The Cannes Lions: What do you actually have to do to get disqualified?
Another dubious Cannes Lions entry has emerged. Perhaps the problem lies not so much with agency behaviour but with how the organisers enforce the rules, argues Mumbrella’s Tim Burrowes.
So stop me if you’ve heard this one before.
It’s a year ago today since we called out a couple of suspicious campaigns that had been recognised in the 2014 Cannes Lions.
And guess what? We’re back again.
The process has been much the same: The announcement of shortlists. Curiosity about an unfamiliar piece of work. Rival agencies discreetly raising questions. Bullshit PR statements from the entrant. A complacent response from the awards organiser.
And if my questions were mainly for the agencies and clients last time, there’s a point where the main focus has to turn to the festival owner: What on earth does it take for an entry to actually be disqualified by the Cannes Lions?
As you may have read in our news story today, this time round, the questions surround an entry from WPP’s digital agency VML, apparently on behalf of government client Transport for New South Wales.
The awards case study video showcased an interesting piece of technology. (Interesting, but not brand new – as you’d be aware if you’ve recently driven through the Sydney Harbour Tunnel and had your radio listening interrupted by a message about traffic conditions ahead.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiBNi1yRoxA
Among the key claims in the video was in the voiceover: “Beacons are being deployed across New South Wales.” The image showed eight sites popping up on the NSW map.
It turns out this wasn’t true. When we approached the Australian Communications and Media Authority – whose logo appeared on the awards entry site where it was listed as a supporter – the organisation said that it had only given permission for a trial on a single site for five days. If the beacons are rolled out without the appropriate authorisation – which has not been given – it would be illegal. And given that the devices would interfere with emergency services broadcasts, I reckon it will never get permission.
It was a pretty informative statement from the ACMA:
In case you can’t read the above, it says this:
“The Australian Communications and Media Authority provided no support for the five day blackspot beacon trial either in financial or other terms, apart from issuing a scientific trial transmitter licence for a limited duration test. The ACMA’s trial guidelines makes clear that the issuing of scientific trial licences does not imply ACMA support for the technology or imply that the ACMA would issue long term licences.
The ACMA will be requesting that the ACMA logo on the blackspots website be removed and the wording suggesting ACMA support also be removed. The website also contains a video suggesting that these blackspot transmitters are being rolled out through NSW. The ACMA has not licensed this technology for operational deployment. Any such roll out would be unlawful.
The ACMA would need to address considerable regulatory challenges to permanently authorise a device that purposefully interferes with broadcast transmissions. Given the critical role of radio broadcasting in emergencies, this is unlikely to be contemplated without the full and informed support of the emergency service community, and following proper consultation with broadcasters themselves.
As such, the ACMA has referred the matter of over-broadcasting technologies to the Capability Development Sub-committee of the Australian New Zealand Emergency Management Committee for consideration of referral of this issue to the broader emergency service organisation community. The ACMA has asked that the ANZMEC seek the views of emergency management experts on whether this technology should play a role in emergency management and how that might impact on existing broadcast arrangements. The ACMA understands that the technology is now being considered by ANZMEC members.
As you’ll also see above, the ACMA said it had not given permission for its logo to be used on the Blackspot Beacons case study site, and asked for it to be removed.
So we went to Transport NSW to ask whether despite the hurdles, the organisation was indeed planning for Blackspot Beacons to be rolled out as the awards video claimed.
Late yesterday afternoon, slightly to our surprise, they answered a different question in a very short statement.
So the awards entry submission to the Lions had not been authorised by the client.
It was starting to look like it could be one of those classic scammy awards entries – a clever proof of concept of something we’re probably not going to see in the real world. If you like the definition of scam as being work that would never exist without award competitions, then it might just fit.
As afternoon turned into evening, things then became a bit like one of those bad hacker movies where the data starts vanishing in front of your eyes. Over a few minutes:
- The Vimeo video of the case study vanished.
- The reference to the Blackspot Beacons project being shortlisted disappeared from VML Australia’s website.
- The Blackspot Beacons website went offline.
- The only local site to have written about the campaign – Digital Buzz Blog, deleted the article. Funnily enough, Digital Buzz is edited by the MD and ECD of VML Australia, Aden Hepburn.
- Even more curiously, the shortlisted entries then vanished from the Cannes Lions website.
- When we left the office last night, one of the few places where a reference to Blackspot Beacons remained was on the global VML site. By the time I got into the office at 7am today, it had vanished from there too.
