Terry Savage defends debated Cannes Lions entries saying ‘Super Bowl ads run once’
In a Q&A conducted by email, Terry Savage, chairman of the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity, defends the integrity of the competition and answers questions around scam ads following an investigation by Mumbrella into a series of ads from Australia entered into the Press category which ran just once in regional media.
What is your definition of scam?
“We require the work to have been approved by the client and to have used paid Media in the execution, if there is a query we get validation via the agency the client and the Media schedule that the work has run and complied within our entry rules. In the case of self promotion and NGO that is not the case.”
Ha. A Super Bowl ad equated to Rouse Hill Times!
When you end up resorting to comparisons like that you know you’re defending the indefensible.
To draw parallels between running a small space ad once in a small suburban newspaper with a multi million dollar spot once in the Super Bowl is laughable.
Clearly one is done to merely satisfy minimum entry criteria and hardly commands a significant share (if any) of the client’s media budget. The other is done with significant strategic thought, commands an enormous share of the media budget.
To try and compare the two is at best disingenuous and at worst a complete joke.
look, Terry’s been a champ for years, so nothing personal dude: but that was a crap response – more like Tony Rabbit defending boat people policy – [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] [moderated here]
The key difference here being that the Super Bowl is one of, if not the highest reaching sporting events in the US. There is a measurable and discernible impact of an ad that runs at the Super Bowl.
“Super Bowl ads run once.”
Exactly like the Rouse Hill Times.
Such a good comparison…
One more thing:
The lions website sells duplicate trophies for $1,535 for bronze, silver and gold and $3,482 for a grand prix.
But I found this trophy manufacturer in melbourne who manages to make something pretty similar for $15.95 in small, and $39.95 in large.
Here’s the link if the Cannes guys are interested in sourcing slightly more affordable suppliers:
http://www.5startrophies.com.a.....y-specials
At least he’s cleared things up – Cannes entrants do not need to be working to real client briefs. One-off agency ‘experiments’ are more than welcome. That’s all everyone needed to know…….take note clients, and consider this next time Cannes awards are touted in a pitch presentation.
I expect the number of clients approving one-off ads done purely to win awards will decrease dramatically after this shit-storm anyway.
Not only does he sound ultra-agressive but his decision to simply answer in black and white answers (in an industry that he mentions is very grey) makes his appearance completely pointless.
Why do the interview if you only want to say “I don’t feel the need to comment/give specifics on X-issue, but we do/don’t do that.”
The clear difference is this: Superbowl spots are made to run and to be seen by many people at huge expense. These Cannes advertisements were made to win awards, seen by few, at minimum expense. You would think that terry could spot that.
“Super Bowl ads run once”
That the chairman of one of the world’s largest advertising festival’s feels that an ad that is seen by many millions and had many millions spent on it in production and media, is a suitable defence to an ad that ran once in the Rouse Hill Times with a circ of under 20,000 is an utter embarrassment. As someone who’s attended Cannes for over 10 years, this approach does not reflect the Festivals desire to champion real creativity. At $4000 a ticket I expect to see a real competition. Not some Don King style show fight.
Terry, you’ve devalued the entire competition with such an inane response. You’re the chairman for fuck’s sake. Set the standard.
111500000 (thats one hundred and eleven million, five hundred thousand) viewers
or
23000 (twenty three thousand) readers.
Same/same
Farcical.
Silly Silly Savage.
Cannes credibility continues to decline…
I think the only thing that will make me believe these awards are not scam awards is an honest, meaningful comment from either of the companies involved. Even an acknowledgement that the rules didn’t require anything other than what they did. To keep pretending these ads were part of an effective strategy to meet their client brief is just sad.
Aren’t these comments a bit Savage?
Twice going the ad-hominem in defence (you too Mumbrella!). Always raises my suspicion level that someone’s trying to take the focus off a legitimate concern…
Congratulations Terry, you’ve now legitimised scam in an official statement.
Looking forward to your presentation next week.
What a load of crap. Those answers could have been written by Eddie O’B.
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
On a macro level, the validation of the advertisements simply doesn’t pass the eyeball test.
On the micro level, I think the only takeout people we have is comparing a one-off test in the Rouse Hill Times just before the deadline to a one-off Super Bowl spot.
That’s the money quote right there. And I feel that the bulk of the industry, outraged at the position Cannes is taking on this; and annoyed at being treated like imbeciles, will continue to reference this quote for years.
Good luck Terry, with handling all the sarcastic questions at your ‘How to win at Cannes speech’ next month.
