Where does Campaign Brief stand on scam?

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.

This is not news.

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”.

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.

@boring: no, it’s editorial, and clearly labelled as such in the “features/opinion” column.

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.

Is this what we signed up for? Tell someone who gives a fuck!

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.

Surely the bigger story here is that Tim appears to still be using iOS 5.

@boring… yes it is news – as Old Guard has hinted, there’s an unhealthy nexus. So tell me, who’s the real patsy here?

Link to Australian article is broken.

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

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.

if we’re having a pop at CB, can we (edited by MUmbrella for legal reasons)

[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.

Thank god the Michael and Patsy Show is over. (Edited by MUmbrella for legal reasons).

Really poor form publishing all those text messages. I saw Lynchy’s story – he quoted one text – this is a violation.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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?