It was an impressive display of near-realtime digital decontamination.
Obviously, we’d taken the precaution of taking screenshots of the sites and backing up the video before starting to ask questions. That’s the only reason you can still see the video above.
So why this reaction to our questions? The rules of the Cannes Lions seem pretty clear: You need the client’s permission to enter as they need to confirm that it is real work.
Not only that, but the rules say the work needs to have been implemented within the judging period of the 12 months up to April 30.
So it looked to us that, much to everyone’s embarrassment, that agency had got in touch with the organisers of the Cannes Lions, owned up that they didn’t have client permission and duly been disqualified.
We didn’t get much of an answer from VML. Aden Hepburn told us he wasn’t allowed to give us a comment. At 11pm last night the agency sent my colleague Miranda Ward the following not-very-illuminating statement:
Perhaps slightly charitably, one theory I had was this: Maybe the agency did the project on behalf of the client; Perhaps it got some sort of informal okay to put in an entry, but never got the case study video authorised; Perhaps the claim that the Beacons were being rolled out was going too far; Not wanting the PR embarrassment of seeming to be in a fight with ACMA or having no interest in pursuing what looks like a regulatory dead end, Transport NSW cut VML loose.
Just a theory, I stress. But it wouldn’t have been the worst case of awards cheating in the world.
But this is where the focus switches from VML to the organiser of the Cannes Lions, and how they have chosen to handle this.
This year the Lions topped 40,000 entries for the first time. That equates to well over $30m in entry fees alone. And that’s before attendance fees and all those duplicate trophy sales.
It’s a big business run by Top Right Group, (which is partly owned by The Guardian, by the way), which posted a pre-tax profit of nearly $100m last year.
And VML is owned by WPP, the world’s biggest holding company (and awards-enterer).
Indeed, the four shortlistings by VML counted towards a points tally which saw WPP named as Holding Company of the Year at Cannes. So although the entries didn’t win any trophies, shortlistings still matter.
And I suppose you’d expect the Cannes Lions to go the extra mile to save their biggest client from unnecessary embarrassment.
This is where things get a bit smelly.
You see, VML has not been disqualified.
Miranda sent a series of questions to the Cannes Lions overnight. Early this morning, the organisation’s London-based chief executive Philip Thomas sent the following reply, with his answers in bold next to Miranda’s questions.
Again if you’re struggling to read the above, the answer says: “We were asked to remove them because the client needed to have the technology validated for public health and safety reasons. We complied.”
After all, it’s health and safety, innit? You can’t be too careful.
But they’ve absolutely not been disqualified because “we have no reason to disqualify them”.
Apart from VML making a misleading claim in the case study video and not getting the client’s permission to enter, that is.
Still, perhaps it’s all part of a legitimate system that says you can gracefully withdraw an entry rather than be disqualified. So let’s go back to those Cannes Lions entry rules:
The rules explicitly and specifically state that you can’t withdraw an entry after May 15.
There’s another curious thing about the rules. They state:
In the event of a complaint against any winning or shortlisted entry, the Festival Organisers will conduct a full investigation into each case and will request detailed documentation from all parties concerned including the complainant, the entrants and the client.
So will Cannes be investigating? “We have not been contacted by the client”.
This feels like something of a loophole.
In this case there are public statements from two government bodies, with the ACMA stating that its logo is incorrectly on the project site and disproving a key claim of the awards entry. The other the client saying they have not authorised the entry.
But apparently unless the client actually complains to Cannes themselves, it won’t be investigated. That looks like a bit of a flaw, doesn’t it?
If you’re one of those clients more interested in achieving stuff than winning awards, would you be particularly motivated to work out how to complain to an organisation you might not know much about, about an issue you don’t care about?
Or here’s another wonderful potential loophole: If it takes a complaint from a client to investigate a dubious entry, why not just invent a fictional client for your wonderful piece of scam advertising? Then there’s nobody who actually exists who can complain.
Or is anybody else entitled to complain? Can a rival agency? Can I?
We emailed Mr Thomas first thing today to ask for clarification on why the rules have been ignored around the May 15 cutoff for withdrawing entries. He may have already gone to bed, because we didn’t get an answer. But of course, we’ll update you on that point if we do.
I’m starting to wonder how on earth you get disqualified from Cannes. Last week our sister site Mumbrella Asia reported on the curious case (first broken by Campaign Brief) of a creative who was credited in a Cannes Lions Grand Prix winning campaign. He described it as “bullshit”. The Cannes Lions put it down to a “misunderstanding”.
