Saatchi & Saatchi won a Cannes Bronze Lion over the weekend for their racy JC Penney Speed Dressing commercial. Everyone congratulated the agency for the win except the client because they never approved the spot!
J.C. Penney Co. officials are upset about a racy, fake advertisement on YouTube in which the retailer appears to be endorsing teen sex, and they are blaming the company's ad agency, Saatchi & Saatchi.
Scam ads win in Cannes again. Tut tut.
I'm surpised that it's Saatchi. I guess the rumor about the "fake floor" at Saatchi, New York is true then. I didn't want to believe that being an ex-saatchi gal - god knows we would never get away with even thinking that at my old Saatchi (not NYC). Times change though.
- reply
PermalinkSaatchi NYC are world famous for scam ads, even toppling Singapore off the top spot, shortly followed by India.
- reply
PermalinkI thought India held the top spot!
Sniff
- reply
PermalinkNow that you've alerted us to the Luxor campaign being a scam, India gets to share the top spot.
- reply
PermalinkTo add to that, I can't fathom why a real client would place their brand in their hands, knowing that they create fake ads for the money you pay them to create real ads.
- reply
PermalinkPerhaps the clients simply don't know Saatchi's recent reputation?
- reply
PermalinkFave comment from YouTube:
"That's great, promoting teen sex is certainly a good way to sell the JCPenny brand. Whatever, Penny's clothes suck shit, I would never shop there."
Now, I don't know the brand well enough to say whether that's true, but sure made me laugh. Is it any worse than this:
Personally, I don't see a problem with either - we all know teenagers have sex ffs.
- reply
PermalinkThe following statement is being issued on behalf of Saatchi & Saatchi:
“Saatchi & Saatchi has a long history of producing principled and respectful advertising for JCPenney and its entire client roster. The Speed Dressing TV commercial, which was submitted to the 2008 International Advertising Festival at Cannes, was created by a third party vendor without JCPenney's knowledge or consent. It was produced and released to the public without any knowledge or prior approval from JCPenney. Saatchi & Saatchi did not enter the spot and deeply regrets the message this ad presents. Saatchi & Saatchi apologizes to JCPenney, its associates and its customers. The commercial is being removed from public circulation.”
- reply
PermalinkAH,so Saatchi's name got in credits at The Cannes Lions Bronze film winner category, because the production company that Saatchi hired entered the ad? Credits as listed at Cannes Lions:
- reply
PermalinkFrom the self-same credits:
Synopsis
Two teens practice putting their clothes on quickly in anticipation of making out in the basement later.
Making out? More like hooking up. (Or just plain [or fancy] sex to most older folk).
- reply
PermalinkMaybe Saatchi can do some editing and resubmit the ad as a PSA against Teen Pregnancy Pacts?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pregnancy20-2008jun20,0,7743786.story
- reply
PermalinkHehe. Oh, and here's arstechnica's take on it: JC Penney wants nothing to do with free viral advertising
- reply
PermalinkSo piecing together the clues, it is likely that a) Saatchi wrote the script or worked on it in some way b) hired Epoch films to shoot it and c) probably showed JCpenney what a clever agency they are, but had the idea rejected by JCPenny. So, the ad never made it to air, but made it to Cannes.
See why we need a spec work category? It's a really nice piece of film done by Epoch and they should be allowed to compete with work they have done even though the client nixed it. The spec work category could even swap out brand names (to generics) to prevent pissing off real clients.
DiGennaro Communications is going around every blog swearing of Saatchi's innocence.
- reply
PermalinkI think a spec work category would still need to have a brand name in it, otherwise if it was generics, we'd see more and more Badlanders.
And that's almost as bad as scams winning Cannes. [Pardon the rhyme there.]
- reply
Permalink