Well there you have it. It’s pretty clear the awards are not necessarily given to real campaigns and can legitimately be given to campaigns that run once in small publications. The awards are given for their creativity and not for their effectiveness aren’t they? So is there a problem? They’re like awards you give to students, a kind of fantasy league of advertising. No one really takes them seriously do they? Would you hire and agency because of their awards or their results? Do you want to hire someone who spends their time making up ads to win prizes for themselves or someone who actually spends their time legitimately working on your account?
Some tough questions with elusive, unsatisfactory answers. Good job Mumbrella.
What about the Panasonic ads? Are they in guidelines?
We cannot find them right?
Well it seems from the responses the world of agency practitioners is “black and white”
An ad that runs once with millions of viewers at a cost of millions of dollars is a legitimate entry, the ads in question are scams.
Time to rewrite your entry rules accordingly Mr Savage.
So awards can only be given to those companies/brands who can afford them? Or the agencies who can pay for them? That’s what I’m getting from this current argument… What about small brands who want to make a name for themselves but have very little budget. Isn’t that when creativeness comes in? Are these brands not worthy of help or good work? Obviously, I’m against blatant scam, but sorry, I’m just struggling with what this is all about now. Money? Effectiveness? Running once? Good creative work? I’m with Billy C. (Who for the record sounds like a Happy Hardcore MC)
It’s already been said, but using the Superbowl ad defence is dumber than dumb.
Cannes Awards are meant to be for advertising. Advertising is meant to sell product; advance brands. It generally is briefed by a client who has a problem to solve.
Otherwise it’s art.
Creative? Sure. Advertising? No.
As an advertising award, Cannes would appear now worth less than a still-life velvet painting of a turd and Terry Savage has said nothing to argue against that.
Maybe it always was.
Well done Mumbrella. Following this issue in the way you have exemplifies pure gold standard reporting. Ultimate no-fear-no-favour journalism. Thanks to you we – the industry – are now all so much better informed regarding Cannes.
We now know, and can take comfort, that an ad produced for one of the most competitive advertising placements on the planet is the creative and moral equivalent as a 1/4 or half page in – quote – distressed media – such as the Rouse Hill Times.
Priceless.
Great news for McDonald’s, coke, Go Daddy et al. No need to spend millions on a superbowl ad, just run it in the Rouse Hill times instead. It’s pretty much the same thing.
As the organizer, Terry is free to make the rules and interpret them as he wishes.
Likewise, all comers are free to enter and play by his rules.
If you wish to get your 15 minutes of fame based on a media budget of a long lunch, this is good news.
Your entry fee and submission will be judged on par with big budget national campaigns.
There will be absolutely no allowances for degree of difficulty, or strict policing of legitimacy.
In short-there will be no change or tightening of rules.
If this isn’t a better reason to enter next year, I don’t know what is.
The hardest part will be getting senior clients of big brands to endorse these one-offs.
I reckon, they won’t be giving their approval freely with Mumbrella on the prowl.
Scam is back baby, scam is back. Oh yeah!
I guess the 60M views of this one for VW back from 2012 still only counts as a superbowl ad running once?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0
I hope it was Terry from Cairns Lions football club who responded to these questions? As these answers are an embarrassment to both the Cannes Festival and our industry as a whole.
Spelling error in Q2 – should be disqualified not qualified.
Thanks JJ, amended now.
Cheers,
Alex – editor, Mumbrella
Why cant there just be a requirement on award entries, to state 3 examples of exactly where and when the ad ran? And then this is published when the winners are announced.
Surely this alone would help reduce the scam ad issue by 90%.
No one’s seriously going to enter a Cannes award saying it just ran in The Rouse Hill Times?
(With apologies to the Rouse Hill Times)
Sadly no response from Cannes or any one else on this matter will ever be satifactory. The divide between the opposing views on what Cannes represents and the role it plays is too vast.
But the damage has been done. And next year when Mumbrella empties the chum buckets into the waters again, there will be fewer scraps to fight over, as Australia’s award shelf might just be that little bit emptier. There’s just a few more reluctant clients and agencies out there now, which means just a few more potentially award winning ads that will never see the light of day.
@The damage is done
What a sad, pathetic point of view that without cheating there can be no creativity.
Clearly the wonderful work you fear you will now be missing next year is the wonderfully, bright and colourful work that puts clients businesses out of business.
There creative industry is awash with CORRUPTION.
It needs to be cleared up. The acceptance of fraud is so engrained that people like yourself believe that creative fraud is somehow different to cheating in exams or stealing from charities. Its all fraud, its dishonest and its without achievement.