Last year of course, we saw several award entries for the Press Lions and Outdoor Lions that appeared to have been run in tiny circulation, low cost newspapers. At the time, Lions chairman Terry Savage told us it was no different to a Superbowl ad which also only runs once.
In the end, I took the decision that we should stop sending our journalist to Cannes, as I felt we shouldn’t be part of the system any more.
Given the Blackspot Beacons shenanigans, remaining outside the tent still feels like the place to be.
- Tim Burrowes is content director of Mumbrella
Great work, Tim. As a marketer working on the other side I think that these ad fests are such a joke.
User ID not verified.
Obviously a lot more than having the client publicly announce they did not produce the ad in question, and also using a logo without permission to enhance it’s chances in a public safety category.
User ID not verified.
@Caroline – you’re certainly not the only marketer that feels this way.
It’s a shame but unfortunately just about all award shows now make the ad industry look EVEN MORE self interested than it ever did.
How many million did Cannes make in profit last year? And Thirty-two gold awards given out last year at our own Award show (originally set up to be the “Hard” award) prove it’s all about the money.
But it’s not going to change in a hurry as awards are still a young creative’s best bet of a promotion/extra money/new job. So scam ads are still here and here to stay. I just wish the industry would go back to the days when you showed off your skills on a charity account and thus helped a lot more people than just the ad creators.
User ID not verified.
Thanks Tim and Mumbrella,
There’s you. And there is a $30million making machine. With lotsa hangers on and luvvies.
But I like the way you are using your slingshot….. You never know, the giant might just tumble….?
User ID not verified.
Tim,
Jeese you carry on.
40,000 entries and you manage to find one scam that the panel didn’t pick up (Im sure there’ll be more than one btw). And then you diss the entire Cannes Lions (again) because you surmise that this is a pattern because you picked up a few scams last year as well.Perhaps naively, Im still not quite clear what point you are trying to make? Are you saying that having uncovered these scams that the entire Cannes Lions system is a complete joke and no one should be involved, as you – standing on your morals – aren’t? If that’s it I think your logic is a bit thin.
OK, they’re definitely not perfect. Thanks for that bit of insight. And its a story worth publishing by your journo. But its one bad story amid many many good stories. Its not really that ground breaking to uncover a few idiots trying to put one over a panel trying to assess 40,000 entries coming in from all over the world. And you’re drawing a reasonably long bow to suggest that maybe those 4 points made all the difference in the case of one agency when the organisers have told you outright that it didn’t.
So far I don’t think you’ve snagged the equivalent of the advertising world FIFA story. You’ve just got the usual suspect dickheads who try to cheat, and with that you’re attempting to burn the whole event , the organisers and everyone else who went to the effort to apply and attend.
Do you really think that the other 39,000 or so entrants, who probably worked their respective bums off and were eager to win and show their wares deserve being smeared and not reported on because of a few idiots trying to cheat on the sidelines?
Don’t you, as one of the key industry information vehicles in Australia and Asia have some duty to report on those 39,000 who put in and did great work. And if it gives you a thrill, sure, do the story on the scammers and the judging needing to tighten up.
And what’s the issue exactly with them making a big profit? Im guessing Mumbrella 360 and your awards do pretty well on the profit front these days. ‘Excuse them for having a good business model’ maybe Tim?
How about you go next year, and write the good and the bad…because there was certainly a lot good going on there this year. Im almost sure, a lot more good than bad.
Jeremy
User ID not verified.
Is that Jeremy, the boss of B&T by any chance?
User ID not verified.
Shame. It’s antics like this that damage reputations.
User ID not verified.
Is the Clever Buoy any less of a scam?!?!
User ID not verified.
Jeremy should certainly be proud of B&T’s coverage of Cannes. They really covered the important celebrity stuff this year.
https://www.bandt.com.au/media/cannes-gets-classy-with-kim-and-kanye-chaos
User ID not verified.
Thank you for your question Jeremy.
(Declaration of interest to readers: If this is indeed Jeremy Knibbs I’m replying to and I believe it is, he was my boss when I edited B&T before launching Mumbrella) .
The issue here is one of how Cannes deals with questionable entries when their attention is drawn to them, not the 40,000 or so entries where questions aren’t raised.
The Cannes Lions have published rules for entry
They say very clearly that if there’s a complaint, there will be an investigation. There hasn’t been one.
They state that if a client doesn’t authorise an entry, it will be disqualified. It hasn’t been.
