonymous
    18 May 10
    5:26 pm

    44. The owner of Campaign Brief is lecturing people about anonymous comments. Wow… just wow.

  44. Irony 101
    18 May 10
    6:07 pm

    45. @ Anonymous LMAO
    @ Lynchy ROTFLMAO

  45. Lynchy
    18 May 10
    6:53 pm

    46. Unlike most people commenting on blogs (including CB blogs), I’ve never been anonymous. And in case you haven’t noticed, Mumbrella has just as many anon comments as CB (over 3/4 of the comments on this thread are anon). Mmmm…

  46. Anonymous
    18 May 10
    7:06 pm

    47. But you’re lecturing people about being “anonymous cowards” while simultaneously allowing exactly the same sort of behavior on Campaign Brief, Lynchy.

    If it bothers you, then you could instantly stop it. Otherwise, why are you complaining about it?

  47. Ed G
    18 May 10
    7:45 pm

    48. Alison, you fool.
    How about you divulge how much you make packing shelves at your local supermarket and then maybe S&S will tell us how much they made on the pamphlet.

  48. tracey
    18 May 10
    8:23 pm

    49. Phew, just spent half an hour waiting in the rain for a bus and got to the end of this thread as it arrived. I missed E’s catty gossip shows tonight but got a lovely bowl of vitriol instead. Yummo

  49. Lynchy
    19 May 10
    1:51 am

    50. 7:06… Anonymous cowards don’t bother me at all, in fact without them where would the likes of Mumbo and the CB blogs be? Very dull….

    I’m merely stating I’m not one of them.

  50. Dont work for Telstra
    19 May 10
    8:28 am

    51. Why is Lynchy stirring the pot on a competitors site. Somebody stop him.

    Why are all the editors of Ad blogs bullies?

  51. Alison F
    19 May 10
    10:02 am

    52. – Ed G… Ooh, look at what a knot you’ve gotten you’re pretty pink knickers into. Come and find me in aisle 9 and we’ll see if we can’t get you a 3-pack replacement pair.
    Of course, fitting an a**hole of your size will take some effort…

  52. eLEPHANT IN THE ROOM
    19 May 10
    10:14 am

    53. @Lynchy, why don’t you interview all the big ECDs for a CB article and ask them directly about scam?

  53. Lynchy
    19 May 10
    10:59 am

    54. sLEPHANT IN THE ROOM… CB and CB Asia did a major 5 page story on the whole scam debate titled: ‘Scam Crackdown!’ in the November/December 2009 issue, which included comments and opinions from ECDs in Australia, NZ and Asia. You can read it online: http://campaignbrief.realviewtechnologies.com/

  54. Anonymous
    19 May 10
    11:03 am

    55. I didn;t realise there was still a print edition of Campaign Brief. Does anyone know a newsagent in Sydney where I can buy it?

  55. eLEPHANT IN THE ROOM
    19 May 10
    11:23 am

    56. @Lynchy, a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question to all CD’s, ECD’s and CCO’s (Loving that new title). Have you, your department or your agency or network, past or present, done a scam ad over the last five years? Then publish all answers and better still, who refused to partake.

  56. the dog ate my scam ad
    19 May 10
    11:49 am

    57. eLEPHANT, when confronted the CDs will just blame their staff and say it was unauthorised and the people responsible have been reprimanded.

    Read the article.

    It’s a win/win. CDs look like they are “tough on scams” and CB can say they have investigated the issue.

  57. Sick of scams
    19 May 10
    8:06 pm

    58. (Removed for legal reasons)

  58. Triangle Solo
    19 May 10
    8:47 pm

    59. That time of the month aye Alison F?

  59. Anti-CB
    20 May 10
    10:08 am

    60. 1. I can’t believe Lynchy descended into this argument
    2. (edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons).
    3. He seems to have changed tack on that last argument about anonymity on blogs. Yes, Lynchy, we can see you aren’t being anonymous, but the simple fact that your own blogs allows anonymity for the flamers means you can’t be upset about flamers being anonymous. You revel in that sort of activity on your own blog. Don’t be upset just because you’re the target this time.
    4. All of the above is why I have banned press releases from my agency going to CB. I urge others to do the same. It is a hateful place that encourages poor behaviour under the control of a biased media representative.

  60. Lynchy
    20 May 10
    10:24 am

    61. Not true, anti-CB. (You must be from a pretty insignificant agency as I get PR releases from every major agency in the region.)

    Just to prove you are wrong, here are two recent articles on the CB blog, relating to work from Saatchi’s and BMF. I think you’ll find there’s pro and con comments in equal measure:

    http://www.campaignbrief.com/2.....the-b.html

    http://www.campaignbrief.com/2.....s-the.html

  61. Not Craig Davis
    20 May 10
    4:48 pm

    62. Amazing expose between the lines – go Mumbo! – but it’s true, I remember working at S&S and the meeting where it was announced ‘we are putting $100k this year into the winning of awards’ … and I remember (edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)’s first scam ad, and even then it was one that he ‘borrowed’ … can we please hear more from Anti-CB and Alison F??

  62. Alison F
    20 May 10
    5:48 pm

    63. –Not Craig Davis…
    Ha ha ha! It’s funny you want to hear more from Anti-CB and myself since I think you are the only contributor to this thread that feels that way!
    That said… I went to the articles that Lynchy linked us all to and for the life of me I truly cannot see where the ‘cons’ are in these stories – they seem to be Agency arse-crawls of the highest nature.
    Unless he was referring to all the cons in the comments area…?
    And re the scam ad expose, I agree with Not Craig that it was a brilliant pot-stirrer – go Mumbrella!

  63. It's time to come clean.
    20 May 10
    6:49 pm

    64. (Removed for legal reasons)

  64. Anonymous
    20 May 10
    6:58 pm

    65. (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)

  65. LoveTheLynchy
    20 May 10
    6:59 pm

    66. Saatchis must be delighted with Lynchy. By turning this into a big debate, it’s now one of the most discussed items, so it’s not going to quietly go away for weeks.

  66. edited for legal reasons
    21 May 10
    8:17 am

    67. Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons

  67. Peter Applebaum
    24 May 10
    2:58 pm

    68. Funny, this string doesn’t appear to include any clients applauding the creative industry for their single minded focus on helping them meet their sales & marketing objectives.