Leo Burnett’s ASCA child abuse spot
April 16 2009, 8:41 am | | 69 Comments
If you watched The Gruen Transfer last night you might not have beenaware that Leo Burnett, Sydney actually had the ASCA account aroundfive years back (prior to Todd Sampson joining the agency, as Sampsonconfirmed with CB this morning). You also might not have seen thisspot, one of four created by Burnett at that time.
69 Comments
Wallpaper,feels like so many other charity ads.
Whats wrong with drug addicts?
this one was one of the better ones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sIhe_qjlto
If only they got Shepard Fairey to do some fancy graphics it could’ve been ok. Although ASCA Hour doesn’t have the same ring. ASCA Jet?
Simple message and execution. Well done.
How totally contrived and cliche. It’s an absolute tragedy in this day and age that we have such stereotypes in advertising – little girls never dress like this. Smarten up guys!
If the only good work you’re doing as an agency is on pro-bono, surely it should be better than this.
WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY better than the wedding one, atleast its a decent message that makes me want to do something.
agree …. little girls don’t dress like that and junkies don’t have candle lit rooms.
Compared to the Whybins effort, it seems mature, well reasoned and sensitive. But then that’s not really saying that much.
The morons who are complaining about the Whybin’s ads should love these.
No one will talk about them. They’re what we expect. Compassionate. Undisruptive. Nice. Now we’re doing our job. Much better.
UTTER SHITE.
Remember the uproar and debate that was created when these ads first ran?
No. Neither do I.
I thought it was really good. Clever. I also learnt something.
It’s poignant without being over the top.
It makes me want to give money believe it or not.
Normally I only give money to charities that amp up the ‘cute’ factor – puppy guide dogs, babies etc.
why is this up here?
What the F&^*. Who Cares?
Why is it utter shite 12:34?
You probably work at Singos or McCanns. Post your work, post your work!
If Todds’ Agency were the incumbent and ‘alledgedly’ didn’t exactly part on good terms,shouldn’t he have declared an interest?
I don’t know what’s worse, growing up as a homogenous Barbie clone or getting on the gear. Life full of tough options.
The wowsers out there should love this ad. Exploitative picture of little girl with pink ribbons in hair? Check. Doom and gloom image of hated junkie stereotype? Check. Reinforcement of existing assumptions? Check.
In contrast to this conservative and ineffectual treatment, the Whybins advert has actually challenged people to think about and discuss the issue.
These never troubled the juries or the general public at the time.Whilst their intention is laudable, their execution is very weak.
Hate charity spots that try to teach us about one thing leading to another.
IE Child abuse leads to drug addiction.
It diminishes [and dilutes] the message – and the initial crime.
Ad wank, award chasing crap.
And yes, they made the girl look like a doll, which is way OTT.
LOL about drug addicts not having candle lit rooms.
Again, WTF is wrong with drug addicts?
Those guys are way cool.
This feels like irt was created by people who are losers. My englijsh is nt good but ot is bad shit idea that is boring and also happy.
I love you
Lynchie can you post the credits on this one. I heard the team behind it are now working at Whybin’s. To funny…
9.06
Too funny.
Yes, we are pretty cool.
You’re missing out.
Wow this had impact 5 years ago. Thanks to Leo’s everyone knows about ASCA . Good job guys… Not.
S&*T
WHY?
I’ve just watched the Leo Burnett ad for the first time.
And I’ve forgotten it already.
What were we talking about again?
Mr Zheimer,
We were talking about a lucrative opportunity for you if you just transfer $50,000 into my bank account. 300% returns imminent.
Thank you,
Bukeeek Imno Bukka.
After being staggered by the viciousness of the rhetoric against the ASCA campaign on The Gruen Transfer, I started wondering about hidden agendas. Perhaps like financial experts when asked to comment on a company, the presenters, before they inflict what could be enormous harm on a company or in this case a deserving charity are required to declare their connections. Especially since it’s alleged that one of the presenters, who was so passionately negative about the campaign, never declared or even mentioned that they were ASCA’s previous agency.