They say that you aren’t allowed to withdraw an entry from the competition after May 15. But they allowed VML to withdraw the dubious entry yesterday once we started asking questions.
I hope you do agree that trade press should ask tough questions. Did B&T ask any?
But you’re right – they’re not FIFA – even if Ted Horton says otherwise: https://mumbrella.com.au/ted-horton-awards-are-like-the-new-fifa-theyve-corrupted-what-were-here-for-297835
At least FIFA still sends people off from time to time.
But yes, we have indeed reported on the great work. Perhaps you missed the daily stories we wrote while the festival was taking place. https://mumbrella.com.au/tag/cannes Despite the fact that we weren’t there, I think we still ended up writing more than BandT did.
And no, I’ve no issue with the organisers of the Cannes Lions making a big profit. In the end it ends up helping to pay for (part owner) The Guardian’s journalism, after all. However, I hope it doesn’t motivate them to fail to impose the rules if doing so might put people off entering. That’s not fair on the vast majority who play by the rules.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Next headline:
B&T and mUmbrella face off in a display of ego worthy of a Cannes award
User ID not verified.
Interesting how battle lines are being drawn – the two serious trade titles -Mumbrella and AdNews have now aligned on this. The editor of AdNews called out Cannes today for sounding defensive and complacent http://www.adnews.com.au/news/.....cam-do-you
And now the industry jokes are both championing the “nothing to see here” brigade. Last year The Australians darren Davidson said it was a boring and predictable topic. Looks like B&T feels the same way.
as to campaign brief, last yea they were trying to organise a boycott of Mumbrella for embarrasing their agency mates. This year Theyve done some scam busting themselves.
Time
To choose sides guys!
User ID not verified.
As a client, I have to take Tim’s side.
My company operates to a certain corporate standards for governance, transparency and values.
Regardless of how good their performance was, C-suite players have been removed for non-adherance to them.
In the same way, we will not engage vendors and suppliers who openly disregard them.
Misrepresenting client consent, unauthorised use of logos, falsifying claims and facts are not behaviours right thinking clients approve of.
Thanks to Tim’s investigative reporting, certain suppliers and vendors will not be making the shortlist for my future pitches.
Your reporting is a public service to the client community.
User ID not verified.
Hi ‘Anonymyous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’.
Pleased to meet you both. Although Im not really sure who you are.
Yes, it is the ‘Jeremy’ you think it is. Touche. You guys/gals are really sharp. Thought I’d get away with it….. . But no, you’re onto me in a heart beat! Im embarrassed. How do these things work?
Few minor corrections though and now that Im in the open, some more info for you two in the interests of transparency….
As many anonymous people who like to have a dig on blogs turn out, you aren’t actually correct – at least in asserting that Im the ‘boss of B&T’. I think you’re probably wrong in suggesting that Im some sort of devious plant of B&T as well but judge for yourself after I carry on just a little here.
So lets start over.
Hi, Im Jeremy, who now works for The Wronghat Group, a consulting group that does all sorts of things – interesting events (at least I like to think so) , a shoulder to cry on for old media people trying to make things go a bit better than they have been, a keen investor in things/systems/solutions cloud based, and so on. Which, for the even only mildly savvy – surely that’s you ‘Anonymous’ ‘Thanks for Poking’ – you can read as ‘most days largely unemployed’.
Yes, I do have a history with B&T and Mumbrella as you so cleverly point out. It goes a bit like this (if you need more btw, I’ve got tons of time):
I was the boss of B&T about 14 months ago when I worked at Cirrus Media and before that at Reed for a long time. I was also, as things turn out, Tim’s boss about 6 or so years before that. And Martin (the other half of Mumbrella, who BTW, hardly ever gets a mention which I never quite understand because he’s surely a true and hardworking half of the Mumbrella success) and Alex and Camille and probably a few others off and on who work there (apologies if I’ve left anyone else current out).Tim did a great job as the editor of B&T back then. As did all the others, except maybe for Alex – sorry about this Alex – who you couldn’t fault in being a good journo, but you could certainly get a little tired of, on the whingeing side. (sorry Alex…you are a good journo though).
I work out of the same office as B&T and I do have a relationship with the B&T guys in which essentially they help me with my event about the issues facing companies as digital technologies escalate (called DAZE of Disruption – you should check it out, its really good , on in Melbourne on Dec 3-4 after a fantastic start in Sydney in May!), and I help their business called The Misfits (B&T and Travel Weekly) by doing things like helping them put in accounting systems (lol) and CMS systems etc. I do this for other publishers as well as a bit of consulting on the side. If anyone needs help please call, Im great value.
