Scam: Or an ad by any other name

Self indulgent or creative R&D? You decide. Scam advertising has been called all these things and more. Read between the quotable quotes of most agency creatives and you will realise that scam advertising is gaining increasing legitimacy in the advertising industry, with the ad fraternity having no qualms in accepting the fact that creating ads with the sole purpose of winning awards is a legitimate annual exercise. But then, the very definition of scam advertising is one, which lends itself to various interpretations.

“I am completely against the idea of scam ads, by which I would mean ads, which are released without the prior consent of the client, or where the ad may be funded entirely by the agency with the sole aim of entering it for the awards,” remarks Arvind Sharma, CEO, Leo Burnett. However, Sharma thinks nothing wrong of entering a campaign, which has run probably only once for the awards, as long as the client and agency are both part of the process.

Sharma explains, “The term ‘scam’ has been initiated by a bunch of advertising people, who are trying to discredit the good work being done by others. They believe in producing boring ads, which do not inspire anyone and cannot hope to qualify for any awards. So what if the ad has been released only once? The power of a strong creative idea is to achieve the same impact with one release what one would achieve with ten. This whole discussion of ‘is this a scam ad or is this not’ is highly subjective. As long as the agency and client are in agreement, there is no question of discrediting the work done by calling it scam.”

Abhijit Awasti, Senior Creative Director, O&M, agrees, “There is no end to this debate. I think we need to define scam ads. What is a scam ad? If the ad has been backed by the client, who is to decide whether it is a scam ad or not? We all need to find areas for pushing ideas.”

What about ads that are released only once in some obscure regional magazine? Awasti defends the charge, “That can be wrong media strategy. Technically, it would be wrong to say that such ads are scam when everyone concerned with the product is in agreement over its legitimacy. In the end, who decides this is scam?”

Rajiv Raja, Executive Creative Director, Bates India, has a different point of view, “What is the point of entering a campaign for nominations when it has probably not been released more than once? If it’s all about ‘great ideas’, I can create some wonderful ads without a brief. But that’s not what advertising is about. There is no thrill in winning an award for the idea alone, unless it touched the consumer in some way.”

Elaborating on his interpretation, Raja adds, “ When we sit on the jury team of the Abby’s, we come across a number of ads, which could earn the ‘scam ad’ label. We take our job very seriously though to ensure that only genuine cases go forward. On the flip side, we have come to a stage where any ad released in the period between November and December is considered ‘scam’. That’s what the situation has come to. If it’s ok to run such campaigns, then why don’t we institute an awards dedicated to scam ads?”

In London, they apparently do. London International Advertising Awards (LIAA) has instituted a separate category for scam ads, which seeks to award campaigns based solely on the creativity quotient of the big idea. Can we see an Indian parallel in sometime?

“Isn’t that what the Indian award ceremonies are celebrating in any case?” jokes K. S. Chakravarthy aka Chax, of Rediffusion, “On a serious note, I think what constitutes scam in my definition would be advertising which does not represent what the brand stands for. Otherwise, I don’t believe in this talk about ‘scam advertising’. In my opinion, any strong communication is a way to encourage creative talent. From an individual’s point of view, it can be a continuous process of creative ideation but for the agency it can never be the sum total of their creative effort.”

To read the entire story, grab your copy of Impact Advertising and Weekly magazine issue dated June 20-26, 2005