There has been a recent furore about the Ford ads created by JWT India featuring celebrities and bound, gagged women. It’s unsurprising that people were upset, given recent reports about gang rape in India. The ads apparently were not the unofficial creation of ‘rogue’ creatives, but were approved by the Ford India client and senior JWT execs.

The shocking thing about this story is not just the nature of the ads, it’s the astonishing lack of sensitivity displayed by those whose job it is to be culturally aware. How did these experts come to judge the public mood so wrongly?
The controversy led to a follow-up piece in AdAge about the celebration of ‘offensive’ scam ads (i.e. ads not approved or endorsed by clients that have never run in bought media) by UK-based scheme the Chip Shop Awards.

AdAge describes the Chip Shop Awards as existing “to highlight crude ads that have been rejected — or, in most cases, created entirely without the knowledge of marketers.”

The article goes on: “Scam ads have been a problem plaguing the industry for decades and after doing little to stop them, Cannes International Festival of Creativity and others have cracked down and threatened to yank awards and bar creatives who have been found guilty of entering unsanctioned work, or work that is run once locally merely to send into an awards show. Yet it's clear that despite all the talk of wrist-slapping, fake ads remain a persistent problem. The question is, should the ad business be promoting this activity in the name of creativity, as Chip Shop describes it, "with no limits?"

An online poll on AdAge’s site suggests that opinion is split 50:50 on this question.

Gordon Young, founder of the Chip Shop Awards, has responded to the article and comments: “I have never bought into the theory that America was trapped behind the 'irony curtain' but after reading your report I fear for Ad Age. The key point you fail to understand is that those who enter the Chip Shop Awards, do not purport to represent the brands featured in their work. Our entrants do not even pretend to represent the clients, a point which most would deem obvious.”

There is a debate here about the wisdom and legality of appropriating trademarks and logos and putting them to uses that their owners have not sanctioned. (It seems like a dumb thing for an agency to do.) But as AdAge asks – is this kind of work the sort of thing we should be celebrating in the name of creativity? I don’t think so.

The Chip Shop Awards describe themselves thus: “The Chip Shop Awards is about fostering and recognising creativity with no boundaries and no rules. It's an international creative awards (sic), open to anyone with great ideas. Since its launch, these awards have produced some of the cleverest, funniest, worst taste advertising and design ever seen.”

Looking at recent winners, there is little evidence of ‘cleverest’ and ‘funniest’ ideas but much of 'worst taste': most of the work awarded by Chip Shop seems to seek to shock. There are some smart, witty executions but they seem to be in a minority. The award categories include ‘best use of shocking copy’, ‘best politically incorrect’ and ‘best use of bad taste’, so the organisers clearly intend to encourage entrants to be ‘offensive’.

The Grand Prix winner from last year is a campaign purporting to be for Transport for London, encouraging people to kill themselves at home, not on the Tube, so as not to delay others’ journeys.

Other popular themes among 2012 winners include anal sex, genocidal dictators and farting. I enjoy some good honest filth as much as the next pervert, and I love work that is provocative and ground-breaking, but much of what is on display here seems merely immature.

Scam ads created for the sole purpose of award entries are a shameful part of this business. Their very existence is offensive. I commend the efforts of reputable shows to stamp out such entries.

The Chip Shop Awards are designed to encourage ads that are not just fake but also 'shocking'. Agencies pay to enter these awards, they are judged by people who work in the business, and sponsored by an industry publication. It’s disappointing that these respected parties would want to be associated with such efforts. This is not great creativity and not worthy of celebration. It's not my fragile sensibilities that are offended, it's my pride in what we do. We work in an industry that already struggles to win credibility and respect for what we do. Shouldn’t we be celebrating the best we can be, rather than indulging childishness?