Tag: John Hegarty

  • Cannes Lions announces changes to judging in 2017

    By A Correspondent

     

    Cannes Lions has announced changes to its juries. The size of the jury panels present in Cannes will be reduced by 92 members across the board, ensuring the highest standard of meaningful debate can take place.

     

    The first phase of the voting process for the Promo and Activation, Media and Direct Lions will now be completed in the weeks before the Festival by a shortlist jury. The jury members will be selected using the same process and criteria as the awarding juries and held to the same rigorous standards of neutrality and fairness, notes a communiqué. Jury panel sizes will also be reduced across the Film, Radio, Print & Publishing, Outdoor, Digital Craft, Creative Effectiveness and Mobile categories.

     

    “Protecting the integrity of the Lions is down to getting the right people in the judging room,” said Jose Papa, Managing Director of Cannes Lions. “Some juries have been much larger than others in the past as a result of the number of entries they have to judge – but it is the Titanium jury, of ten extremely well-qualified people, that is the gold-standard. After extensive consultation with previous jurors and the wider industry, we have concluded that we can reduce the number of jury members while still allowing them plenty of time to judge the work.”

     

    2016’s Titanium Jury President, John Hegarty, founder of Bartle BogleHegarty, commented, “I would rather be judged by fewer jurors who are more focused, more responsible and better qualified. Collective responsibility and the quality of discussion are lost if you have too many judges. Size is no guarantee of strength”.

     

    Added Philip Thomas, Chief Executive of Cannes Lions:  “The standard of judging and quality of our juries is one of the major factors that contributes to the longstanding value of Cannes Lions. Upholding the value of the Lion is paramount”.

     

  • Soon Consumers will be Regulators…

     

    By Labonita Ghosh

     

    A few years ago, global consumer goods giant Unilever found itself in a sticky situation. A new advertisement for its margarine Flora, had sparked a huge row. The ad showed a bullet going straight for a human heart made of china. The bullet, fashioned by the words “Uhh dad, I’m gay”, was followed by Flora’s tagline, “You need a strong heart today”. Amid largescale protests against the clearly homophobic nature of the ad, Unilever first distanced itself from the campaign, saying it had been produced by an agency in South Africa and had not been approved by the company. Then, as the protests refused to die down, the company pulled the campaign altogether. “The ad seemed to indicate that finding out your son was homosexual, was like taking a bullet to the heart. It was a very uncomfortable situation for us,” said Marc Mathieu, global SVP marketing for Unilever, who was in Mumbai last week, speaking at an event organised by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), on responsible advertising.

     

    ASCI has been pushing for self-regulation in the advertising world to ensure ethical and responsible handling of campaigns, and also for punitive measures against companies and agencies that put out misleading ads. Earlier in the week, the Department of Consumer Affairs announced it had set up a website called GAMA (Grievances Against Misleading Advertisements) and was partnering with ASCI to take action on the complaints filed online and penalise offenders. The prevalent idea, however, is that there may be no need for action if the industry decides for itself to toe the line.

     

    One oft-repeated grouse by the industry is that too many guidelines curb creativity. “The assumption often is that rules are a barrier to creativity,” said Shantanu Khosla. Managing director, P&G India at the event. “But we should not think of regulation as a constraint. It comes from the same source as my fundamental consumer insight, ie society. The people we serve, write the rules, and no one else.” Indeed, it is from these rules, added Khosla, that companies can also build leverage and trust for their brands with consumers.

     

    In fact, sometimes thinking out of the box can lead to some great advertising, felt John Hegarty, founder of BBH. He cited the example of how, since the socio-cultural conditions of various markets differ, there are some regulations that – literally — come with the territory. And trying to find (legitimate) ways around this, can often lead to innovative solutions. Like a hair care commercial that was prepared for the Malaysian market. “How do you advertise for women’s hair care product in a country where women wear headscarves and are not allowed to leave their head exposed?” Hegarty said. “The agency found a way around it.” The ad focuses on a comb instead, first with strands of hair on it, and later without, to show how the product could stop hair fall.

     

    Unilever’s Mathieu felt that understanding people is what unites the marketing and advertising agencies. “Insights into certain human truths are the most important thing,” he said. “So companies need to ask themselves what is the human truth that I can use for my campaign that will resonate with people?” Making campaigns more people-centric and creating more purposeful brands, will automatically yield ads that are less offensive and more acceptable to consumers.

     

    Experts, however, feel consumers themselves are the best regulators. “Self-regulation is our job, yours and mine, and not ASCI’s,” said Paritosh Joshi, head of media and communications consultancy unit Provocateur Advisory. “The more everyone believes they are a part of this, the more they will believe that enforcing truthfulness and honesty is a collective responsibility. Self-regulation is not about curtailing creativity, but about establishing a framework of rules that one might have for, say, golf or cricket or boxing. If you’re not allowed to punch below the belt, you’re not allowed to punch below the belt. There are good reasons for this, and we should all be aware of them.” When that awareness comes, there may not be a need for a watchdog at all.

     

    Sanjeeb Chaudhuri, CMO and global head of brand at Standard Chartered agreed. “Increasingly, the response of the consumer, will be driven by the consumer,” he says. “This consumer’s choice will, in turn, drive the choices that advertisers and agencies will have to make. They will find that they can’t go against the grain [of the consumer].”

     

    Santosh Desai, MD and CEO of Future Brands, saw things a tad differently. “I think the issue of self-regulation will only become more contentious till such time that business can see itself as an intrinsic part of society,” he said. “Considerations [about regulation] should not stem from things like the consumer becoming more empowered and taking to Twitter to complain. These will always be half-solutions. It will happen only when corporations begin to believe that they don’t have immunity from society.” Indeed, it should be impossible to separate the consumer from the business. “The business of business is people,” said Bobby Pawar, director and chief creative officer at Publicis Worldwide. “Just as products have consumer benefits, companies should too. They must also benefit society in some way. The thing to keep in mind is that if you are a person with a conscience, you should also try to develop one for your brand, and stay true to it at all times.” A tough ask, perhaps, but certainly doable.

     

  • Telling the truth in ads always works

     

    A little exaggeration is ok to make a point. But agencies must stand up to their clients if they are being forced to make tall claims, ad guru and BBH founder Sir John Hegarty tells Labonita Ghosh. And in such instances, self-regulation by an industry body is always better than guidelines being imposed from the outside

     

    Can creativity happen without some exaggeration and tall claims?

    Creativity always involves some exaggeration because you exaggerate to make some point. Since the beginning of time, mankind has done that. But in advertising it must be done in a way to engage people and not just try to shock them. That’s the real creative skill

     

    So where does one draw the line, given that the exaggeration and tall claims may be subjective?

    There’s the idea that the truth is a moving feast. Your truth isn’t necessarily my truth. The Japanese film Rashomon deals with some of this – what is the truth and what did you see. People genuinely think they saw one thing or another. I like to use the word integrity, because it imposes upon you a responsibility. Did you do something because you believed it to be true, as opposed to someone seeing a different truth? And once you’re doing what you believe to be true – and I don’t mean being dishonest with yourself – then I think that’s all you can be expected to do. I don’t think you can do more than that. So we try and build our strategies around some truth because that’s what will resonate more with people. And [such advertising] is much more effective.

     

    One could argue that that’s a bit cynical. But actually, the truth really does work, as an advertising and commercial strategy. Trouble is, a huge number of brands don’t believe that they can tell the truth. In hair care ads, why is that they always show someone with lovely, long hair? It’s such a cliché. But a brand that finds a way of talking about hair and what the product does for it in a way that is more unique, and more relevant, is the brand that will walk away with the prize. The point is to make that truth relevant at that particular moment in time. After all, circumstances change. I may have different requirements at different times from the product I buy. So it needs to be relevant at that point in time for me. It isn’t just enough to sit up and say ‘I tell the truth”.

     

    For instance, we always tall about the famous ad campaign done by DDB for Volkswagen in the early ’60s. It’s famous because it created more than advertising. What it said was that the Volkswagen is ugly, but it works. This, at a time when American cars were selling luxury, size and volume and such. The ad worked against the current point of view, and there were enough people with whom this idea resonated, for the campaign to have become a huge success. The point is that it has always got to be relevant.

     

    You mentioned integrity earlier. But isn’t that different for different people? Whose integrity do we trust?

    [As a brand] you have to do it. Because you’re the one communicating the message which will then make people decide whether or not they want to buy your product. That’s the choice you make. I don’t think we should be afraid of making choices – after all, that’s what brands are about. Great brands stand out because they stand for what they believe in. They don’t try to be all things to all people. All brands define themselves in some way or another, so you shouldn’t be afraid of doing that.

     

    What happens when, as an agency, you have the client twisting your arm about projecting something?

    That happens all the time. Agencies are handed the information and they can only trust that their client will stand by it. But if they think it’s incorrect or not working, they should also tell the client so. We were working for a large, rather famous cola company many years ago, and the reason they said their product was failing slightly was because their competitor had more sugar in their drink. We found that hard to believe so we tested it ourselves and discovered that [our client’s] product actually had more sugar, and their product failing had nothing to do with this at all. We shared this information with them and they had to back down on their claim. So agencies can’t just be the messenger. They have to be a responsible messenger too.

     

    Given that there will always be a bit of a gap between the broadcast/ printing of an ad, and action being taken on a claim, can self-regulation work effectively?

    Self-regulation has certainly been effective in the UK. There, the Advertising Standards Authority, which is financed by the advertising industry, regulates, brings out reports and issues condemnations if there are any. I think it’s better if there’s self-regulation rather than outside regulation. Advertising campaigns now are very expensive. So a client won’t be happy if it has to pull a campaign [because of some irresponsible advertising]. But one of the things I find amazing is somehow companies manage to distance themselves from the advertising when they’re in trouble. As a company you are employing the advertising agency and you are making these claims. So you should be taking responsibility. One way to make companies toes the line is by constantly naming and shaming them as offenders. If you keep have your ads withdrawn, it’s not going to be good for your mage, it won’t go down well with your shareholders and all sorts of things will begin to impact them, which will make a company think twice before making tall claims.