Regardless of the quality of this spot, and enough said already on that, it’s also fair to say this.
Agencies in Sydney have a history of telling production companies and directors “if you do this awesome charity script for nothing, we’ll look after you” and “It’ll be great for your reel mate”. Not only do they never repay their favors, the commercial that you are asked to “help” them on never does anyone any good, let alone the charity.
Nothing will be different with this spot.
Now THAT motivates me to want to help!
Not the Sh*t that TBWA made
Good point Shaun, has that particular host anything to say?
Wow… really good ad guys. What a waste of effort for a charity that no one knows about… until last night.
Hey Todd, don’t you think you should have mentioned your agency had this account before bagging out the new agency’s work.
I think it’s time for a new presenter on Gruen, someone who has actually done something people remember. Based on this work your agency has a long way to go. Good luck.
why does this need to be a competition?
There is room for many different approaches to the same topic and lets be brutally honest here its not like ASCA can afford the money to experiment that other brands can. How many marketing managers ever get their advertising right the first or second time … sometimes it takes a few years to really find the right balance.
Also, as good (or otherwise) as this ad may be – the issue and the challenge remains.
Taking a sledgehammer to the topic may well be what’s required.
Maybe we’ll all be looking back in a few years time saying “yeah, that was the catalyst we needed to wake up to that topic?”
Hey 3:48…I hear ya, but maybe you aren’t working with the right people. The best production companies can smell a good script from a good agency and know when to put it on the line and when not to. Because to be honest, sometimes a great script, like a really great script, even with little or no money IS worth doing for your reel. And don’t forget, you can always say no.
By the way, I think this recent effort for ASCA is really, really not good. Offensive actually. Leo’s one was okay, back when they did it. I wouldn’t have done either of them for free though.
why didnt Todd declare his interest when he criticised the advertisement? not very abc …. makes me wonder how often that happens on the Gruen panel.
The gruen transfer is a show where a panel give their opinion. They do it in the open and in front of an audience.
Unlike the anonymous people on this blog.
If you’ve got a problem with Todd, email him.
His email address and phone number are freely available on the Leo Burnett website.
todd.sampson@leoburnett.com
02 9925 3731
Why bother? He’s not impartial & objective.
Everyone keeps saying that Mr Sampson has been at Burnetts longer than 5 years…..anyone know the truth? Perhaps there is a hidden agenda here……otherwise given his over the top attack, why not openly disclose his agency’s interest? I know he’d like this to go away,but it won’t. He has to accept that being in the public gaze means that he’s open to scrutiny,especially given the strength of his scathing opinions on the ASCA spot.
5:07am why didn’t you post your name then?
5.07. You are missing the point, why shouldn’t he be a discussion point on the blog, he’s certainly free with his opinions on national television….maybe It’s time for him to concentrate on his day job.
1:40…seems to me Todd’s concentrating pretty hard on his job and just about everything else. Last time I checked Leo won Macquarie Bank last month and Caltex this month. Not a lot of agencies could say anything close to that right now. He’s got an opinion and he shares it unlike a lot of other CEO’s who just try to regurgitate what everyone else is saying. Yup, I work with him, and I think he’s truly one of the industry’s best. Sorry.
Shaun raises a very good point.
However, the majority of what Todd said about the ad campaign was pretty spot on.
Todd doesn’t need my defense but i thought I would offer my support.
I worked with Todd for several years. He’s a smart dude and he does a good job.
When I watched him on that show, he made some good points.
Whether burnetts had asca as a client once is neither here nor there. And I am sure that is not what motivated him to say what he said.
Plus the other members of the panel said the same thing.
The ad is tough one. Personally I think it is good. But I can easily see why people don’t think it is good.
For me, the only question is what motivated the agency to do it? Was it a desire to help? Or the usual “this will stir up the pot and get me some awards.” I’m sure it was the former. But the only way to know is come award season will they enter it?
