Leading Brazilian trade publication Meio & Mensagem broke the news on its website today that both ads were entered at the Cannes festival by DDB Brasil. The entries in the press and film categories can be found online and included full credits for the work.Previously DDB Brasil had said the print ad ran only once in Sao Paulo and was mistakenly entered in the One Show. An agency spokeswoman said neither the agency nor the client, the WWF in Brazil, authorized the video version, called "Planes," that surfaced on the internet this week showing multiple planes approaching Manhattan and the World Trade Center towers.
The episode is turning out to be an embarrassing one for DDB Brasil, one of the creative jewels of the Omnicom Group-owned DDB network. While the Sao Paulo-based agency has made several apologies, including one that takes over the agency's website, there hasn't been any public comment from Global CEO Chuck Brymer.
Meio & Mensagem published links to both entries on the Cannes Lions site that named a dozen people, including DDB Brasil creatives and account supervisors, who were apparently involved in the ad, according to the entry information submitted by the agency. A production company and a sound-design company were also credited.
The description of the ad submitted by the agency said "We see two airplanes blowing up the WTC's Twin Towers...lettering reminds us that the tsunami killed 100 times more people. The film asks us to respect a planet that is brutally powerful."
The two ads, entered in the press and film categories, were apparently little noticed at Cannes, but the print ad "Tsunami" earned a Merit award, which ranks below a Bronze prize, from the One Club.
"The reality is that the ad met our conditions of how people submit work," said Kevin Swanepoel, president of the One Club. DDB Brasil submitted the ad in accordance to One Show protocol; it paid the submission fee and provided a tear sheet to verify the ad ran in a Portuguese-language newspaper.
And here's the "evidence" that Repac3 was demanding on ... pulling the Merit Award:
Mr. Swanepoel said if One Show had rejected the ad, it would have raised censorship issues for the awards. "We can't be seen to throw out an ad that's been submitted to us because we don't like the content," he said. "It was legitimate, so we have to rely on our judges, who are an international panel of judges. We cannot police what agencies send in. We can't tell our jurors to not look at something, we have to stick by our rules."See also, "WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Ad Approved From Get-Go."
The agency has since asked One Show to withdraw the ad, so it has been stripped of the Merit award and removed from the online awards gallery. "In our eyes it's no longer a winner," Mr. Swanepoel said.
*********
UPDATE: Correction appended above ...
Interestingly, though, it's not just my commenters ingloriously trying to gain the upper hand:
As a side note, after I reported on the ad yesterday, a commenter on this site told me to “do my homework” because Gawker reported that the WWF wasn’t involved. To that commenter I now say, “suck it” and “in your face.”Well, ditto!
6 comments:
"And here's the "evidence" that Repac3 was demanding on the BBC pulling the Merit Award:"
I'm sorry, Dr Doglas, but the abbreviation "BBC" doesn't appear anywhere in the quote that follows what you said there, or indeed, anywhere in the whole article from which you cut & pasted the majority of your post. As I said the first time, the only ones I see talking about the BBC in connection with this story are you, and people foolish enough to quote you without doing any research on your "facts," themselves.
You're welcome to stop digging and admit you made an error anytime you're ready.
No matter how many times or in how many posts you (& now your buddy the BlogProf, along with anyone else who blindly quoted you) repeat it, THIS: One Club / The One Show has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with THIS: BBC - The One Show.
It's one thing if you don't want to admit your error. You seldom do. But for gosh sakes, stop making it worse by repeating the error over and over, and telling people that I gave you these same facts a day or two ago. You're not doing your reputation any good, except perhaps from the sycophants who prefer steadfast stubborn stupidity to "looking weak" by admitting you screwed up, and setting the record straight with the truth.
The BBC was not involved in the One Show advertising awards. Never have been, and probably never will be.
Well, by golly, I think you're right, Reppy!
Re: The One Show.
Give yourself a big pat on the back! I've credited you with the corrections at all the posts! You're a hero!
But guess what? Removing reference to BBC does nothing to upset the basic thesis ... which is to highlight the disgusting, demonic ideology of yours and your allies, and how you folks promote such evil!