Whats most sad for me is that so many young creatives have now been corrupted by the behaviour of scamming agencies and their leaders and in the process creating ego’s that can only be fulfilled by committing fraud, shoplifting, stealing from those that have tried harder and created better work.
For all you cheats out their, rally together and tell each other how its not that bad, how it fuels creativity – for the rest of us we continue to be disgusted by you and your uselessness to the industry.
Tearsheets, media schedules, media invoice, client’s signature etc.
No matter how well defined the entry rules are, I can bet my bottom dollar that agencies will still find loopholes and ways to skirt around them.
Why?
Desperation, lack of agency values, widespread hire of unprincipled people and the fantasy that all it takes is that magic cannes grand prix to get your bosses job.
If only they spent a fraction of their time and effort on job bag on their desk.
Terry, you’re scaring everybody. Even the scammers. Wow, what an interview.
Jesus, what an answer – Cannes=Dead
Should there be more emphasis placed on demonstrating effectiveness, or at least answering a client brief?
“If you read the entry criteria it will show you that in several categories results are an element of the judging criteria – these are categories where this area is relevant.”
The truth is that being an ad creative is one of the few occupations in the world where you can be unbelievably good at your job, world class in fact, and still get absolutely nowhere. You can knock it out of the park, solve your client’s problems in ingenious ways, and for one of a thousand reasons your ‘work’ never happens. You’re left with nothing but the inner knowledge that you’re good at what you do. A belief no one else shares because they don’t know you exist. That’s why some creatives get proactive. Not sad, but true.
Not sad, but true – Did you know that the finance industry was once palmed off to undesirables in the community as no self respecting member of the bourgeoise wanted to get his hands dirty counting money? So the individuals counting money got proactive and they made damn sure that the world now revolves around money. So, I guess, it’s good that creatives are getting proactive. Let’s see how far there’s to go with this. Fake it til it becomes real, eh?
Look into his eyes:
“Scam is good. Scam is right…”
@Plunder
Love it.
Look into my eyes, look into my eyes, don’t look away, look into my eyes. Scam is good, scam is not cheating, scam is honourable. 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. you are back in the room.
Ah, scam is good!!
How much do you think your award is worth when almost everyone has an award just for turning up with a cheque for an entry fee?
Fancy words will never outweigh the brutal economics of supply and demand.
So scam away.
And don’t come crying when you realize it won’t get you more money, a promotion or shield you from the Friday afternoon retrenchment list.
It’s such a disappointing response from Terry Savage.
Agencies that enter scam ads are cheating their mates.
Agencies that authorise their creative departments to spend time and resources creating scam ads are cheating their clients.
Running one off ad campaigns in the Rouse Hill Times or a free listing magazine (BBDO Singapore) is flouting the rules. And to compare this kind of work to Super Bowl advertising is ridiculous.
Agencies tally up their metal at Cannes and it contributes it to their Gunn Report tally and AoTY submissions.
Cannes Lions is making far too much money to address this issue with anything more than a warning to agencies that amounts to “try harder not to get caught”.
That’s sad.
Thank you to Mumbrella (and Mumbrella Asia) for relentlessly pursuing this campaign. You have highlighted that there is a big difference in winning a hard-earned Lion and an ad “designed” to win a Lion.
Thank you for de-valuing awards that are tainted.
Given Terry’s ‘I won’t play creative police if you don’t let yourself get caught’ attitude, agencies will seriously have to ask: Is Cannes really worth entering?
A seriously good ad (which jumped thru all the hoops) will stand no chance against a crazy great one-off designed to cleverly dodge all the rules.
If ‘smart cheats’ have an advantage, why enter work with real world handicaps.
It’s no longer a level playing field.
Only a fool thinks he will stand a chance against them.
Move the Cannes Lions to Detroit. That will solve the problem.
“The world is not black and white and strategies that are adopted to test and break new boundaries should be accepted if all parties concur that they were genuine and legitimate. Super Bowl ads run once.”
“All parties” = co-conspirators?
Brenda,
That response is sheer genius.
Detroit is actually pretty cool, if you know where to go.
And personally, I’m well sick of Cannes the town.
Count me in.
Actually, Apple’s 1984 spot ran just once after mid-night in a midwestern cable station in Dec 1983 before in appeared national on Superbowl in Jan 1984.
That was the only way the tvc could have won during the awards season ’84/’85.
The media was paid for by Chiat Day.
How does this affect Terry’s crap defense of his money making awards machine?
Sweet F-all actually!
Other than the fact that all agencies (even the best of us) all bend the rules to grasp a glimmer of fame.
This trend didn’t start in Asia or Australia. But we do a great job at beating the masters at their game.