After DDB Brazil’s WWF ‘9/11’ embarrassment, The One Show gets tough on scams with 5 year bans
September 7 2009, 5:16 am | | 32 Comments
In the light of the recent events surrounding the ‘9/11 Ad’ createdby DDB Brazil for WWF, The One Club, based in New York, which awarded the ad a Merit in May, has announced the implementation of what it believes to be the most stringent and thorough ‘fakeads’ policy in the industry, including 5 year bans for the agency and creatives concerned.
The One Club defines ‘fake ads’ as: ads created for nonexistent clientsor made and run without a client’s approval, or ads created expresslyfor award shows that are run once to meet the requirements of a tearsheet.
32 Comments
How will this be policed? Many great ads are run only once, expressly for the purposes of awards. Can we now expect a raft of poison pen letters from other agencies pointing out the scammers? Sounds like a kneejerk reaction to save their reputation.
A great move from the One Club. Check out all the positive responses on the US blogs. AWARD, Cannes etc must now match this.
hmmm, I guess they’ll have to retrospectively ban Chiat Day; Apple’s “1984” only ran once.
But seriously, it would be wonderful if they could effectively police this, because it would make awards shows far more honest and representative. Sick to death of seeing fake stuff win.
This is a brilliant first step. I’m so sick of even talking about the subject. And to the poster at 7:11, kneejerk or not it’s a great step. At least someone is finally doing something rather than pretending like it never happened.
Not sure about the ‘run once’ thing though. I can legitimately say that our agency occasionally does ads that legitimately ‘run once’. How about an outdoor spectacular? How about ‘1984’? Don’t really like this rule. If a client has approved the ad and media is bought by the client, it’s legit. We run single ads one time in the SMH all the time as well. Silly.
Fantastic.
Mumbai, San Paulo and Singapore can actually start producing real work for a change.
Oh, and us too.
9.10.
I don’t think I suggested is wasn’t a good step. I am all in favour of tightening up the entry conditions. But if you look at the One Show release, it makes no mention of how they are going to go about this. I would imagine getting the client to sign off on the award entry personally would be a good first step and stop the kind of arse-covering WWF have done. But I stick by “knee-jerk” – if they were really serious they would go back through this year’s entries and weed out all the other scam that slipped through the net cos the client didn’t create an international incident.
sick and tired of scams. Let’s all just do real work that is great.
This is a fantastic litmus test as to just how interested the various shows are in pure creativity as opposed to making money off us.
I’ll actually bet thousands that Cannes, Award and ESPECIALLY Adfest will completely ignore this step, as possibly 50% of their revenue comes from (generally Asian) scam.
It won’t happen.
Just on the subject of DDB Brazil, they won a media Lion this year for this ‘ran once’ beauty..
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/images/misc/2/wwf/WWF-turtle.jpg
Unfortunately DDB, coins aren’t magnetic, making this ad a complete fucking lie.
Hand the Lion back boys.
7:57 & 9:10,
Have a read of the media release, as there is a bit of further discussion around ads that have “run once”. It doesn’t look like legitimate one off ads will be impacted, but instead ads that run once in the middle of the night. Or in the Dubbo Times.
You’re a bit behind this story now.
WWF have admitted they did approve the ad.
This is part of a bigger story, way beyond advertising – the propensity of Green groups to lie, and lie blatantly, to push their causes.
Lying about making an ad takes that even a step further
11:02, I assume you were OK with the lying about weapons of mass destruction though?
Save your political rants for another blog or dinner at the golf course with your Dad and Uncle. Or maybe you’d like to concrete all green spaces?
And the latest news is that the WWF didn’t necessarily approve the ad:
Meanwhile, the WWF-U.S. issued yet another statement, following a joint statement yesterday by WWF in Brazil and DDB Brasil apologizing for any offense caused by the ad.
“WWF Brazil has subsequently issued statements that have raised doubts about whether the ad concept was approved at some level within the WWF Brazil organization,” the WWF-U.S. statement said. “We have now relaunched a renewed inquiry into the circumstance surrounding the creation of the ad. Additionally, we are using every resource at our disposal to remove these images everywhere they exist online because they are hurtful and disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families.”
11:02
Jesus mate.
Are you a Rio Tinto shareholder? Have you actually seen the satellite imagery of the icecaps? Compared them to three years ago? Have you wondered why it’s hot in Sydney in Winter? Why it’s bitter cold in England in summer? Why Greece has had its worst fires in memory? California’s on fire.. China’s flooded…
Oh yeah, it’s just the lying green agenda.
We’re talking about the possible destruction of the planet here, so no pressure.
Guy’s like 11:02 are so wise on their own wisdom they need to start their own school for fools like us.
Not to break up the barnstorming here or anything, but check this info out:
http://www.magneticcoins.info/p05wherecoin.htm
Travel much?
Then I apologise to all at DDB Brazil for that scurrilous remark. (Makes a change.)
