A lot has been said that “scam advertising” is bad. And it
is, it truly is.
Advertising is commercial art, not fine art. It does not
belong in a museum or a gallery, it belongs in a newspaper, on a website and on
television where it’s job is commercially motivated; to drive sales.
Hence any ad that’s created without this motive is not a
scam, it’s a bloody farce.
But what’s even worse are commercials that are created as “social
messaging ads”; paraded into the awards functions.
The dubious “anti smoking”, “cancer awareness”, “AIDS”
commercials that are undertaken to fuel creative license. And there are many,
many more such issues that are used annually.
NCDs usually call them the ones that “can make a difference to the world”. That allows them to do their bit for making the world a better place, in their own little way.
Those are the worst kind of ads that one can possibly make.
Why – because the motivation behind them is to “win awards”,
not make a difference to the issue at hand.
The copywriter writing it or the art director visualizing it
more often that not, don’t give a rat’s ass about whether it will stop people
from smoking. Or having protected sex. Or keeping food aside for underprivileged
kids.
All they care about is the metal it will earn.
I find the approach exploitative.
Using serious issues – issues that affect people’s lives, in
some cases end it. To take that and use it as a crutch for personal glory would
count as exploitative, wouldn’t you say?
It’s like politicians exploiting a country’s misgivings for
improving personal wealth. How is it different from a politician taking a cut
for creating a cancer hospital? The same analogy holds – I’ll write the ad
because it will win me an award. I’ll approve the hospital because I’ll get a
cut (politician)
Advertising can change the world. But mis-directed efforts
driven by a quest of personal glory can’t.
They’re really the “scum” of the “scam”
Comments