Creator of Kia pedophilia ad is the same as creator of WWF 9/11 ad

 
 

Creator of Kia pedophilia ad is the same as creator of WWF 9/11 ad

So, while I thought it was rather obvious that this wasn't signed off by a client in "file under not surprised", and DMVawter posted "Cannes Lions pedophilia ad: Demand a retraction or demand a refund." ... we're not quite done with this one yet. Lets poke at it with this here stick one more time.

The credits for the KIA ad according to this years Cannes Lions fest:


Advertising Agency: MOMA PROPAGANDA Sao Paulo, BRAZIL
Chief Creative Officer: Rodolfo Sampaio
Executive Creative Director: Rodolfo Sampaio
Creative Director: Rodolfo Sampaio
Art Director: Marco Martins
Copywriter: Adriano Matos
Advertiser's Supervisor: Christiane Baptista
Account Manager: Marco Piza
Illustrator: Quanta Estudio

WWF 9/11 Tsunami
The credits for the scandalous WWF ad, which I've already told you it reminded me about according to the Clios awards 2009:
Agency: DDB Brasil
Title of Ad: Tsunami
Advertiser/Client: WWF Brasil
Product or Service: Environmental Awareness
Executive Creative Director: Sergio Valente, Rodolfo Sampaio, Julio Andery
Creative Director: Sergio Valente, Rodolfo Sampaio, Julio Andery, Guilherme Jahara
Copywriter: Adriano Matos, Rodolfo Sampaio
Art Director: Guilherme Jahara

I heard from someone in Brazil that salaries (and jobs) depend on the amount of awards one can drag into the agency. This may or may not be true. The pattern with what happened with the WWF ad and this ad is much the same though. Ad is made, ad enters awards, ad is seen by American eyes. US Brand HQ spend massive amounts of time putting out the fires... Meanwhile in Brazil..?

The WWF scandal ended with One Show Banning scam ad entries for five years if they entered ghost ads. What will happen this time? And why does it keep happening?

Adland: 

Comments

I'm starting to think I should just enter in ads we created that are outside the eligibility time frame since the ads at least ran...

This is ridiculous. Stupid people (or worse, perverted ones) will always try to get away with this bs, but aren't the judges issued guidelines to filter out this kind of glory-seeking claptrap? Come to think of it, are there no minimum requirements for judges? A) Do you have your own head? B) Does it work? C) Do you occasionally interface with reality?

I could go on. You get the picture. Cannes Lions 2011. Year of the Perv.

The insanity of this as a business model would appear obvious but I have heard that some of the network agencies evaluate performance at a fairly senior level based on the same measures. So the question that needs to be raised at the highest level is, what is the trade off between the alleged value of being able to recruit hot shot creatives, the feel-good factor when your agency hauls in a bunch of hardware at these shows, the glowing press in the trades etc etc, versus the damage the Kia, WWF and related smaller incidents we don't ever hear about do to our reputation as an industry?

In other words, what would you think about a law firm that submitted joke briefs to the court in the name of a client that had no idea it was being done? Or a surgeon who performed some completely unnecessary procedure because it was "edgy?"

As an industry we complain incessantly that clients don't listen. That they don't take our counsel. That they have given away our "seats at the big table" to consultants. That they don't want to pay us what our ideas are worth.

Wonder why?

What the boys in Brazil did to Kia, whether they were a party to it or not, was nothing short of malpractice. And if we say it doesn't matter, if we don't take that sort of thing seriously, then we might as well say that our business is one not to be taken seriously.

Maybe you can get this discussed more widely. It's long overdue.

@caff I'm pretty sure that someone has had to return an award for created / run outside of the eligibility time in the past.

Oh, I'm sure. I was trying to be funny (FAIL there) about not playing by the rules. ;)

I totally know you were, I was just thinking - hasn't that happened. We've seen good work stripped of awards for minor things, but Ghosts ads seem to get away with it. Or...?

You are dangerous, Dabitch

A good kind of dangerous...

The thing that angers me when I see stuff like this is that there are plenty of us who play by the rules, who only submit REAL work, and if none of the real work we've done is good enough, then we don't enter. Why? Because we have respect and love for our profession, and for the festival itself.
But that doesn't seem to be the case, even among the judges of these festivals. Do you really expect me to believe that the judges saw this and said "Oh, I'm sure this was real, I don't question it at all"? Give me a fucking break. Thanks to the asshole who entered this piece, someone else who entered probably a very decent piece and who played by the rules, got cheated out of an award that he/she deserved because they gave it to this clown.
Cannes itself doesn't seem to care that the reputation of the festival is going down the toilet. They refuse to punish offenders and cheaters with consequences. When the Mexican Scrabble piece that *almost* won a GP in print got revoked because the piece had been entered the year before as well, that agency (and any agency that breaks the rules) should have been banned from the festival for a couple years. Second time offenders 5 years. Third time offenders should be barred from entering again. But no, that same agency that cheated the year before, cheated **again** as you reported here:

http://bit.ly/lnzoEz

And it even took home some metals. I can't help but question the authenticity of all of their pieces now. Sorry, but they've earned that reputation.

One Show and D&AD Awards have implemented more strict rules precisely because of fiascos like these. Cannes doesn't seem to care much.

I've never understood some of these people either. The biggest reason why I wanted to go into advertising, was because I wanted to see my work on the streets, on TV, in the magazines, etc. I wanted people to see it and to affect their thinking. I never dreamed of doing my "best" work so that it would never be seen by the target audience but only by the eyes of a few festival judges and ad peers. What the hell is the point of that? What satisfaction and gratification do you get, winning something that you cheated at getting and that gets you no respect, but scorn from your peers? It's absurd.