So essentially I do a bit of free and ‘excellent value publishing consulting’ for the Misfits in exchange for marketing help from B&T on Daze of Disruption and a free desk with Wi Fi and beers on Fridays. That’s most of it. For now at least. I do have a few other evil plans. Bryn knows all about them. Ask him. Oh, and I write the odd story from time to time as well, which drives the editor completely nuts as he thinks they’re all verbose and largely rants (a little like this).
‘Anonymous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’ let me be completely up front here and say that yes, I like B&T and I think you could say Im an admirer of the actual ‘boss of B&T’ – which is two people , David and Dan. I like them and B&T because while they are certainly not perfect, they are largely a positive outward bunch, they try mostly to be constructive (sometimes they fail, its true) and they like to have fun. For full transparency ‘Anonymous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’ I was also the boss of Dave and Dan at Cirrus and at Reed (are you bored yet?) And I liked them there too, like I liked Tim when he worked there and so on.
I once admired Mumbrella and Tim a great deal and Ive been a great supporter of them over the years when they ran Mumbrella and I was the actual boss of B&T and a competitor of theirs at Cirrus- well technically I was the boss…I didn’t actually do much in those years with B&T personally.
There can be no question that Tim and Martin have done a lot of interesting and groundbreaking stuff over the years and are deserving of a fair bit of praise for how creative, focussed and commercially savvy they’ve been (again Martin, does anyone know Martin?). The reason I liked them, among many, even when they competed against Reed, was that I learnt so much from what they were doing.
But honestly, ‘Anonymous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’, you’d be right in thinking that I don’t care as much for Mumbrella these days as I once did. So you sort of did get me on that one. But I think I’ve been fair because there is pretty good context why I made the comment about the Cannes Lions ‘scandal story’. Over the past couple of years I’ve gotten tired of the bitching and the nasty stuff. Im over the negative stuff…. just a little. To be fair, its not just Tim and his merry band of Mini-Tims (not meant to be cynical, promoting and training good journos’ was a good thing…but again, as things go, they also tend to follow the negative lead a bit). Its the anonymous comments that are so nasty and often ill-informed mostly. But its all encouraged in the end and often not that well corrected, so Im sticking with my view…its all just a bit negative and over the top. Of course, Tim always used to say, ‘forgive me for having a business model’. I do forgive that. Its not easy in Media these days. And as far as business models goes, it does seem to work. But does that mean I have to like it, ‘Anonymous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’?
‘Anonymous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’, forgive me for making comment here but I honestly thought it would be OK to contribute to the conversation and debate about the Cannes Lions. I wasn’t planning on making comment on Mumbrella and B&T. But you brought it up. And I wanted to clear things up for you two.
At this point, the editor of B&T, John – really nice guy btw, who again for transparency, works just a few metres away from me and having had the odd red wine with him on Friday arvo’s at the K&B I can admit I quite like (btw, and again for transparency, yes, its the same John who Mumbrella outed recently as none other than the sexist bigot ex editor of FHM et al – whoa, if I keep on having to be transparent Im never getting to get to the point here so let me press on) would throw his hands up and cry out, what the crap is Jeremy carrying on about now. Can’t he just get to the point for shits sake. Its OK John. Im getting there…you do have to feel for John.
So, ‘Anonymous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’ , what do you think about the Cannes Lions and this new ‘scandal’? Do you think that no one should attend, and it should be boycotted? Is it worse because they make a lot of profit? Or, is this perhaps not standing on a high horse just a little too much, and smearing a whole lot of interesting and good among a bit of bad for the sake of….? Actually, Im not sure what its for the sake of. That was my point John. I got there.
Maybe its the business model? And….it just feels like its become a habit of late for the Mumbrella guys and….now I’ve forgotten what I was talking about, sorry.
Oh, I remember now, Im just saying ‘Anonymous’ and ‘Thankyou for Poking’ ….maybe now that you’ve outed me so successfully you might like to actually contribute to the discussion. And if you feel the urge, say who you are….don’t feel like you have to go there btw….I don’t want to be pushy. Im sure you have your reasons.
All the best btw you two, and if you’re looking for someone to help with making ‘old media’ chug along just a little bit better with the odd cloud based system (or not), OR, if you’re interested in DAZE of Disruption (Dec 3-4 Melbourne Town Hall, don’t miss it), please do give me a call.
