Agencies won’t say where Cannes Lions award-winning print ads ran
Two creative agencies behind Cannes Lions winning print advertising campaigns have been unable to answer questions about where they ran, with one citing client confidentiality and the other not answering.
Mumbrella asked about the work after questions were raised by readers about whether it had run. Advertising tracking service Ebiquity was unable to find any record of the ads having run in the mainstream press.
Why be secretive about if it was an ad and it won an award? All very strange.
I’m glad Maccas cleared it all up. I think they just sold me a burger in the mean time.
I think we all know why they’re being secretive.
And, yes, McDonald’s, we understand the campaign – we’re asking you to specifically explain where it ran and when.
Or did it run on the side of a coke vending machine in India.
C’mon people, you’re bigger than this.
If the only work you get produced (for real) is shit, just live with it. Don’t pretend otherwise.
Faarken typical, I thought advertising was about generating revenue for clients products & services, how did it end up where it is today?
Because obviously the ad never ran!
The McDonald’s Ad by DDB is very, incredibly clever and wonderful. However, upon second inspection, it appears that it is not to the brand guidelines. For F’s sake, it doesn’t even have the McDonald’s logo on the comms piece. Terrible.
To be honest, I think I would have remembered the press/outdoor ads by McDonald’s if they did ever run. And I had never ever seen them til I saw them on Mumbrella/industry sites.
I think agencies should have their awards / entries disqualified for this, because although it’s a brilliant idea, if the public hasn’t even seen it – because it never even ran, then it defeats its bloody purpose!!!
Still Congrats to DDB Syd & Saatchi’s Syd — amazing work. Now… if only the client will buy it and invest in the media to run/promote it. I guess you can’t have everything.
If it didn’t run, it shouldn’t win (let alone enter). No debate. Period.
Surely the entry details have to say where (or if) the advertisement ran?
Mumbrella may be covering it’s backside by saying ‘However, Mumbrella is not suggesting this was the case on these occasions’ but it is a technicality only. Mumbrella IS actually ‘suggesting’ this is the case by the way this is reported and most people will be thinking this I would claim.
The secretiveness is not always a direct correlation though. Some agencies and clients don’t like to engage with publications in this way (Mumbrella and Campaign Brief especially). Some agency staff are directed not to engage specifically because of the tonality of the journalism and I feel it perpetuates the type of journalism that is at play here.
Sadly a silence can be misconstrued at times, and isn’t necessarily proving Mumbrella’s point at all. It may well be a scam, but don’t assume it is by association alone and a lack of response. Just sayin…
How many award winners come out of “solving a client brief” these days.
why not just say they are scam ads Tim?
And IF they have appeared they are already in the public domain so hardly confidential
Why bullshit bullshitters? What a waste of an article.
This article is just down right spiteful. Way to go mumbrella, you just blew open the biggest industry secret of the decade. Cannes awards scam ads? Who would thunk.
Well burger me!
Why are you asking the creative agency anyway? It’s the media agency that would have placed the ads.
Lets get to the point behind this story – Mumbrella questioned whether it ran as it couldn’t see though its investigation it had. This raises the question of eligibility to win, so –
Has or will Mumbrella raise this with the Festival Organisers?
Theres a difference between legitimate concern and idle headline grabs.
What’s it going to be?
Hi anonymous,
Yes, our journalist reached out to the Lions yesterday afternoon. We’ll let you know their response.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Scam ads are what students have in their books because they have no choice. It’s pathetic of agencies to do this.
And come on @Marketer who loves creativity, they’re one-off print executions, not exactly great ideas.
Regardless of whether or not they ran, the fact that they win a Cannes lion at all is the real problem
This is the kind of story irrelevant story that makes this publication come across as petty and whiny, and needlessly having a cracker at good people who work hard (“What’s wrong with BMF” also comes to mind). Keep up the good work guys!
