And the winner is… the sponsor

Bravo, Robin.

You have managed to insult the integrity of everyone involved with the MADC – the organisers, the agencies who enter and the judges with your bordering-on-libellous piece.

We are proud to support our local industry and stand alongside the other MADC sponsors (who include DDB and The Age) in promoting the growth of creativity in Melbourne.

Naturally, we request the sponsorship of categories in which we are strong – why wouldn’t we? We had a number of our creatives on the judging panels (and yes, all judges abstain from voting on work that comes from their agency, whether they actually worked on it or not) and I have asked them if they knew who was sponsoring which category. They confirmed there was nothing of the sort even mentioned during the judging process.

To suggest that we were in some way ‘buying’ our wins in those categories is pure tabloid scuttlebutt. The work that won at Friday night’s ceremony has also been recognised in other award shows – both locally and internationally. Obviously, it must be pretty good work. Or maybe our bribery budget is even bigger than you imagined.

There’s an old French proverb: Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe

Literally translated, it means “The dogs bark, the caravan passes by”. I think it’s particularly apt in this instance.

And I can hug or cradle whomever the hell I want.

Biggsy.

Onya Biggsy!

If I didn’t know better, I would have sworn this looks like another Patts propaganda piece. It will be interesting if there is any trace between Patts and this independent professional journalist.

Lets see…

Attack on Clemenger – tick
Conspiracy theory – tick
Veiled Patts reference – tick

Nice play.

Hi Robin,
Being an MADC committee member the problem is really getting the sponsors. It would be great if there so much competition it was not possible for Clemenger BBDO to sponsor so many categories. Maybe a couple of those agencies you spoke to on the night could address the balance by becoming category sponsors.

As someone who often writes about this sort of thing myself, i’m happy to wade into this one. The old ‘other people mentioned it to me’ thing is always a bit dangerous depending on who those ‘other people’ are… no doubt people from other agencies, and no doubt ones who didn’t win as much as clems did.

I think making the observation that it’s kind of weird when a sponsor wins in their own category is actually fair enough because it IS kind of weird. But where you go from there with that observation is up to you. and i reckon Peter is right to feel a bit bummed about the tone of the original article.

not being from melbourne i’m not up to speed with the Patts boycott, but no doubt, if other agencies had done better work the “results would have been different” as well.

That said, awards are traditionally often a fairly bitchy affair anyway, aren’t they? never been to one in my life where everyone went home happy and no-one felt ripped off (including myself more than once or twice by the way) so that’s the nature of these things i guess.

At the end of the day, clems get the silverware and that’s what’s remembered. or perhaps it’s the great work that’s remembered anyway, regardless of what it does and doesn’t win? well done clems. (and no, i don’t work there. yes, i did work at a clems many years ago. yes, i got fired. and no, i don’t know any really cool French proverbs. in fact, i hope they lose the World Cup.)

Maybe Clemms should have had a media agency evaluate the benefits of this sponsorship.

It does feel a bit messy, which is a shame because I would suggest that Clemms deserve all the praise they received for some great work, but would have been better if it didn’t sound as though they were giving themselves the awards.

The odd part isn’t that Clemenger BBDO picked up awards in categories that it sponsored, the odd part is how many companies didn’t sponsor the awards.

I agree Mumbrella did choose words that suggested some kind of buy-in from Clemenger. Suggesting the correlation was a ‘bit odd’ and ‘cosy’ is not the same as ‘ironic’ or ‘coincidental’.

I’m wondering if Tim is aware that these articles that are typically pushing the boundaries of fair journalism are from this one reporter?

Well done Biggsy. An innocuously titled item on the far side of Mumbrella’s web page that barely anyone had bothered to read before you decided to get all huffy.

Then Campaign Brief dutifully amplifies your testy response and bob’s your uncle, you have yourself an indignant shitstorm.

Anyone who has exited the lift in Clemenger’s reception would have noticed a veritable shrine to Mr Lynch.

From Mumbrella’s pov, It was a pure observation by a first time attendee. Clems has undeniably been a great supporter of the MADC but perhaps this year, it might have been smarter to take the corporate branding off so many individual awards and say, have sponsored the beers, or the lunch boxes, or the entertainment.

You did not have to plaster the Clemenger name over all those awards. There are ways to demonstrate the support you have shown. Your PR people should have flagged the potential of this looking like overkill.

Or would that have been a conflict?

Hug it out fellas.

Just a thought.

And this simply gave fuel to the fire for Campaign Brief.

Come on guys, why do you all have to fight each other? I enjoy both blogs, but I don’t enjoy you all childishly attacking each other and stirring the pot for the sake of viewer loyalty.

Odd yes.

I can’t think of another industry where sponsors are eligible to win the prizes.

Can anyone else suggest one?

I don’t see this as indicating inappropriate conduct, I just see it as a failure of the industry to attract external sponsors and interest.

Looking forward to seeing mumbrella Sponsor a category next year.

The bigger issue with the MADC awards is simply the judging. There are campaign pieces winning Lions and other international awards prior to MADC. Yet, come MADC night, those genuinely great pieces of work that are internationally recognised, simply dont win…..

Agencies sponsoring award categories they have work in is never going to go down well. It is, weird.

perhaps MADC should review its sponsorship structure and judging panel selection process & judging criteria.

nuff said.

I don’t work in the industry so I am pretty clueless about the dyanmics and politics behind the scenes, but I am 100% sure that this is… odd.

Biggsy can give us all the reassurances he wants, but the conflict of interest is there. The only way to avoid it is not to participate in the categories that are sponsored. It’s that simple.

I find Biggsy’s response over the top, naive and unnecessarily aggressive.

I think Biggy’s reply is justified. And I agree with Anne (#9).

Robin/Mumbo – you’re a journalist right?

How about picking up the phone (or sending a 2 sentence email) and get a comment from the person or organisation you making assumptions about before publishing?

Down down, the quality of this blog is down.

Sam G,

It’s not a news story – why does he have to get a comment before expressing an opinion?

I’ve just followed your link to your Twitter feed/ blog. You seem to express lots of opinions yourself without “picking up the phone (or sending a 2 sentence email) and get a comment from the person or organisation”. What’s the difference?

@yeehaw – you’re right, it isn’t news, its editorial. Even more reason to get it right.

And don’t even try to compare a media business lime Mumbrella (blog or news website, or whatever term suits you) that lives and dies by its content versus my personal social media account.

Troll.

Sam,

Or indeed a business like Crikey.

Did you call News Limited for a comment before writing this for them: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/.....alia-memo/