In the wake of the DDB WWF fallout, One Show promised 5 year punishment and now the D&AD have followed suit, sorta. D&AD has always weeded fake ads, but now they've upped the ante by stating that the Executive Creative Director has to validate each entry. Which yaknow, they should've done in the first place (will this kill the 'individuals' entry?)
D&AD President Paul Brazier and CEO Tim O'Kennedy have a joint blogpost stating: (after the jump)
We have always had strict rules concerning eligibility at the Awards and have been rigorous where scam ads are concerned. We ask our juries to be vigilant and to identify work to us if they have any concerns about its validity. Every item thus identified has been investigated by the Awards team and referred to our Executive Committee if necessary. D&AD maintains the right to exclude any fraudulent entries, along with the entering agency, from that and subsequent D&AD Awards shows, and will continue to enforce those rights vigorously. Work must have been produced in response to a genuine brief and be approved and paid for by the client. Works created solely for the purpose of entering competitions are not eligible.
For the 2010 and future D&AD awards shows, the Executive Creative Director or an equivalent officer of the entrant company will be required to validate the eligibility of every item, ensuring that work does not slip through without their knowledge. A plea of ignorance is not an acceptable defence.
AdAge asks; Brit Award Show to 'Name and Shame,' but Not Ban, Ad Scammers -- Is That Going Far Enough? and get this fine quote from Chris Arnold:
A lot of people in this industry have relied on scam ads for their fame and fortune. What we need is for all the big awards shows to get together and create a blanket policy. The incentives to win awards are too high, so you need to be heavy on punishment if you want to weed out scam ads."
He also suggests two year bans, as if he's paid close attention to the DognPony scam ad punishment post.
While it is all fine and dandy that extra checks are in place to prevent award winning scams, asking the ECD to sign off on ads seems a little toothless, since he's probably already signed off on running said ad once in the hopes of an award. It would be more powerful if for each entry the D&AD contacted the client. After all, it is the clients who have brought a lot of scams to our attention before - see Amnesty the Cannes Lions winner, The Jesus ad for Samsung SL310W that FP7 won awards with without having the client, The Leo Burnett Luxor ads - again without having the client and odd cases like The JC Penny dressing down ad which the production company submitted, but the Saatchi client had decided not to run.
Previous DDB Hoopla on Adland:
Twin towers 911 in advertising. Not new, so why the backlash this time?
DDB Worldwide CEO apologizes | One show banned scam ads | WWF 911 ad still bad
The DDB / WWF 911 / Tsunami commercial kerfluffle recap post.
Should DDB still be ad agency of the year? Yes, since the WWF approved the ad.
DDB Brazil did make a commercial for WWF 911 / Tsunami - it was submitted to Cannes Lions 2009.
DDB Brazil 911/Tsunami ad gets one hundred angry comments at Adfreak (updated, yet again)
Other Blogs on this topic: