IF IT’S BEEN DONE BEFORE, SHOULD THE AXIS AWARDS REJECT MIZUNO AND NOKIA?
May 31 2006, 12:15 am | | 10 Comments
With howls of protest by rival shops that the idea for both the Axis shortlisted Mizuno ‘Golf Courses’ print campaign via Publicis Mojo and the Nokia ‘Background’ campaign via Y&R/Generator have been done two years ago in Canada, should the Axis Awards’ organisers, now it has been pointed out, throw them both out to retain credibility? Or is the judges’ decision final, and it’s all too late? (Or too embarrassing?).
Both Canadian campaigns were entered at Cannes in 2004 (neither campaign was shortlisted): The Dunlop Loco work is via Downtown Partners DDB and the Nokia Mobile Phones work is out of TBWA\Toronto.
10 Comments
Let me get this right. CAANZ pulled the RAV4 ad from Axis – pretty much New Zealand’s favourite ad of the last six months – because a week or so after they judged Axis, it got banned by the ASA. The rules are the rules I guess.But those Mizuno ads, which aren’t New Zealand’s favourite ads (largely because no one in New Zealand has seen them, ‘cept of course the studio at Mojo) haven’t been busted. Even though it was proved on this blog that they’d been done (much better) before at the same time as they pulled the RAV4 ad for fuck’s sake!Now personally I’m not a huge fan of the RAV4 ad, but I know a lot of people who are. It should be entered for Axis. Mizuno shoudn’t.CAANZ are fucked.
I don’t care. I’m just happy the blog is back. I think.During the ‘downtime’, I’ve managed to paint three sides of my house, experienced breaking up a fight at Nashville Pussy, had a couple of good arguments with the wife because I’ve worked too much, and heard some great gossip about how much Meares Taine Creative sold for (it puts the Kaeo winner to shame).
Seems pretty obvious to me what to do. Or I would expect some serious howls on the night. It’s only fair after the standard put on all the other work.And I totally agree, the RAV4 thing is bullshit. Great or not, I saw it on air about a million times. It’s one thing to let 17 people control what the majority of NZ watches on the telly, it’s another to let them decide what is eligible for AXIS. I’m sure those people would all agree Mizuno and Nokia have been done before. Wel…Nokia anyway because I don’t think 17 people have seen Mizuno.
RAV4 wouldn’t be a finalist anyway. Unless it was entered in best rip off of lame 80s flick.
11.42 “The rules are the rules I guess”Wait – CAANZ withdrew the RAV4 ad from Axis? When? How? By what rule? Show us.Congrats to whoever turned this blog around. Is now the time to remove your veil of anonymity?
My 2 cents:”The CAANZ AXIS awards are about recognising creative excellence. New Zealand may be a small geographically isolated country, but our advertising creative is world class.”That’s how the CAANZ website describes the AXIS awards.So how can you award something that’s been done before? You shouldn’t. Something that’s been done before is not creative excellence, it’s creative misfortune, and we’re not here to award that. If we were we’d all be getting golds. Let’s be fair – we have to assume that the creatives involved did not go out and copy the other ads. We’ve all drawn something up to be told “That’s been done.” We simply have a mild tantrum, screw up the scamp and hiff it. Unfortunately for these guys no one told them that, probably because no one knew.To me it’s an open and shut case and I think that on the night we won’t be seeing these two campaigns on the screen. As for getting them pulled? They probably should be – after all, you do get a certificate for having a finalist in AXIS, many consider this to be a small award – and those ads should not be awarded. Sorry.As for the Rav4 ad? Entirely different story. I saw it. Lots of people I know saw it. It ran. It hasn’t been done before (unless you count War of the Roses). I’d be interested to hear the reasoning why it was pulled. Will one of the AXIS mafia please explain?LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The author of this rather lengthy post was not the author of any of the ads in question. This author has no personal interest in these ads. In fact this author could not really give a rat’s, he just likes arguing a point and didn’t really have anything to work on this arvo because he’s off to Raro soon.ps. like the new look. very grown up. hopefully it’ll keep those little shits from degrading it with their petty crap.
I have it on pretty good authority that the RAV4 ad was going to do very well indeed at Axis, but someone from CAANZ, rather than standing up against the PC minority that had the ad banned, had it withdrawn. There’s a rule in the Axis awards that any ad that has been banned from New Zealand TV is ineligible for entry into Axis. This ruling was set up many years ago to stop dubious ads that obviously would never have been allowed on air in the first place. The RAV ad hardly falls into that category, does it? CAANZ should amend the Axis rules and reinstate the ad. Whether you like the ad or not, the ASA ruling sets up a very dangerous precedent and CAANZ as our industry voice should fight our corner, not the beaurocrats.
Thank God, we’re back to intelligent conversation. (Congrats on the new look)I’ve been following this debate over the past few weeks inasmuch as it been possible to hear anything over the noise of the kiddies.I’m wondering if we’re not missing the point here.Let the RAV4 ad be entered. Let the Mizuno and Nokia ads be entered. And let the judges decide.The judges aren’t stupid. They will know as much as anybody whether a piece of work has been done before and whether or not there’s a serendipity to two pieces being similar or whether they’re copies. The same with the RAV4 ad. For God’s sake, it’s about creativity. The ad ran. It wasn’t a scam. It had mega-bucks spent on it. The judges can decide whether or not the fact that it was pulled has an influence on its validity.The issue isn’t new. I’ve been on judging panels where the issue of copying/originality/scam has come up. (What judging panel hasn’t had this?) Sometime’s there’s a bit of debate, sometimes there’s a bit of yelling, but it’s always been sorted.Let’s leave it to them.And not the Committee of Self-Important.
Indeed.
The problem with judges deciding a scam is that sometimes work that wasn’t scam gets kicked out. Thejudges should have an assistant standing-by to check annuals and make phone calls to the agency and client if necessary. This relieves the subjective from the contentious issue. What say you?By the way, I think the new blogg gives Lynchies a run for its money.