Agencies considering pulling out despite Campaign Brief apology; Questions arise around ‘pay to play’ model
The industry erupted this week after trade forum Campaign Brief released the latest edition of The Work, with the spread showcasing a clear lack of diverse representation across the board. As the industry reflects, questions are beginning to emerge around the publication’s ‘pay to play’ policy. While the forum’s publisher, Michael Lynch, and industry body, the Advertising Council of Australia, have finally spoken out, some agencies are asking if it is too late, as they consider cutting their relationships with Campaign Brief.
By now, I’m sure we’ve all seen the lists which appear to celebrate the best advertising work across Asia, Australia and Aotearoa. The double-page spread in question from The Work 2024, Campaign Brief’s annual award show, showcased the Australian winners with headshots of the agency CCOs and production leaders.
But with the double-page spread featuring zero women, and the most recent BestAds ranking lists of Top Creatives, ECDs and CDs featuring just one woman, the enormous issue of the lack of diversity in creative leadership really shines through.
All award shows are pay to play. It’s called Entry Fees.
Are we going to see these same agencies boycott Cannes?
We’re discussing the lack of women, but why is there little discussion about the poor representation of those from black or Asian backgrounds in the industry? That’s just the diversity we can see. How many, say, are gay, have mobility issues or come from remote areas or poorer households? How many have mental illnesses that make work difficult?
This is a great example of why many people don’t like the inclusion movement. Everyone, I’d argue, wants a world where you progress through merit or talent, but the diversity movement can come across as very fake. It seems more concerned with looking good or promoting on-trend issues, rather than making a fairer world for all, regardless of background.
Finally, we talk about mental health and wellbeing, but where’s the concern for those that wrote the article? Are they monsters who deserve to be shamed and destroyed publically? Is this really the right, and most constructive, approach?
@Ad Critic – At least with Cannes etc., any agency that wants to enter pays the same fee and are judged by a panel of peers. Still not perfect, but at least paying more doesn’t mean a higher chance of “winning”.
How Best Ads works.
1. Whenever an agency does some work, something they like, they can upload it for free onto Best Ads.
2. Each week the publisher of Best Ads along with a chosen creative director from around the world select the best 6 ads uploaded that week.
3. Those ads are then written about and awarded a ‘Bestad’
The more good work you publish, then the more chance you have of being selected. Just about every one of the worlds best agencies are on this site and compete each week.
In order to make money Best Ads encourages agencies to take out subscriptions allowing deeper usage of the Bestads database. These subscriptions are about $100 each. But I don’t think they have anything to do with what work is or is not selected.
The hot cold list has looked fishy for ages…. a very unflattering picture is forming. A boys club scratching each others backs.
Lets see 1: More transparency. 2. Not just a celebration of faux diversity… but actual diversity.
So the creative agencies are punishing CB for accidentally holding the mirror up… now they want to turn the lights out. No change coming soon.
The state of the industry isn’t the fault of CB, but their Pay to Play model really needs a do-over.
I’ve been highly (HIGHLY) critical of Camapign Brief’s Pay to Play model when it comes to more (paid) editorial coverage = more points = higher rank in the BestAds lists, and the complete lack of transparency that this is the way it works. The BestAds list is more reflective of an agency’s budget and resources, not great and effective advertising. And worse, it’s presented to the world as a guide to which agencies brands should use if they want results.
Let’s see if my comment makes it onto this forum, becuase the last 2 times I’ve criticied CB’s BestAds, Mumbrella has jettisoned me from the comments.
The Australian BestAds list has the exact same top 10 names at the Spikes Asia and One Show top 10 rankings.
Very narrow sighted to see this as a Campaign Brief issue.
Also Mumbrella didn’t you just have 3 senior males review creative this week? Where’s your consideration.
Screenshotted this comment submission in case it doesn’t get published
Awards are a bit different people know about the fee and that it’s fully disclosed – before this week how many people knew every story on Campaign Brief was paid for content… bet you a lot of clients didn’t.
Does anyone have any visibility on judging criteria and why the rankings ended up the way they did? Diversity is an outcome of opportunity, not an objective in itself.
On the surface, it looks horrible, but yet to hear anyone say who should replace who?
The quantifiability of creative value or output or ideas is the issue here.
Where is Josh Faulks and Tony Hale on the lack of disclosure issue re pay to play??? Is the self regulatory regime really comfortable with the fact their member agencies are flouting the rules that we clients have to follow on a daily basis? How is this ok?
Ive yet to see a man do better than a woman in the same role outside of long lunches and overpromising without seeing if the team can actually achieve. “The best candidates emerge” mmm do they though?