The real glory, comes from the public reacting and noticing your work, not from a roomful of judges

I have never won a Lion in Cannes as of yet. But if I ever do, I have these idiots to thank for really making it seem like an accomplishment that won't be so great anymore.

Now, I have no hard evidence to accuse anyone of anything, but given the track record, one can't be blamed for questioning someone's credibility. This same Brazilian CD who did the spots above (Rodolfo Sampaio), also won a Gold Lion in outdoor in 2007 for this piece:

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/arno_blender_bush

Ads of the world mistakenly lists as it winning print, but it won outdoor (how you can expect to read an outdoor ad with that size headline is beyond me, but that's beside the point) as you can see in the official winners list:

http://www.canneslions.com/downloads/winners_pdfs/Cannes_Lions_2007_Outd...

Which, oddly enough, looks A LOT like this ad which was done the year before:

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/milenio_diario_bush

Coincidence? Maybe. I suppose anything is possible. But if you start building for yourself a reputation for cheating, perhaps you should always be presumed guilty until proved otherwise.

Cannes is one of the business world's great boondoggles, and from experience I can say it's a very pleasant one. As long as Sir Martin and his peers are willing to pony up the pounds to keep it running, that's great. But what isn't great is when scam work like the Kia ad, or the above, which is damaging on any number of levels, is lauded primarily for its ability to offend, and pushes out work done on behalf of real clients that took not only ingenuity to create but courage to sell. Unfortunately that situation will not change unless people start voting with their wallets, which is why I suggested those who lost out to the Kia Pedo-thon work demand their entry fees be returned. It's not too late!

Cannes will really only pay attention when the major agencies decided to boycott and not enter. Both the creative (semi) independents like Goodby, Wieden and Crispin plus at least one major holding company need to finally say "We're not wasting out money losing out to scam."

Only then will Cannes really do something about it.

Yep. Get me Martin Sorrell on the line.

I have his email if you're serious. ;)

Hey, why not.

Does he know you have it? ;)

Yes. We've exchanged. (doesn't mean he knows who on earth he was talking to, but the name "Dabitch" did not phase him ;) )

This is why you are dangerous.

Submitted by Dabitch on 30. June 2011 - 8:06.
I totally know you were, I was just thinking - hasn't that happened. We've seen good work stripped of awards for minor things, but Ghosts ads seem to get away with it. Or...?

Submitted by Neo on 30. June 2011 - 10:19.
You are dangerous, Dabitch

A friendly acknowledgment of skills.

Submitted by AnonymousCoward (not verified) on 30. June 2011 - 13:10.
The thing that angers me when I see stuff like this is that there are plenty of us who play by the rules, who only submit REAL work, and if none of the real work we've done is good enough, then we don't enter.
(..)
The real glory, comes from the public reacting and noticing your work, not from a roomful of judges
(..)

Submitted by AnonymousCoward (not verified) on 30. June 2011 - 13:13.
A good kind of dangerous...

A thoughtful remark followed by an afterthought adding to the above remark on skill at seeing past the hype and presenting a clear description of the situation.

Submitted by Dabitch on 1. July 2011 - 16:06.
Yes. We've exchanged. (doesn't mean he knows who on earth he was talking to, but the name "Dabitch" did not phase him ;) )

Submitted by AnonymousCoward (not verified) on 1. July 2011 - 17:28.
This is why you are dangerous.

17:28 hrs comment is a dig on 16:06 hrs comment from out of the blue -- Lurking Troll.

The only dangerous situation I see is the acceptance of "rules are made to be broken". Publishing the full story of an abuse of a client's goodwill and the rules of a contest is a perfect check on misplaced greed. Transparency makes the business of advertising less of a flimflam in the eyes of the public.

fairuse, this is funny, the timestamps are relative to your timezone, just FYI. I don't see the same ones.

But:

The only dangerous situation I see is the acceptance of "rules are made to be broken".

I think many here agree on that. Don't get me wrong, many are, but scam/ghosts/hoax shine a bad light on an industry which already has a skeevy reputation in the eyes of man-on-the-street.

Timezones? Yep. Was having a bit of fun while getting thoughts in order. That hanging out in Vegas made me a bit more scatterbrained than usual. Looking for the photo of "disney-vegas" billboard hell at the moment. My eyes hurt thinking about them.

I expect that the job is removed already. Due to the obvious reasons:

From an agency point of view: The amount of time and money we spend on entering real jobs made for clients, based on real briefs, jobs that have been approved, jobs we have sold – is huge. It should be obvious that the competition should completely free from essays, ideas from the drawer, and fictive campaigns. Just out of respect for the real work that made it to the competition it should be removed. I guess that disappointment from the agencies that entered in that category makes them act. Loosing to a fictive idea must be completely unacceptable.

From a creative point of view:
If the competition opens up for drawer ideas, what’s the point of competing, anyone can come up with a good idea..

From an award show point of view:
We have in CCA seen cheats and fictive work entered, and always removed the work immediately, and never been in a situation where cheats were repeated, if the job is removed, and the award given the the worthy, the case should be over.

@dasmussen – head of Creative Circle Award Jury and CD, (HK) JWT CPH

THIS:

Just out of respect for the real work that made it to the competition it should be removed.

I'll see if I can get a hold of anyone tomorrow, this silence is disturbing.

Add new comment

Top