A well appreciated dive, as always Nick. The more claims like this continue to fluff up the industry, the less credibility the industry claws back. Love your stuff.
Yes, yes and yes! I'm also not particularly invested in a kind of aggy witch-hunt of the agency or Cannes... but:
1 - had I ever seen this ad as a TVC or reel, I know immediately (from your description) it would annoy me for precisely the reasons you outline. My partner and I are often to be found griping at the telly for nonsensical claims in ads etc (we've often thought we should be in ad-based version of Googlebox). It's patronising when the ad agencies/brands think you'll just zone out and accept their claims, or follow a weak bit of narrative for a 'pay-off' that the creatives are too wedded to, to let go. Even when it makes no sense.
2 - your point towards the end about these over-blown or simply inaccurate claims contributing to a wider sense of societal complacency, AND un-earned industry self-congratulation... Worrying for the planet/society/trust... and another frustrating example of the arrogance that's deeply embedded in the industry.
3 - really - what is the point of having a push on transparency and accuracy if you're just going to obfusticate your responses to genuine questions, seeking reasonable answers. I was trying to figure out whether this was 'meta' or 'anti-meta' - but apparently there are a few useful terms for this....'self-exemption' or 'policy-protective bias', 'institutional bad faith' or this was simply just a 'symbolic policy' from Cannes in the first place.
Also glad you pick up the vibe I'm trying to convey – it's really not about going after any agency or even Cannes itself (though they play a huge enabling role in all this). The broader, systemic lie is a bigger thing than Cannes can realistically police, even if it wanted to.
The conservation claims and numbers are indeed vague, and deserve scrutiny. But the main thrust of the case study seems to be around the positive press and buzz generated around Hyundai being pro-coqui – in dramatic contrast to the viral tourist post asking about a 'Spray to keep the noisy frogs quiet?'.
Thanks Simon – you could certainly defend it that way, although I think it's a pretty generous reading of it.
As so often with these entries, they don't seem to get much press coverage at all, or much traction on social media, beyond coverage of the awards themselves – but the case studies have this familiar way of making it seem like it's all the world was talking about.
And I think if the story had been presented more honestly as 'nice topical idea that generated positive press for Hyundai', it just wouldn't have got as far (hence the huge effort agencies go to push the social impact angle).
Another breath of fresh air, Nick.
Thank you, appreciated
Great read, thanks for taking action, Nick.
Thanks David
A well appreciated dive, as always Nick. The more claims like this continue to fluff up the industry, the less credibility the industry claws back. Love your stuff.
🙏
Yes, yes and yes! I'm also not particularly invested in a kind of aggy witch-hunt of the agency or Cannes... but:
1 - had I ever seen this ad as a TVC or reel, I know immediately (from your description) it would annoy me for precisely the reasons you outline. My partner and I are often to be found griping at the telly for nonsensical claims in ads etc (we've often thought we should be in ad-based version of Googlebox). It's patronising when the ad agencies/brands think you'll just zone out and accept their claims, or follow a weak bit of narrative for a 'pay-off' that the creatives are too wedded to, to let go. Even when it makes no sense.
2 - your point towards the end about these over-blown or simply inaccurate claims contributing to a wider sense of societal complacency, AND un-earned industry self-congratulation... Worrying for the planet/society/trust... and another frustrating example of the arrogance that's deeply embedded in the industry.
3 - really - what is the point of having a push on transparency and accuracy if you're just going to obfusticate your responses to genuine questions, seeking reasonable answers. I was trying to figure out whether this was 'meta' or 'anti-meta' - but apparently there are a few useful terms for this....'self-exemption' or 'policy-protective bias', 'institutional bad faith' or this was simply just a 'symbolic policy' from Cannes in the first place.
Came to say much the same thing! Thank you!
Thank you both – appreciate the support.
Also glad you pick up the vibe I'm trying to convey – it's really not about going after any agency or even Cannes itself (though they play a huge enabling role in all this). The broader, systemic lie is a bigger thing than Cannes can realistically police, even if it wanted to.
You might enjoy my previous ramble, triggered by a focus group I had with notable awards concern: *&**
https://thehairyarm.substack.com/p/ghost-projects-sham-awards
The conservation claims and numbers are indeed vague, and deserve scrutiny. But the main thrust of the case study seems to be around the positive press and buzz generated around Hyundai being pro-coqui – in dramatic contrast to the viral tourist post asking about a 'Spray to keep the noisy frogs quiet?'.
Thanks Simon – you could certainly defend it that way, although I think it's a pretty generous reading of it.
As so often with these entries, they don't seem to get much press coverage at all, or much traction on social media, beyond coverage of the awards themselves – but the case studies have this familiar way of making it seem like it's all the world was talking about.
And I think if the story had been presented more honestly as 'nice topical idea that generated positive press for Hyundai', it just wouldn't have got as far (hence the huge effort agencies go to push the social impact angle).