Sep

The Politics of a Spec Design Pitch

Steve Douglas on September 2nd, 2009

Update: Ruh-oh. According to AdFreak it looks like the ad was approved by WWF Brazil and DID run (just once) in a Brazilian newspaper.

“WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil would like to jointly express their regret for the unfortunate incident involving the ‘Tsunami’ ad for World Wildlife Fund Brasil. The ad does not convey either the philosophy of the client or that of its advertising agency. It was created and approved in late 2008, mistakenly, and was solely the result of lack of experience on the part of a few professionals from both parties involved. In no way was it done in bad faith or with disrespect to American suffering. WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil acknowledge that such an ad never should have been made, approved or published. We reiterate our apologies to all those who may have been offended by it. The two entities have worked together for three years to mobilize people, efforts and resources for the good of the environment. A single error should not obscure past successes, nor prevent future ones.”

Dammitall. Michelle Malkin was right (that’s a personal facepalm right there). And so much for the spec work angle.

Update: Jesus. There’s even a video version of the advertisement. WWF Brazil and DDB both deny any involvement. Guess this all makes the following blog post kinda moot.

———————-

This post isn’t one of my usual anti-spec work rants. Just a look at how a very provocative ad, pitched on spec, rejected by the client and then entered into a design competition (apparently without the ‘client’s’ knowledge) can touch off a political firestorm. Take a look at the image above. Shows a whole bunch of airliners headed towards Manhattan. A Manhattan, by the way, that still features the Twin Towers intact.

The tagline reads “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.”

Powerful stuff, no doubt, but almost certain to garner some emotional response IF the ad was ever published. Which, not so surprisingly, it wasn’t. The ad was pitched to the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) on spec (speculative work) by ad agency DDB Brazil. The ad was rejected and never ran. Here’s the thing – the piece was entered into the One Show advertising competition, where it won first place merit award in the Public Service/Political Print – Newspaper or Magazine category. Trouble is, the WWF is listed as the ‘client’. So have a provocative image (911). A touchy subject (global warming). A environmental organization. Cue up the right wing rage machine.

Never one to let a chance to bash liberals and lefties, In a post entitled Environmentalists green-washing 9/11, conservative pundit Michelle Malkin writes on her blog,

Take a look at a new print ad produced by DDB Brazil for the World Wildlife Fund: The appalling tagline states: “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.” Translation: Forget about those puny jihadists. The planet is the real terrorist threat. According to AdFreak, WWF denies responsibility for the ad. Which is curious. Because DDB, the ad agency, seems to have a lengthy track record of being tied vile ads that their clients keep disavowing… So, how is it that the WWF didn’t know about the ad? It won a public service “merit award” earlier this year. Was the WWF unaware of DDB’s checkered history? The denials from the companies that keep hiring this ad agency are starting to ring hollow, don’t you think?

All the hot buttons are there. Islamic Terrorism. A slam of the WWF. A dig at environmentalists. She even manages to pivot the discussion and connect the ad to John Kerry‘s position on climate change. Goes as far to call it a 911 ‘eco ploy’. And all from one free pitched spec ad. That the WWF apparently rejected for all the reasons mentioned. According to their website

“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.”

Is there a lesson in here somewhere? I think so. And it’s probably got something to do with our old bugaboo, spec work and how it’s never such a good idea. But we’ll leave that for another day.

Hat tip to David Airey who brought this to my attention on Twitter and to Micheal Surtee’s Design Notes for the background.