Last thing. No matter what, Im not coming back on to comment again so if you want to talk about this stuff anymore just ring me please. Believe it or not, I actually don’t go in for public stuff too much, and for reasons unbeknown to me, I just let myself go here and broke a rule, which was to not read Mumbrella any more and certainly don’t waste energy commenting on it. Something’s went wrong here I guess….
Jeremy
(not the Boss of B&T anymore, unfortunately…or perhaps fortunately, given I see their figures on the odd occassion)
User ID not verified.
Can somebody please explain this to me using short sentences and small words?
I get that Cannes Lions might not want to upset WPP by disqualifying one of their agencies.
But there’s so much evidence here, surely they couldn’t reasonably be angry with the Lions for disqualifying VML?
What am I missing?
User ID not verified.
What have you got to do to be disqualified?
1. Cheat.
2. Be from a small agency
3. Don’t be from a big agency.
User ID not verified.
a good piece of investigative journalism (which all in our industry will benefit from) distracted by (presumably) drunken ramblings.
User ID not verified.
Hi Adam
Ramblings yes. But sadly perhaps I hadn’t had a drop . Im thinking I just had nothing to do today. But thanks for your kind thoughts on my comments about The Lions. John, the editor of B&T hears your pain on how I express myself. You could be soul mates.
As a matter of interest it’s 11 pm now and I’ve had a few beers but ….really? That was investigative journalism? I could ramble on about that assessment for a long while I reckon. Not saying it wasn’t a good get mind you. But now I am quite feasibly a rambling drunk so if you’ll excuse me I’m going to leave it there.
Also I’m very aware I said I wouldn’t write again here which I’m really going to concentrate hard on doing starting from now.
….should be easy because I’m nearly home and Im dying to go to bed.
Cheers
Jeremy
User ID not verified.
VML are a genuinely good agency with genuinely talented people.
Why they would feel they need to be part of this sorry situation is beyond me.
Very poor judgement on their part, notwithstanding the ridiculousness of Cannes.
User ID not verified.
VML has been sucked into Y&Rs desperate awards lust.
And to prove which of WPP’s many networks is ‘better’.
It’s all who’s got a bigger dick among all of WPPs global chief creative officers.
Sadly VML is now part of than insanity.
They were acquired because they did good work. But now they have showed they sold more than just their shares to the big bad networks.
Services are a commodity.
Principles and values are rarer.
Let’s hope fudging for awards is not a slippery slope to getting creative with time sheets, man hours, and other billables.
User ID not verified.
C’mon Jeremy. Don’t be shy. Tell us a little about yourself.
User ID not verified.
It’s time agencies are held accountable for this kind of BS.
Clients should refuse to work with agencies who enter awards. Boycott this joke of a culture. Seriously… do doctors give each other awards for ‘best diagnosis in a general practitioner’s office’? If you try to explain Cannes to anyone outside the ad industry most laugh at our pathetic need to self-congratulate. Clients are getting the short end of the stick when creative resources (and their ECDs) are spending more time coming up with imaginary concepts for award ‘glory’ than focusing on the real paying work.
It’s a cancer rife in the industry. Agencies chew up and spit out creatives based on the awards they win, after expecting them to work like dogs just for the privilege to enter a piece of scam work into Cannes so their bosses can get a pat-on-the-back from global CCOs. How about we spend all the millions of dollars that go into Cannes entries into paying our staff sufficient wages for the amount of overtime they do? Or better yet donate it to charity? Ad agencies doing something good for once. And I’m not talking about saving-African-children-and-homeless-people-by-beacon-powered live-streamed-drones good.
And BTW, VML not only screwed up by entering a scam idea without client permission – they ripped off an idea from 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ziZ23FK6c
Hey guys… word from New York is that we need to up the quota on Cannes entries this year. The ECD’s feeling a little nervy. Here’s a list of clients on roster. We need to stay back this week and think of a Cannes-worthy concept. Hmm, road safety could be a ripe area. Let’s just see what else has been done overseas for ‘inspiration’.
If that doesn’t reek of award desperation I don’t know what does. Shame.
User ID not verified.
@Ricki
As above poster notes, Y&R have been on a big awards push these last few years, from a regional perspective. Definitely some insecurities at play. Shame really, but maybe it is a last gasp from a struggling agency network desperate to impress clients. Could very easily backfire.