How is it fair to question whether an agency has actually run the work just because they don’t bother to return a call or email from you or your “journalists” IN SIX HOURS? The only reason they eventually did, I imagine, is because you typically run spiteful articles that imply they’re cheaters if they don’t get back to you. They’ve got no obligations to respond to you straight away or at all for that matter. Personally I can’t stand looking at your smug face, so no, I definitely don’t want to have a conversation with you and to justify my work like you’re some sort of higher power. You do this every year just to grab headlines and it’s a load of bull shit. You’ve done this to me before, and because I couldn’t respond IN A DAY (I happened to be over in Cannes) you then implied my work was scam, when in actual fact it had run in over 10 publications. Get your facts right. Do some digging. Start acting like a real journalist. Instead of a fucking gossip magazine. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. P.S. if these ads haven’t ran legitimately or in small spaces (I personally don’t know), it really doesn’t bother me. With almost 200 shortlisted campaigns from China, hundreds more through Asia and questionable ones in South America – why not give all them a phone call and support our local industry. Unfortunately print and poster has become a bit of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Hence our slim pickings. But please, carry on your detective work.
Hi Sick Of This,
I’m not sure where you get six hours from. As we stated in the article, our journalist first asked about where the ads ran more than 24 hours prior to publication. If we’d felt there was a reasonable likelihood of getting a straight answer we’d have been happy to wait longer. There was certainly no indication of this – it is now more than three days later and we still haven’t had that answer.
You’re right that they have no obligations to respond to our questions. But when you enter a global competition, to which the press are invited (we’ve had two journalist in Cannes for the last week), you sign up for the scrutiny that goes with that if you win. I’d content that the main reason for entering awards such as this is for the the attention and credibility they bestow.
I see from your comment that you are suggesting you are currently in Cannes. You haven’t identified yourself, so it’s hard to tell for sure, but certainly the IP address you are posting from seems to suggest otherwise.
I see that you variously claim that your work ran “in over 10 publications”, and later in the comment that you “personally don’t know” where it ran. Which is it?
As we stated at the end of the article, if either of the agencies referred to in the article wants to share the information on where the ads ran, then we’ll be happy to update the article. If there’s a straightforward answer, I’m not sure why it would take so long to get it.
As to “supporting our local industry”, as I said, we’ve sent two of our journos to Cannes. They’ve written a string of stories celebrating Australia’s many legitimate winners this week. That doesn’t mean they should turn a blind eye when questions are raised by our readers – which they were on this occasion.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hi Tim,
I don’t actually work for these two companies or have anything to do with this work and I’m not in Cannes. I simply stated that I’ve been at Cannes before when you’ve questioned the legitimacy of my work, all because I “wouldn’t return your calls” – and you were wrong. My whole point is “journalism” should be based on facts, of which it seems you have none here. I have no idea whether these ads ran. All I’m saying is have proof before you fling mud, otherwise you’re nothing more than a trashy gossip mag that thrives on speculation.
Have a nice week.
Hi Sick Of This,
Thanks for the clarification. You’d need to be a bit more specific about the previous incident you refer to. I can think of only one similar incident I was personally involved in writing about (by “you” do you mean me personally, or the Mumbrella reporting team as a whole?) and I remain entirely comfortable in my coverage of that.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
These sorts of questions are what the industry needs.
Any update with what the Lions said Tim?
Ummm Tim, you may wish to read SICK OF THIS’ post again. It’s you who has multiple facts wrong. It’s clear that he’s referring to an instance in the past. Your post sounds rather silly.
Tim, can this be the last time Mumbrella uses the term ‘reached out to’? It’s a terrible American affectation and I believe that the term ‘sought comment from’ is more than adequate.
Point taken, Slave For Love, point taken.
I don’t know what I was thinking…
(By the way, I’ve renewed our seeking-of-comment from Cannes Lions this morning. Nothing yet.)
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Scannes.
This one actually did run in 2009.
http://www.businessandleadersh.....for-owensd
think Mumbrella is right to raise questions on any previously unknown/unseen work that wins a major award.
Cannes bonuses are written into many KPIs these days, so sadly “scam” ads will continue to proliferate.
I can’t wait to see the Effies case studies for these two.
@DMC it seems that imitation really IS the sincerest form of flattery.
