WWF compares a Tsunami to 9/11
Wow. Glad this is just a spec ad entered in the One Show. Otherwise that’d be pretty tasteless of the WWF.
We can thank DDB Brazil for proving yet again that creating spec work for clients you don’t even have is just an attention grab that does more harm than good. As Stan Lee points out, it devalues the entire award process; and our industry as a whole.
Update: The Official Response via Adrants
WWF STRONGLY CONDEMNS UNAUTHORIZED AD CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON, DC, September 1, 2009 -- World Wildlife Fund today issued the following statement in response to an ad posted on several Internet sites that has been inaccurately linked to our organization and contains messages and images related to the events of 9-11.
“WWF strongly condemns this offensive and tasteless ad and did not authorize its production or publication. It is our understanding that it was a concept offered by an outside advertising agency seeking our business in Brazil. The concept was summarily rejected by WWF and should never have seen the light of day. It is an unauthorized use of our logo and we are aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from websites where it is being currently featured. We strongly condemn the messages and the images portrayed in this ad. On behalf of WWF, here in the US and around the world, we can promise you this ad does not in any way reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people of our organization.”
Update #2: Holy crap there’s a video as well.
Comments
About Author
Rutteger Simpson September 2nd
The award process itself devalues the industry, as it's not readers or respondents handing them out; it's peers rewarding peers. So it's kind of a case of cyclic redundancy.Considering a large number of awards are handed to teams whose art directors are sitting on the judging panel, they're a fairly pointless redundancy.Add to that the fact that agencies are still spending several people's salaries worth of coin on submitting pieces for said awards, and it becomes an insult.OK awards have their merit; they make careers for jrs and advertise agencies. But the awards racket is a business like any other, and the agency world is the sucker buying the snake oil.Awards aren't handed out; they're bought & paid for. You pay for the right to have your worked judged. You're competing with whoever else had a spare 40 grand kicking around that year.
Ryan Fox September 2nd
The award process itself devalues the industry, as it’s not readers or respondents handing them out; it’s peers rewarding peers. So it’s kind of a case of cyclic redundancy.
Considering a large number of awards are handed to teams whose art directors are sitting on the judging panel, they’re a fairly pointless redundancy.
Add to that the fact that agencies are still spending several people’s salaries worth of coin on submitting pieces for said awards, and it becomes an insult.
OK awards have their merit; they make careers for jrs and advertise agencies. But the awards racket is a business like any other, and the agency world is the sucker buying the snake oil.
Awards aren’t handed out; they’re bought & paid for. You pay for the right to have your worked judged. You’re competing with whoever else had a spare 40 grand kicking around that year.
Add Yours
YOU