Preamble
Neil French is generally being lauded. Yet, here are some unvarnished observations. Neil loved adverts, he loved creating them and was very good at it. But it was clear he didn’t like advertisers; he didn’t like people holding sway over his work. He famously said, ‘you have to be prepared to be sacked for protecting your work’ (or something like that). So, he often took the advertiser out of the equation.
To that effect, here’s an article I wrote a few centuries ago. Perhaps some of it may still be true, maybe not. This version remains unpublished.
the love that dares not speak its name
Paul is waiting for the world’s ad press to come out of the closet.
I quite like scams.
That’s not true! I love scams. And why not? They represent the fun; the energy and the creative juice ad folks would mostly like to see running but are mostly prevented from doing so.
Scams are in the news quite a lot. An inordinate amount of press has been devoted to the DDB Brazil, WWF[1] ad which featured a number of jets barreling towards Manhattan replete with a digitally restored World Trade Centre. With accompanying words that said the Tsunami killed more people than 9/11. AdAge reported that Leslie Aun, a WWF spokeswoman in the US said, “We are utterly appalled. This ad is not something that anyone in our organization would ever have signed off on.” The ad had won a certificate of Merit at The One Show,[2] which was ignominiously stripped away for its scammy nature. But AdAge continued to relate that DDB Brazil, belatedly, claimed the local branch of the WWF had actually approved the ad and that tear sheets had been seen.
But why did accusations of scaminess seem to take precedence over simple bad taste? Using a rather nasty (and rather too recent) disaster, in which many innocent people actually died, is more of a reason to complain. And maybe more importantly, it’s strategic nonsense. What on earth can the WWF do or have done to prevent 9/11 or the Tsunami? Whoever gave it an award should be paraded naked through the streets, not for allowing a so-called scam into the show, but for rewarding a dumb ad.
So, what makes a scam, I hear you ask. Good question.
AdWeek reports that The One Show (possibly in a fit of breast-beating contrition) is taking steps. Agencies entering ads made for nonexistent clients or without clients’ approval will be banned from entering The One Show for five years. The entire team credited on ‘fake’ entries will be banned from entering the show for five years. There’s a three-year ban for entering ads that have “run once, on late night TV, or only run because the agency produced a single ad and paid to run it themselves.” Gosh, tough love. But I have a niggling suspicion that all this big stick stuff will actually result in:
A. The scampering feet of folks quickly withdrawing stuff.
B. Two half pages rather than one full page (remember you are talking to ‘creative’ people).
C. The One Show changing its mind. (Campaign Brief magazine estimates that these holier than thou One Show rules apply to around 90 percent of all print entries from Asia.)
D. The awards starting to look a bit on the dull side.
What is it with regimes wanting to ban stuff? Does the ad industry think it will build a more legitimate industry by banning ads? When puritanical America banned booze in the 20s, it created an entire crime industry. Today, with drugs, we have the same thing. Banning solves nothing. And who remembers when The Clio Awards (I think) announced, sanctimoniously, ‘no scams’. To which, Lord Neil of French, who was then creative supremo of either just Ogilvy, or all WPP, withdrew all their entries. We’re talking about many thousands of dollars in entry fees here. It didn’t take long for the head of The Clios (or whatever) to mumble, through a mouthful of crow feathers, an embarrassing apology. You see, Neil understood that the international award shows are essentially businesses. (Cannes, as we all know, is an event created with the sole objective of bringing punters to the South of France during the off-season.)
So why all of this fuss about scams and creative and stuff? Well, in AdAge again, a gent called Wayne Arnold might have put his finger on it. He said, “Agencies are today merely commoditized suppliers and not the creative business partners our predecessors once were. Agencies, simply, are not as important as we used to be.” He continued, “Today, when CEOs of large companies wonder how to grow their businesses, they turn to management consultancies and the consulting arms of big accountancy firms for ideas. Not to advertising agencies.” Even by their own admission, the common description is now ‘Creative’ Agency.
He feels it’s a pity agencies are not what they once were, marketing partners on all levels. My favourite agency marketing contribution took place in the 70s in the UK. The Kirkwood Company,[3] a local Brit shop, was approached by their client Bird’s Eye, the frozen produce marketers. Their large problem was what to do as their pea crop had failed and their once big juicy peas were reduced to the size of, well, peas. They tasted exactly the same, just tiny. Kirkwood said put a little extra sugar on them and tell the world they were “picked sooner to taste sweeter”. Genius. From that day, on Bird’s Eye had to deliberately harvest early because the British housewife now only wanted tiny, sweet peas.
But, as I speak, the agency thrust is rooted firmly in the creative product. It is now almost the sole raison d’être. So, in line with the changing role, awards are the principal measure of an agency’s worth. In fairness, proactive work, experimental work, suck-it-and-see work; scams if you must, still do have a very legitimate place in an agency’s canon. Just deal with them sensibly and find a place for them. And then you too can embrace scams, fondle them and hold them close to your bosom. And not make them the rent boys of advertising.
PS You will Oscar, you will.
nota bene
The title is, as you may know, from the long letter Oscar Wilde wrote while banged up in Reading Jail called ‘De Profundis’. The love he implies is the love of a man for a man. My love is for bogus adverts. Quite a different thing, I think. When it comes to the WWF ad, please don’t get me wrong, the WWF is a fine organization, mostly. But even though I love orangutan dearly, and feel strongly about their preservation, an ape could not stop a suicide jet nor an undersea earthquake. I seem to have used this PS before. But Alfred Hitchcock said, “Self-plagiarism is style.” Nice one, Alf.
Paul Loosley is an English person who has been in Asia 47 years, 12 as a Creative Director, 25 making TV commercials. And in recent years, a brand consultant. And still, for some strange reason, he can’t shut-up about advertising. Any feedback: mail p.loosley@gmail.com (Please put it through a committee)
[1] World Wildlife Fund
[2] Yet another American awards show
[3] The eponymous agency founded in 1970 by Ronnie Kirkwood