Let’s see later this year.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv/2009/04/20/1240079568969.html
Here is an idea – Why doesn’t The Gruen Transfer take the challenge with the panelists (and who ever is willing to participate) to improve the tv ad?
It seems no one likes the current ad nor many of the previous ones that have produced.
The Gruen Transfer could feature the process of making an impacting tv ad over the next season to show people the creative process and the hard work that goes into these campaigns.
What do you think?
Joel
The wedding Ad is a rip off from the Danish movie, Festen from 1998. The scene in that movie had some real depth and created great discomfort compared to this sad bleak copy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Celebration
It’s downright hilarious how important most of you people think this is. advertising to some, professional lying to others, i think it’s safe to say most of you don’t get it…
The whole point of the show is to poke fun and entertain. The charity has its own agenda.
Keep up the good work Todd of sticking your neck out and saying what your mates wont. I couldn’t care less who you work(d) for…..crap advertising is crap whichever way you look at it. Go Gruen!!
Where did my post go… Candles and a ritualistic setting for presumably a injecting drug addict hmm. My partner all of 22, has been a heroin addict for 8 years. Seriously, those who put the concept together have never witnessed the incredible power of a motivated addict. He and I have enough trauma embodied within us if it could ever been screened would make any view spontaneously vomit.
The wedding ad is an appalling piece of sh*t. It is profoundly insulting and belittling to victims of abuse. Three of my family are victims of abuse from Catholic priests. They were livid with the incredibly gormless and ‘wrong headedness’ of the content and the pitch of the ad. Comments by one of the panelists (not Todd) on the night said that if it was a normal ad brief there would have been factory tours and client interviews – in this case the victims of abuse appear NOT to have been consulted. This ad should be burned. Todd’s comments on the night that bagged the ad were correct.
I think the ad is based on the old Tasmanian joke about the virgin bride “If she’s not good enough for her family she’s not good enough for ours”.
Controversy is free publicity and as such is probably good.
See that little girl in the barbie outfit? I’ve had THREE OF THEM. Right now they’re approx 3,5 & 7*. I have PHOTOS of each of them in a similar outfit, and variations on the theme. They grew up with goddamn Barbie Princess movies and the whole ‘brand experience’ despite my partner and mine’s best intentions. So those ragging on the appropriateness of the LB advert… just STFU please and do some research. Then talk. Thanks.
The entire advertising industry thinks it is creative but nothing could be further from the truth, almost all television advertising in Australia is utter rubbish. I have heard the excuses that its because of low budgets but as an Industrial Designer, I know that budgets have nothing to do with creativity. If the industry wasn’t so full of coked up winkers (you know what I mean) I would come in and kick your a*SSes!
Why didn’t Todd declare an interest?
What interest?
Neither he no his company made or had any influence on the add in question.
Therefore he (presumably) did not make any money from it, nor does he stand to gain financially if Leo Burnett makes adds for ASCA in the future.
So he does not have an interest in it.
Those criticising him for not doing so, are simply seeking to deflect his criticism of their work.
If he has worked in this area, then it is an educated opinion, if not then it is the opinion of someone who works in advertising; and that is the point of him being on the TV show.
This thread is officially over…..now we got a tosser of a ‘industrial designer’ giving us his dreary POV…. get off your your own fat arse and prove to us how brilliant you are. Talk is cheap and i suspect now you given us your ‘two pence worth’ you’ve got bugger all left.
Wow, advertising people really ARE this dumb. Who knew?
Both ads are pretty poor. The ad that’s the current topic of debate is just going for the awards (bet money they enter this one!) The junkie ad is just ridiculous – a really, really bad one.
Why is it all about advertising? Sexual abuse is a such a painful issue. I didn;t hear whatever his name is said but when it comes down to it maybe he should have been more sensitive. Yes, terrible ad. Yes, maybe this has brought the topic to the forefront. Junkies have candels. Little girls wear silly bows. What is all the conjectour about. Sexual molestation of children is horrific and the advertising industry is full of superficial bulsh**t. Take on a good cause because it is good for the reel. What about real people and the real world.