Nice detective work DMC. So the Panasonic ads have been done before and, it appears, scooped plenty of metal. Shame on the Cannes organisers and jurors for not picking up on it.
As for McDonald’s – could it have been that the print ads were concepts that were part of the deck when the team first presented the campaign to the client but because OMD don’t plan and buy print for McDonald’s they was left out. Then at some point the client perhaps relented to agency begging and let it run somewhere inexpensive so that it could be submitted???
Please McDonald’s clients, tell us what the real deal is?
Look at the McDonald’s ads then look at the art direction of the Gold Lion winning Dixons print out of M and C London at Cannes 2011.
They were art directed by the acclaimed Graham Fink.
Any update from either Cannes or the agencies?
Hi Is there,
We are still working on it – we have contacted Cannes Lions again and are now in the process of seeking comment from the jury.
Cheers,
Miranda – Mumbrella
Award judges aren’t infallible when they award one.
Agencies are desperate and will do anything to win one.
There will always be some mid-level client foolish enough to cave in to agency pressure to endorse one.
Even if it’s exposed as a scam, nobody loses their job unless its in extreme bad taste or it infringes on copyright and lawyers get involved.
For scammers there are no downside to doing it but plenty of upside: fame, fortune, promotion, job offers.
Until someone gets sued, this will go on and on.
Did you ever find out where this ran?
I’m sure the jury will be bemused at your requests, given it’s pretty well recognised that the vast majority of winning print work (and a very high percentage of total entries) is solely created for entry purposes.
That’s why last year’s jury gave the GP to the iPad work, and this year to Harvey Nicks. On face value, they weren’t the best. But at least they were legit. It’s a struggle judging print and trying to find anything that doesn’t stink of fakery, it really is.
But good on you for giving it a crack though. It’s all become pretty silly.
Although you’d probably do better trying to find even a single piece of legit work from Brazil, rather than a couple of potentially scammy pieces from Oz. Those guys have seen Asia and raised them when it comes to fake work.
Does it make Lance Armstrong any less of a cheater just because he says ‘but everyone else was doing it’?
The real problem is when people pretend scam work isn’t. I really don’t know why the industry just looks the other way. They’ve been doing it for years. Some agencies are very bad offenders.
re: DDB comments that scam, in a small amount, is ok…
This is advertising, with the end goal of selling more, changing perceptions, influencing behaviours. None of that happens if it isn’t communicated beyond the Cannes four walls.
This ‘great work’ that we’re referring to, belongs more in an art gallery than an advertising awards forum.
If the agencies remain silent, maybe Mumbrella should ask the client listed on the credit.
We won’t get a straight answer from the embraced agency, that’s for sure.
So agencies who do ads just to win awards are really passing on the cost for this unpaid work to their clients. Hardly ethical?
Next time an agency pleads rising internal costs as an excuse to increase their time costs just ask them ‘how much do you spend on scams- creative man hours, production and media costs?’
This will shut the negotiations down fast.
why doesn’t someone call Anthony MacNamara at Panasonic?
So Maccas basically said to burger off.
How does it win best ad if it isn’t actually an ad?
@ Harpo – I’m sure Anthony MacNamara can tell you a few things, like maybe when your new Panasonic Plasma TV is being offloaded at the port seeming he’s the Director of Logistics but I’m pretty sure he can’t supply the answer to this question. It’ll eventually come to light that the ad ran once in some backwater publication like the Goondiwindi times. This is nothing new, I can pretty much circle a dozen winners of AWARD in the mid 80’s by an agency with a (moderated by Mumbrella as the clue to who they were talking about was a bit too obvious) individual that were either never presented or flatly rejected by clients.
I have read a few questionable articles in this publication, but this here is great journalism. Holding corporations accountable is certainly something we, as readers and active industry members should be supporting and vouching for. Well done Mumbrella and I honestly hope you get a legitimate response soon.
SCAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 🙂
If you ad guys spent as much time creating campaigns such as the two above, as you do trying to catch each other out and following rules, there would be much better work out there full stop.
Let the creativity flow, people. Let the creativity flow.