More on the scam debate from Campaign India

| | 8 Comments

CampaignIndia139.jpgThere’s a very good article on scam ads that caught Campaign Brief’s eye today in the latest issue of Campaign India (August 14th). The article “Have scam ads been eradicated from awards?” is written by Arun Sudhaman, previously working with Media Magazine in Hong Kong, but now transferred to Haymarket’s flagship London ad mag Campaign.

The article looks at why scam ads were down at this year’s Cannes Advertising Festival and in the story Philip Thomas (Cannes CEO) and David Lubars (Cannes Press & Film jury head) are quoted along with Neil French, John Merrifield and Calvin Soh from our region.

Cannes believes scam is becoming a thing of the past as they make concerted efforts to weed it out. Others are doubtful with the general belief being scam was down in Cannes this year as agencies had less money to invest in it due to the current global economic crisis. It’s probably true that juries felt they had to be more politically responsible with their decisions this year.

As Sudhaman explains though, despite the so-called hard line taken by Cannes this year, it’s a difficult position for the festival organisers (and other awards shows) who financially benefit from scam ad entries. Despite the hard talk on clamping down on scam it’s a hollow threat from Cannes CEO Philip Thomas. If the festival was serious on the clamp down then proper punitive actions would be in place with agencies like FP7 Qatar (exposed at the Dubai Lynx) and TBWA Paris and Epoch Films (with Lions revoked in 2008) barred from entry for the next two years.

Here’s a few quotes from the story:

Philip Thomas: “We talked a lot to the jury presidents and they werevery keen, in this difficult economic year, to say that it’s genuinework for genuine clients,” he says. “I think it’s becoming a thing ofthe past.”

Neil French: “Was Cannes virtually scam-free? Well, it depends on howyou define ‘scam’. I know for certain that a large proportion of thisyear’s winners were for clients who couldn’t possibly afford the mediacosts of running the work. Does that make them scams? If you delve intothe murkier regions of the shortlist, it becomes near-hilarious.”

John Merrifield: “We agreed from the outset to weed out the work thathad a familiar smell to it”. But he is equally clear about where theprimary responsibility for policing scam rests. “A jury’s role is notto police. The festival’s organiser should shoulder thatresponsibility, although they rarely do.”

Calvin Soh: “Who really has resources to spare to work on non-existentclients? We have enough trouble keeping all of our existing clients.”

Read the full article on Brand Republic.