But, by the way, I’ve been to Brazil. Any poster that encouraged people to place coins on it would have them stolen within seconds. (No matter where it was placed.)
It still only ran once too.
Hey, how many agencies you worked at here that do that?
With our clients, it’s not cheating, its a god damn necessity if you ever want to work overseas. I still have two books. The ‘real’ one and the re-cut / re-written / re-art directed one I use to get jobs.
I presume, 2:50, you’re just the sort of person Creative Exchange is looking for.
That’s quite a sad situation 2:50.
I’ve got one book and reel.
Full of stuff that, you know, actually ran.
It was relatively important to get a job overseas. Unless, of course, you’re angling for that special Mumbai job.
So what about that questionable WWF print campaign from JWT Singapore? First spotted on agencyasia.com without any credits. Then it picked up Gold at Cannes. Did it didn’t appear anywhere except in the award shows? If not, should the agency and the creatives named be banned for 5 years or just given 12 strokes of the cane? I think the WWF should stick to wrestling.
Wow, you really are out of date, 11.28.
The Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking. And it’s done so every decade for the last four decades.
Also, hey, gotta love the idea that a cold summer in England is proof of global warming. With logic like that, you can argue anything.
The fact is, the head of Greenpeace recently admitted that they exaggerated – which is really just lying – to get their point across. WWF do the same thing. But if you can’t make your point with facts, how strong is your argument?
And 11.27, what the hell has the liberation of Iraq got to do with the environmental issues and the ongoing illogical hysteria of green groups? I know Green groups are generally in favour of totalitarian solutions – they provide good cover for left wingers everywhere – but I never realised they were also in favour of fascist dictators.
8:09,
The most immediate threat to our planet comes from rising sea levels caused by melting of glaciers in Greenland. And of course Earthquakes, Volcanos and Tsunamis. A bit of bedtime reading for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/06/global-warming-natural-disasters-conference
There’s plenty more if you like, but I somehow get the feeling trying to convince you that global warming is real and not some ‘leftist conspiracy’ would be like arguing with David Irving about the Holocaust.
8:09, I don’t pretend to know what’s going on but NASA have an interesting take on it.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sea_ice.html
“A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.”
Regardless of temperatures you have to admit that in little over 200 years we have radically altered the surface of australia, some of it driven by short term thinking for maximum profits. If just the current deforestation levels continue it’s going to be pretty sad in 50 years. Have you been to China and seen the pollution? Have you seen the area around Gerringong? Pristine land being lost to the cookie cutter urban sprawl.
I think it’s good to stop and question current and past behavior. I’d like to think our short term profits could be tempered with the desire for our kids and great, great grand kids to be able to enjoy some green space, clean air, oceans and mountains.
.
If only we could all be so lucky. They aren’t too different from how they ran, just the real ads cleaned up a little, at least they ran properly. However I wish I’d had the opportunity to work in the great places you guys have worked at, where you’ve never had to pop out a scam ad to win an award in your entire career.
Thinking about it, you must either work in one of two big places in Melbourne or one of two places in Sydney if you can honestly say you’ve never done a scam ad. All the other ‘hot shops’ in these towns pump them out by the bucketload, and it’s bloody obvious as well.
Don’t even get me started on Perth or Auckland.
Gotta love people who pull out the Holocaust card every time anyone suggests that there is a debate to be had over global warming. There is total proof of the Holocaust, but almost none for the concept that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. In fact, with no global temperature increase for a decade, the whole concept is up for debate.
Or are you opposed to debate? Which would put you in the same class as the perpetrators of the Holocaust.
Also gotta love anyone who quotes the Guardian. It’s so left wing it makes The Age look centrist. Neither of those papers will even admit there is a debate, or that thousands of leading scientists around the world have expressed serious doubts about global warming. (Scientists, not get-rich-quick schemers like Al Gore – ever wondered why he refuses to take questions or debate any of the facts?)
So widen your reading a little. Billions of people in the third world will continue to live in abject poverty and hundreds of millions die if they are denied first world energy. So you’d want to be pretty sure of your facts before you made the decision to let them suffer and die.
This should clear up the debate on global warming now and forever. Amen.
http://www.bigfish.tv/fest/films/view/global-warming
There’s a little museum down in the Rocks that shows Sydney about 400 years ago.
Manly was an island, Circular Quay was a bunch of islands, punctuated by Millers Point, Town Hall and that little hill where Government House is. Half of Bondi and Rose Bay didn’t exist, hard to believe since it’s the centre of the universe these days.
If you don’t believe me check it out sometime, history museum near the Orient Hotel. Not sure if it was global warming or more people were pissing in the water back then but it’s an interesting look.
Hey 12:01.
If Awards are the most important thing to you, you’re in the wrong job.
I had an interview with John Hegarty about three years ago. I started talking about ‘this won…. and this won….”
He stopped me with a wave and a smile.
He told me he was looking for someone with great ideas rather than an award list.
Why don’t you go and work for @@@@@ instead? They fucking love them.