As for Cannes, what is intended as a celebration of advertising could very soon be its last post. Agencies are still pushing incredible amounts of cash behind entries, but to what purpose when clients are increasingly ambivalent, regardless of scam? So you won a Bronze in one of 20-odd categories? Great. For a local NGO? Even better. Just what I need to look after my multi-million dollar business.
The entire festival is increasingly looking like one of those pageant shows where all the moms pay to enter and everyone leaves with a trophy of some sort. Even shortlists are celebrated ffs. Times running out folks…
User ID not verified.
It chaps my arse when senior productive creative teams get cut so the agency can afford to hire some network mandated ‘hot’ team who costs more and cannot deliver on real briefs but can only scam.
I am embrassed when my agency gets implicated when said scams are exposed and as an account lead, have to explain the BS/spin in accordance with the agency hymn sheet.
I hate padding time sheets with time wasted on pursing mom & pop retailers just to get their ‘client letter’ for the scams.
I hate asking clients for longer deadlines because the teams are scrambling for award ideas the ECD needs for his next global creative conference or working on casestudy videos to legitimize the scams.
I hate presenting CEs from production houses to our retainer clients knowing its padded to execute scams.
I hate begging media shops for cheap space just weeks before the awards deadline is up. (Plan ahead for fuck’s sake!)
I hate being told there’s no money for a cost of living increase for my staff while my global bosses live it up and set world records for CeO remunerations.
I hate negotiating for an increase in retainer fees because I know the extra money never goes to the people who actually do the work but to the scammers and award shows.
Most of all, I hate the condescending way these scammers treat their co-workers as they leave for the bar at 6pm while the good ones staying late into the night pumping out work that pays.
I am go glad I left this whole insanity behind and joined the client side where I have half the stress and twice the pay.
I reccomend anyone who feels the same to do so.
The grass really is greener on the other side.
User ID not verified.
hehe cheating in the advertising industry.
what did you lot expect? civil, respectful, honest behaviour?
User ID not verified.
If you’re in a global agency this is the standard procedure when it comes to awards –
Chief Creative Officer hands down a metal quota for award shows to each office
Local ECD has to meet award quota and instructs creative department to come up with proactive ideas that can get up on the wall outside of paying client briefs.
Pressure applied to junior teams and interns eager to make work for their books so as to retain their place in agency. Chances are they do nothing but proactive work for half a year.
Proactive ideas are evaluated by ECD on metal or shortlist potential (points make all the difference to an agency winning the network of the year award)
Quarterly reviews with CCO / regional ECDs to review and select the proactive work to ‘get made’.
Proactive work is then handed to unsuspecting account teams, who are told to ‘sell it in’ to clients or find a client that will make it.
Client tells agency to sod off. Or agency convinces client that creative retention on account is important and awards make up for the lack of award-wining briefs coming from client.
Work is ‘bought’, ECD calls in favours with production company, artists, photographers etc to produce proactive work. In lieu of payment, they are promised they will get work from that same client or another of the agencies paying client jobs.
Client agrees to insert proactive work into existing media schedule somewhere inconspicuous or agency takes responsibility for running it.
Agency enters awards and circulates its entries to all its judges on award panels. Judges advised to find other judges friendly to their agency to support the work etc and reciprocate.
Awards are won – ECD gets bonus, and elevated industry profile. CCO gets bonus, maintains image of award-wining leader, despite having nothing to do with the work or client that won it. Judges more award shows, talks at conferences gets profiled in industry press.
Both eventually switch agencies to help ‘improve the work / agency profile / capitalise on new business wins’. Press release touts their many award-winning campaigns, but neglects to mention any success measures from a client perspective.
Junior creatives responsible for award-winning idea finally get something in their book, and capitalise on the win by switching agencies, induced by increased salary and desire of new agency ECD & CEO to be seen to be hiring ‘award-winning creatives’.
Client’s day to day work still the same.
User ID not verified.
@ days of our lives
Ain’t that the truth?
User ID not verified.
@ days of our lives – Bang on 1000% correct
User ID not verified.
I agree, somewhat, but I need to clarify a couple of things:
“Seriously… do doctors give each other awards for ‘best diagnosis in a general practitioner’s office’?”
Yes. Pharmaceutical companies give doctors amazing trips (sorry ‘conferences’) to Bora Bora for the lucky doctors who prescribes the most (insert anti-depressant brand). Yes, in Australia. Weird, huh?
In fact all sales professions have awards. Please remember that’s our job. To sell. Not to change the world or be honest Susans, but to sell pants to the nudists.
