‘Awards are stupid’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u-dxn8IgQo
(Thanks, Jon.)
Are they?
In this instance I’m talking about awards that are a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact: Oscars, Grammys, Cannes Lions, Sports Personality of the Year, Rear of the Year, BAFTAs etc.
Well, let’s take a look at the supposed pros and cons:
Pros
They serve to stimulate. In theory, other people who work in the industry being awarded see what gets the awards and it inspires them to greater heights in their own work.
They publicise the industry and work concerned, so that perhaps more people will be interested in becoming musicians, ‘rears’ etc. This grows the talent pool for future ‘better’ work.
They generate money for some people. For example, the advertising revenue created by the Oscars ceremony keeps the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences going all year.
Award dos are fun.
To many people they are proof that the awarded people are good at what they do, and therefore worthy of employment.
Cons
The idea that matters of opinion become matters of fact (eg: the winner of the Oscar for Best Screenplay is considered by many to be the best screenplay of that year) closes off avenues of creativity. People who are inspired by these works then believe that such work is what they should aspire to, leading to a repetition of the winning work rather than actual innovation. There is definitely an ‘Oscar’ type of film and, I would argue, a typical Cannes Grand Prix winner, which can only be a symptom of the dead hand of familiarity guiding the judges’ decisions
They clearly don’t lead to better work. Are the movies of the last ten years better than those of the Seventies? What about the music? Are ads better now than they ever have been? Of course not. So even with shoulders of giants to stand on and millions of awards to inspire us, the improvement is virtually non-existant.
Most are a thin, pointless sham, with no intrinsic value, and therefore a waste of money. Add up all the award entries and event organisations across the world and you have billions that could be better spent on feeding the starving or building the giant ark we’re all going to need when the Polar ice caps melt.
They have an importance that takes precedence over what the art is attempting to achieve. Call me cynical, but I have a feeling that some advertising creatives would rather win awards (ie, have the approval of seven people a bit like themselves) than have a 10% increase in sales (ie change the behaviour of millions). I also have a feeling people (possibly including Anthea Turner) have deliberately performed buttock-enhancing exercises to improve their chances of winning Rear of the Year. Both are sad states of affairs.
So what do you think?
Are awards a GOOD THING or a SHIT THING? (No comments suggesting they’re a bit of both/somewhere in between please.)
Awards are shite, but they’re our shite.
Since agencies invest in entries for promotional purposes, the employees who list them come off a bit like the rich kids in middle school who want to be recognised and loved for the posh trainers their parents have bought them.
Good or bad, it’s all very fucking sad.
They’re shit unless you win one.
Shit thing.
I think they are a shit thing. They divide the workplace into those working on ‘proactive projects’ and those doing the real work; they turn normal people into bell-ends (I certainly went through a Kanye period after a particularly successful year) ; they are fucking our business up in the eyes of our clients who have lost respect for us; they are costing people their jobs as the Global CCOs are bonused on awards success, so tough luck if you are running the office that is too understaffed to do any ‘proactive’ bullshit while you are running that shitty P&G account; those grey pencil things look like proper turdage; they no longer get you laid; there are about 12 shows a year that my agency enters. 12. That’s 12 x 20 or so entries = 2 salaries for junior creatives.
Subjective awards are absolutely useless and we need to focus on making good work and not on making award winning work (which is definitely not the same thing)
Awards in themselves are neither good nor shit, they are passive, so can be made good or shit by the behaviour and culture that surrounds them, and what is awarded.
By that measure, advertising awards are definitely a ‘shit thing’.
There’s my answer according to your binary rules, Ben – but what do you think?
I find it funny when people in advertising compare ad industry awards with things like the oscars or the baftas – really they have far more in common with things like…
the Sandwich Industry Awards:
http://www.sandwich.org.uk/index.php/awards/the-sammies/awards-2015
the roofing industry awards:
http://www.nfrc.co.uk/roofing-awards-2015
British Hairdressing Awards:
http://www.schwarzkopf-professional.co.uk/skp/uk/en/home/awards/british-hairdressing-awards.html
They all have big, swanky black-tie gala awards nights in top London hotels, everyone has lots of booze and a dance and a good time, and someone gets a gold-coloured or etched glass award off a B or C list celeb.
Look up ‘industry awards party’ on google images… it’s hilarious/tragic.
Have a nice week.
Oh, I definitely think they’re shit.
I hope the reasons I gave in my post make my position clear: the pros are a bit weak, and easily beaten by the cons.
And yes, I have been very kind to advertising awards by comparing them to Oscars etc., but I think my point about subjective awards stands: they are impossible to justify and certainly no measure of ultimate quality.
As John Lennon might have said, imagine there’s no awards. Feels delightfully refreshing to me.
That’s what I thought you were going to say, just checking. My point about the Oscars wasn’t at your post in particular Ben but to those people, who whenever you question ad awards, start talking about Oscars and Baftas etc. in comparison.
I agree, I think ignoring awards (other than to occasionally take the piss, like this) is extremely liberating. I was lucky enough that my first job was at a place that by policy didn’t enter them, so I didn’t even realise for about three years that ad wards were such a big deal to some people. We’ve continued that approach here, we don’t ‘do’ awards at Sell! Towers (not that we do the kind of work that would probably appeal to jury types anyway).
Win an award and it’s a great night out on the piss. Maybe get your name in the trade press. That’s about it. When they give out a Cannes Grand Prix for best holding company, you know we’ve reached peak award.
If you’ve won loads it’s easy to say they’re shit – you’ve already had the value/wage increase/power position from them. And it’s cool not to deride them.
If you’re just starting out, they seem the only plausible way to get to the top of your field.
Feels like it’s split into
= good if junior.
= shit if senior.
= help me… if in the middle.
Have you asked Donald Gunn’s opinion Ben?
I think he’s probably got one.
I did ask him, but he couldn’t hear e over the sound of his private jet.
And @Luca, but imagine if there were no awards and we found a proper system of merit by which to mark people’s contribution.
That would be ideal Ben, but it hurts my head to imagine how that would work. I’m sure it would be better than a large piece of moulded perspex though.
It might work in the same way that it works for account people (who generally have no awards to win).
(I have no idea how it works for account people, by the way.)
But Ben, D&AD have just written me a nice email claiming, “Nothing matters more than a pencil.”
I got the same email.
I thought the ‘more’ was just a dyslexic person trying to type ‘less’.
Pursuing awards is like pursuing the Road Runner. It’s fruitless and usually ends with pain and humiliation. If the object is to win awards, the task is entirely moot.
‘They serve to stimulate’. If you are insecure.