Personally, having been a victim of child abuse, I agree with the majority of Todds comments regarding the wedding ad. The ad sucks big time. It trivialises the abuse and every paedophile that watched it would piss themselves laughing at the pathetic attempt to promote the understanding on how it affects someone who has been abused. I also think that five years in the past is along time to try and link to the comments he made on the show. I would also like to point out to the Bill Henson apologists that victims of paedophilia regard his work in the same manner is those that take pictures for the internet paedophile market. Only twits make the distinction on the basis of art as a sop to their conciences – paedophilic pictures are paedophilic pictures.
The ‘Wedding’ is a good TVC. It may stir up some strong emotions,but i guess it was meant to. Its too easy too write ‘i was a victim’ as if to justify your point of view.
what a convenient statistic that ties this shitty ad together.
Todd had an opinion on the effectiveness and sensitivity of the ad towards the victims of the cause – he made a really important point, that regardless of who the ad is targeting or whether it is being made for free or WHO is making it, IN NO WAY is it possible to ‘help’ victims whilst simultaneously making them feel like shit (which clearly, this ad does). Even if it does jolt the people who may be able to help into reality.
And regardless of whether Todd’s opinion was ‘valid’ or not (which I do think it was), that is what he’s there to do. He critiqued the creative. Not the worth of the charity, and certainly not the worth of the victims plight.
As for other interests – Todd wasn’t even working in Australia at the time Leo Burnett held the account. Yes, perhaps they should have done a more thorough background check on Leo’s history so people wouldn’t turn it into something like this – but the point has been missed. Many child abuse victims as witnessed on this and other blogs were offended and hurt by the ad. That’s the bigger issue and the very issue that was being discussed by the whole panel. Not whether or not Todd has a chip on his shoulder about a past account (which is also far from the truth).
Comments on the post like this: “almost all television advertising in Australia is utter rubbish” are also just shit…
So very sick of charities running guilt campaigns
Say you’re a sports start, you say the word “spaz”…… Completely acceptable by everyone, not denigrating any group, simply a word in common usage.
Next….. What happens? They get hounded until they come out with a public apology, show up to fund-raisers for the charity, make donations etc.
It’s basically blackmail.
This ad is much better than the wedding one. Maybe it is not the most memorable ad in the world, but it is clear, concise, makes a valid point; and with other ads in the sane vein, puts the organisation out there and makes it accessible to victims of child abuse. It is being sensitive towards the victims and appealing them to turn to their organisation before they turn to something else (such as drugs) to try and fix the damage caused.
As for the other ad, who cares if Todd had a conflict of interest or not (although he says he didn’t know til after the show aired that Leo Burnett had held the account, and I tend to believe him as he has proven to be forthright and very moral in the past), he was right. The ad was incredibly offensive to victims.
The problem with this discussion is that everyone is talking about the merits of the ad in terms of its technicalities, if it creates a buzz etc. That might sound obvious, but the real issue here is who the intended audience is and how they themselves are effected by this ad. Since the ASCA is an organisation tailored to help victims of child abuse, it is safe to say that it is the victims that are the target of this ad. It is pretty clear to me that an ad that shows the abuser ridiculing the abused- in a more powerful position, standing up- making their acts a laughable matter- whether the tagline has impact or not, is going to repulse victims from this organisation. So instead of, like in Leo Burnett’s ad, being appealed to reach out to ASCA before they turn to something else, the victims are more likely to avoid ASCA because that company reminds them of an ad that laughs at their pain. It is as the panel members said, it is poorly executed and they obviously didn’t research by talking to the victims themselves. Maybe, as one of the panel members suggested, this ad might have been effective if it had been ‘how obvious does child abuse have to be before you report it’, but as an ad appealing to victims, if we look at it from their perspective, it does the exact opposite of its intent; repelling the victims from ASCA rather than drawing them to it.