WINNING AWARDS VS. SELLING THE PRODUCT

So Marie Claire magazine ran a story (current issue) on shocking fashion and advertising images. The ad agency, NETWORK BBDO, got excited and pitched an idea to Marie Claire – an ad for Marie Claire on that very same topic. Marie Claire rejected the idea as it didn’t suit their brand. BBDO loved it regardless and they made it anyway.

They brought the final product back to Marie Claire who, once again, confirmed that they did not want it.Not before, not then, not ever.

As per Vanessa Raphaely’s blog, she felt they had “missed the point.”

Case in point:

6a00d83451aee269e20120a58d6d73970c-650wi[1]

So what did they do? They ran it anyway! Yup – the ad was published yesterday. But not for Marie Claire. Oh no.. They took it to a completely different company – CherryFlava to be exact. And you know where they ran the ad? I’ll tell you. They ran it in “The Voice” tabloid newspaper.

Have you ever read “The Voice” or similar? We’ve featured them before – or rather their lamp-post cardboard ads with headlines including “How To Pomp Like a Star” and “UFO Airport in Hout Bay.”

Essentially, they asked CherryFlava if they could attach their name to it. So they didn’t charge Cherryflava for the ad, they simply gave it to them – JUST to get it into the public domain.

Weird behaviour and a sad day for “traditional media,” and “traditional agencies,” I think you might agree?

This brings me straight back to a conversation I had recently about “scam ads” or “spec ads” – something that our South African advertising agencies are FAMOUS for. But not in a good way. I’m talking about ads that are made JUST to win awards. It is massively frowned upon overseas and our local guys are known to go as far as entering scam ads into awards without even the client knowing about it.

More focused on awards than selling the brand…. it’s not a new concept, but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it. It’s a touchy subject for the agencies, but for the man on the street it’s pretty hilarious what goes on in the agencies behind closed doors. They’re so consumed with winning awards they’ve forgotten their job is to connect with consumers and influence decision making.

I mean REALLY, is the brand here (CherryFlava) hitting the right target audience with The Voice ? This is how Cherryflava describes itself on their website:

Cherryflava is a world famous marketing company. This is our magazine dedicated to new trends emerging in business, marketing, advertising and design thinking – published daily from Cape Town.

How does that appeal to The Voice’s readership? Exactly – it doesn’t. It’s one thing for some random brand trying to get whatever exposure comes its way, but why would Cherryflava (a “world famous marketing company”) agree to attach its name to something so misdirected and incorrectly formulated and placed? Does that make them (“marketing experts”) look good to THEIR clients? No, it doesn’t. Unless, of course, you’re actually looking for a headless chicken to run with your brand?

Personally, I reckon they should be using this to promote House & Leisure magazine. Seriously – I’ve got actual tables like that at home, with real women. I don’t see what the big deal is. And no, I’m not exploiting women! The table-chicks at my place WANT to be there. I feed them and everything.

Read more about this shambles on cherryflava (here) and Associated Magazine’s Editorial Director, Vanessa Raphaely’s blog (here ).

19 Comments

Mark S

02 Sep 2009

Trad Ad Agecies have always believed they’d do much better work if the client would just get the fuck out the way. If you have ever sat through a viewing at Cannes Ad Festival and seen what these sel-important tossers think is great advertising you’d see how wrong they are. By the by – Cheeryflava is ‘World Famous’? – which world would that be?
Reply
Terry

02 Sep 2009

You hit it spot on, Seth and Mark S. Precisely why I left the industry. Can’t believe that BBDO story what a great example of the shame it has become.
Reply
Karel

02 Sep 2009

Ja Nee. I don’t agree with the “scam ads”, but by the same token I feel that Vanessa crossed a line. She has no right to comment on a “property” which her contractually-bound agency first presented to her. I know the honcho’s at Network Cape Town and this by no means a reflection on the agency, but rather the egos of over enthusiastic creatives who believe in their creation. I personally think that Vanessa is looking for web taffic to her blog.

It is a good ad by the way, let’s not be distracted by the commentary.
Reply
Rsvdog

02 Sep 2009

Worst add I’ve ever seen!
Reply
yoyo

02 Sep 2009

great picture though, i am sure u will agree
Reply
CT

02 Sep 2009

Guys I don’t see what the big fuss is about. This is Jon Cherry we’re talking about, the most unprofessional and unpopular person in Cape Town.

“World famous” and the only ads they’re running are Google? Puh-leeze! The current Google ads running there are for mobile spy, wow, that really helps the audience reading the website.

I mean, at the blog awards two years ago Jon forgot to mention one of the main sponsors of the event, very professional and caring.
Reply
Don

02 Sep 2009

I can’t believe people getting on their high horses over this? Firstly Raphaely is way out of line making this information public, and secondly, if a client hasn’t got the balls to use an ad that the agency is proud of and believes in then why shouldn’t they give it to someone else? Seth – do you really want the world to be filled with “client friendly” advertising? Being a smart guy I’m amazed that you’re siding with convention here. This is a good ad and marie claire missed a trick. Shame.
Reply
Zaid

02 Sep 2009

I think its an average ad but i doubt it would win any award so i don’t understand why the ad would be run as it would just piss off their current ,and bigger client Marie Claire.
Reply
City Slicker

02 Sep 2009

Just wondering why the model, Michelle Cowley, would agree to be photographed in this demeaning pose?
Reply
FooFunk

02 Sep 2009

UFO Airport in Hout Bay, hehe…more like Stoners In The Village
Reply
Mo

02 Sep 2009

Two points, none related to the print ad itself:

1. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, then car manufacturers should never produce spec cars. Or clothes designers Haute Couture.

2. I don’t understand why Ms Raphaely would consider it to be good business practice to castigate her own agency (in such a sarcastic manner) in the public sphere.
Reply
Rouvanne

02 Sep 2009

Well, if anything, it has worked far better than anyone expected with all the articles, comments and other whoo-ha… I think its a great shot, but it doesnt connect with Cherryflava. As for JC being the most unprofessional & unpopular person in CT… we have parliament here, so there is no way he can be!
Reply
Billy

02 Sep 2009

Rouvanne Says:
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 am

Classic! So so true.
Reply
Chris

02 Sep 2009

Top Ad, all I can say…
Reply
Ron

02 Sep 2009

Do you have any pics from different angles??
Reply
AI

02 Sep 2009

this is so old. think A Clockwork Orange, think Allen Jones. the production looks unbalanced. what you see is a model with a sheet of glass on her back – there’s nothing more. it doesn’t say anything. the agency must be dying a slow and painful death because, fuck me, they are scraping the barrel.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/123/c/AAAAAvH0ZBcAAAAAASPClA.jpg

http://traxus4420.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/abu-ghraib-coffee-table.jpg

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/424411845/499314.jpg
Reply
DSK

03 Sep 2009

I agree with AI, I have definitely seen it before and I think the agency is just trying to shock people. Boring.
Reply
james

03 Sep 2009

back to your old-school best, seth!!!
Reply
AI

03 Sep 2009

@DSK: if only it was shocking. but it’s just kak. Tuesday tabs are more shocking, so is putting a 9v battery to your tongue…
Reply