The Awards distortion
As extreme wealth perpetuates a bitter, angry underclass, so too does the advertising awards industry create its own particular gargoyle: “Anonymous.” Put a new campaign up on a blog and Anonymous will quickly knock it down. This is an almost immutable truth: even if nine comments are positive, the tenth will say they’re wrong, or that the other nine were planted by the people who did the work anyway.
One reason for the existence of this angry punter is, in part, award shows, which are effectively a distortion: that the exemplary work in them is a fair representation of what advertising is, and thus the parameters by which all else is judged. No matter that the work is less than 1% of the entire industry output; indeed, some award-heavy executions are so elite in their excellence that no consumer is even deemed worthy enough to have seen it, but are still lauded accordingly.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with aspiring to excellence. An industry can’t move forward without the constant drive of endlessly unachieved aspirations, and every profession is rife with jealousy and judgment. The ad industry is a high achiever in this regard – particularly partial to the odd snide aside and bitchy attack, because ultimately it is a creative business, and creativity exists hand in hand with the blight of the inner critic.
Anonymous is the inner critic’s voice. Disdain is its game, damnation its goal, a sense of righting the injustices of the award jury elite and its cronyism, a chance to have a crack at a Creative Director’s latest campaign without the possibility of burning a bridge should the same CD later offer them a job. We are much braver behind the veil of anonymity; much in the way we have more bravado yelling at unknown drivers from the metal comforts of our own vehicles. It’s just safer that way. And the antithesis to creativity is fear.
At best, it’s harmless venting. At its worst, harmful vitriol, and with Anonymous comes another, resulting distortion: that the negative skew of the comments quickly becomes a “realistic” view of how the work is perceived, and thus the definitive one of how good the work actually is. This is like saying the people who bother to call talkback radio are the arbiters of gospel truth and the common sense of the common man. But it’s easier to moan than to praise, isn’t it?
It’s this lack of effort that lies in the dark heart of Anonymous. It takes no effort to criticize, and lack of effort is likely a consistent trait of their careers and the resulting output, in turn fuelling a bitter heart in a downward spiral. They probably don’t jump through the hoops, take the knockbacks, watch their dream change as the client’s realities hit hard yet carry on with the hope of still doing a career-defining piece of work. Anonymous just speaks from on high, defecating from a great height built on imagined perfection, distorted beliefs and at times suffocating idealism.
They might believe that they have chosen to be “Anonymous” and it is their right to remain so.
But it’s more likely that their laziness and disappointing careers simply decided that for them long ago.