And specifically, this thesis has been totally repudiated by events (from "Anon," your nihilist buddy, or sockpuppet?):
"Please don’t twist this story for your own extreme political agenda, and please check your facts:
This was a fake ad created by Bazillians, it was never authorized or approved by WWF, and has nothing to do with the ‘leftist movement’ or whatever you’re trying to imply."
Yep, take out "BBC" - a careless but insignificant mistake, my bad! - and the rest still stands!
Fake ad? Right? Boy you and your ilk are freaking brilliant!
And you thought the BBC oversight invalidated the whole thrust of things:
"The idea that you can smear everyone with a given political viewpoint if anyone with that viewpoint does something wrong is getting tired and old.".
Ha! It's your viewpoint that's tired and old, and this series of posts just goes to show it. But hey thanks for the BBC correction!!
Tim Blair thanks you ... And enjoy your little victory!
If you "correct" the sentence by taking out the acronym "BBC," you might as well take out the whole sentence.
I didn't ask for evidence about anyone's pulling the Merit award from the ad; I asked for evidence that the British Broadcasting Company was involved with the One Show advertising awards.
(Updated to remove snarky comment about Dr. Douglas' history of admitting/correcting errors. While I still think this one was a little shabby, his correction at the other two posts that mentioned the BBC made it clear that his original reporting was in error, and he even acknowledged my help in pointing out the truth of the matter.)
-- Of course, he MADE his corrections by dumping the original text down the memory hole, making it appear as though he never made the error(s) at all, rather than leaving the original text and appending an update with the correct info, or changing the original erroneous language to strike through text, which seem to be the preferred methods for changing the text of a post if more than 5 minutes or so have passed from the original publishing date/time--but still, Donald did far more than I expected he would, and I probably shouldn't push my luck by asking too much of him.)
No, no sock puppets here, Dr Douglas...
And you know, you can stop anonymous comments anytime you want, just by changing a blogger setting... (Unfortunately, you'd also lose the anons who support you, and judging by one recent post anyway, they make up the majority of your commentership.)
Funny how you quote that line about smearing everyone with a given viewpoint if anyone misbehaves (from another post) and then proceed to prove my point by doing that very thing.
I have no link to WWF, the ad agency, or the ad. I thought it was in poor taste, just like pretty much everyone else here in America, including the Americans at the WWF. You're barkin' up a tree that just isn't there, mon frere.
Like I said though, good job on correcting the posts... even if you did so by erasing the evidence...
Repsac3: What evidence did I delete? Except three mentions of "BBC", LOL!!
Even the URL stays the same on the second post, so it's not like folks can't figure out the original title. I'm not against correcting an error. What's funny is how you're all into picking nits as if that debunks the foundations of your nihilism and that of your allies.
While you seem to find some of 'em insignificant, facts matter, Dr. Douglas. No, the fact that you were wrong about this "little thing"--and the fact that others blindly repeated your words without checking for themselves--doesn't speak to the thesis of the thing--my line about blaming every environmentalist/democrat/liberal for the sins of these few Brazilian guys at the ad agency and WWF does that, I think--but it might make people think twice before blindly accepting & regurgitating your version of truth, in future.
Besides... You made a pretty big deal about my questioning the BBC connection--big enough that you added my question about it at a prior post to this one--so it's a little disingenuous to pretend I'm pickin' nits once you realized you were wrong about it.
As for the corrections, what can I say? As with most things, there's a way folks customarily make corrections to their blog posts in light of new facts, and making deletions that change what the post says, especially after people have read & commented on it, isn't it. (Were a lib to do it, you might call it "sending their screw up down the memory hole, as though it never happened.")
Most bloggers leave the original text intact, and add an update, either at the beginning or the end of the post, explaining that they were mistaken in the original text, and (in this case) the BBC is NOT involved with the One Show advertising awards. Some change the original text to strike through, and explain the change right there in the offending paragraph.
But Dr. Douglas, I'm sure you really don't need me to explain this to you, because you've been around the blogesphere long enough to already know how responsible, honest bloggers left and right correct errors.
The real question is, why you choose not to follow the accepted norms, and instead decided to use the delete key to make it appear that you never made the error in any of the three posts in the first place?
Post a Comment