Hey 10:08. Me again.
I’m not opposed to debate, nor am I a Nazi.
I am, however, opposed to pointless debate with people who fail to accept overwhelming evidence, purely because they want people to think of them as different, better than the rest of us who have so clearly been brainwashed by the evil ‘left wing media’.
To that point, you describe the Guardian as overwhelmingly left of center. These guys found quite the opposite:
“In 2007 the newspaper was ranked first in a study on transparency which analysed 25 mainstream English-language media vehicles, and which was conducted by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda of the University of Maryland.[86] It scored 3.8 out of a possible 4.0.”
Another point you try to make is that there has been “.. no global temperature increase for a decade”. I would be interested to hear where you obtained this information. Because everything I’ve read in my lefty rags points to the last decade as witnessing the most dramatic temperature changes. The IPCC report states:
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850).”
If you’d like it in graph form, here’s a link from our little friend wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
I’d also appreciate it if you could point us towards these “thousands of leading scientists around the world” who dispute the notion of global warming. For my part, I’ll point you again to the IPCC 2007 report (which was signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China): “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”
Over to you.
He won’t reply.
He’s a cunt.
The IPCC is a political organisation with political objectives.
Large numbers of scientists named as sponsors of the IPCC reports have refuted their conclusions, stating that the reports have consistently taken their research and given different conclusions to that research than they put forward.
The temperature charts for the last decade are conclusive. Temperatures reached a high in 1998 and have remained almost static ever since, recording only a slight decline in temperatures since that year. Yes, the years over the last decade have been, on average, consistently high, but temperatures have clearly not risen with the rise in carbon emissions. This is irrefutable and contrary to all computer models and IPCC predictions.
This is the point. Why have temperatures not continuied to rise with carbon emissions? Why are the models so wrong? And why – which is where this discussion started – do Green organisations continue to exaggerate and lie – and admit to exaggerating and lying – if the evidence is so beyond debate?
Remember, the Romans grew grapes and made wine in Scotland. The Vikings grew crops in parts of Greenland now covered in ice. The middle ages is known to have had hotter weather than we have now. (That weather, ironically, is considered to be the cause of the great leap forward – warmer weather, better crops, more time to think and invent.) So suggestions that we are in a period of natural ongoing change have a lot going for them. And the fact that Gores famous chart, showing atmospheric carbon and temperature rises throughout history, got the facts exactly the wrong way around – science shows that the carbon content actually FOLLOWS temperature rises, rather than the reverse – put the issue even further into question.
But go ahead. You don’t have to think. You don’t have to even consider other possibilities. Continue on your righteous crusade, more religious than scientific. And as billions suffer and millions die around the third world to satisfy your Jorrellian delusions, at least you’ll feel good.
Where to begin?
You dismiss the IPCC as a political organisation with political objectives. Yes, it has political ties. It needs to if it is to have any effect in the real world, which is what’s at stake here. It’s also a scientific body, and a highly respected one at that. Groups who have come out and praised the IPCC include: the European Geosciences Union, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US), the Network of African Science Academies, the Royal Meteorological Society, the National Research Council (US), and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.
You claim “large numbers of scientists” have spoken against the IPCC. I’ll ask again: who exactly? Christopher Landsea I suppose? Okay, one guy resigns and that discredits the whole thing does it? Surely you’ve got an impressive list somewhere you could share with us.
The IPCC is not perfect, but what organisation on this scale tackling a problem this contentious is without its critics? It’s the most respected source of information on global warming out there. Where are you getting your information? Thin air, from what we’ve seen so far.
You say the temperature charts for the last decade are conclusive. At least you got one thing right. Here, for your reference, are those charts (don’t worry, I’m happy to provide your evidence for you):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
This chart shows quite conclusively the rise in global temperatures over the past decade, as well as over the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and so on…
But I suppose NASA are a political puppet of Greenpeace and their information is not to be trusted?
Your third point about the middle age warm period and the ‘great leap forward’ is so laughably inaccurate it barely warrants a response. The great leap forward you refer to didn’t occur during the middle ages at all – it was actually in the late Stone Age. And it is attributed to the advent of language, having nothing to do with warmer weather.
This is why I didn’t want to get into a debate on this topic. Conspiracy theorists like you are great at digging up little snippets of information to prove your point. Not so great at finding corroborating evidence or checking basic facts.
Idiot.
If you don’t understand the Middle Ages leap forward, or the huge impact the hotter climate had on the relative prosperity of the period, you’re not worth talking to.
The late stone age, millennia earlier, is a totally different issue.
But then, so many of the Green Religion have tried to avoid that middle age warming period because it shows quite clearly that the earth’s climate has regularly gone through phases like the one we’re now experiencing.
Enough. I’ve seen all your references and they are all highly debatable. And if you can’t even acknowledge that temperatures have been static for over a decade – God, even a leading member of the IPCC came out and admitted it recently – then you’re clearly caught up in dogma rather than looking at evidence.