Personally I think awards should be like those stickers on wine labels. We know which wine is better because it won at a prestigious show. Some wines mislead by putting lots of gold stickers from crappy regional shows, but anyone into wine can spot the difference.
The difference between the wine industry and advertising is the wine industry doesn’t make wines specifically to win… oh wait. No, they do. Their flagship range, which is normally well out of the price range of the ordinary drinker. And it’s by how many awards their flagship range has won that people judge the rest of their range.
The thing that really grinds my gears, as someone who has won buckets of metal on real, very effective work is people blaming award shows for gutless, cheap cheating work.
Clients aren’t idiots, well if they are, they’re highly overpaid idiots. They know the agencies who win awards on the back of solid, effective work, and they know the agencies who do crap scammy print / ‘innovation’ work. They know what has run properly and what hasn’t.
If you seriously think awards are the problem, you’re misguided. They’re a reward for work well done. The problem is agencies that haven’t done the work seeking a reward. They’re the ones clients should drop in place of agencies who do real, award winning work.
To use an example, Clems Melbourne have consistently produced massive, award winning campaigns for real clients that get real results. And who wins almost every pitch in Melbourne?
Not McCann’s, not Y&R, certainly not JWT.
User ID not verified.
Jeremy
Jeez you carry on
Submitting comments publically surely requires an understanding on “Post etiquette” however as your ramblings are now in the public domain I would like to add 2 cents and contribute to the “posts”.
First up, I am pretty certain you have never been to the Cannes awards unlike Tim.
Your comments appear unwarranted, cheap, tired and a maybe a smattering of being jealous in relation to the great work that the Mumbrealla team have done to-date.
I am passionate about Mumbrealla ethics and also their business model , especially as it was I that persuaded Martin to join me from the UK to be in Sydney, and in turn I’m pretty sure Martin persuaded Tim from the Northern Hemisphere, and dare I suggest that the evil Alex is also from the mother country.
I remember fondly on how much you personally liked the UK & US talent that I persuaded to come to sunny Sydney. We LAFA’d all the time about UK talent and their mannerisms.
Anyway, I digress…. Martin Tim et al at Mumbrealla have founded an excellent business, channel, platform and pretty much I would expect funded by them and not from an Ivory Tower. Dedication, tenacity and hard work – plus the incumbents were in the main pretty staid and I can say that as I had B&T in my portfolio years ago.
I would see your unemployment as a great time to recoup and work out what does Jeremy really want to do and how can he contribute in the space he now finds himself. Maybe it’s a Scary place with all this mass of digital innovation around and of course younger hungrier talent around making headway.
I would be keen to hear personally about your new gig “Daze of Disruption” as you certainly have the credentials according to your bio. 043 9923 124 is my direct number and if I have time I would be happy to talk at your next gig about how to change a publishing model around and be in the fray in this Disruptive time.
Great to hear you are working with accounting systems and CMS – I suggest Xero and WordPress – lots of people use them and they are in the “cloud” and you can run them offshore at minimal cost.
I think you may have the “Winter Blues” with some of your quotes….
“I was the actual boss of B&T and a competitor of theirs at Cirrus- well technically I was the boss…I didn’t actually do much in those years with B&T personally.”
Interesting statement – Good Job hey! Or was this an evil plan…
“Maybe its the business model? And….it just feels like its become a habit of late for the Mumbrella guys and….now I’ve forgotten what I was talking about, sorry.”
Interesting statement – Hopefully you can keep on track when you run an event, it’s important to be on message, lucid and timely.
“Believe it or not, I actually don’t go in for public stuff too much, and for reasons unbeknown to me, I just let myself go here and broke a rule, which was to not read Mumbrella any more and certainly don’t waste energy commenting on it. Something’s went wrong here I guess….”
I could offer a view though I’d like to discuss it before I do though – 0439 923 124 …..
Hats off to the Mumbrealla team and may they continue for many more years to come.
User ID not verified.
Awards. Awards?
Doctors accepting trips to Bora Bora, paid for by the drug lords is pretty awful, isn’t it?
Creatives, creating and being judged, perhaps not so evil?
Although…: what if that creative house helps to get kids hooked on nicotine in developing countries? Whilst the Sud of Bonjour probably won’t screen an ad that actually shows kids smoking, (to promote tobacco). Are any ‘award winners’ actively working with big tobacco, in particularly, helping to flog tabs in developing countries?
User ID not verified.