Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Awards can't save forests.
June 21, 2009 7:25 PM   Subscribe

Awards can't feed the hungry. (via, with supporting links)
posted by divabat (17 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
I am confused by this.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 7:32 PM on June 21, 2009


I had this idea first and they stole it.
posted by twoleftfeet at 7:32 PM on June 21, 2009


I, too, am confused by this. It's a weblog entry with three apparently poorly drawn pictures and some text with industry jargon. Is there some aspect of this I'm missing, or am I just thick-headed?
posted by majick at 7:43 PM on June 21, 2009


After spending about 10 minutes on osocio.org and stealourideas.com, I am unsure what the point is.
posted by uaudio at 7:51 PM on June 21, 2009


it didn't take me 10 minutes to get confused...

Divabat... could you elaborate a bit on this...
posted by HuronBob at 7:58 PM on June 21, 2009


I'm quite amused that two fellows who seem to claim that others steal their ideas, all the time, seem to think that this is original. It's like a less-funny version of any time that someone's stepped up to get an award (I think that the Oscars tend towards this sort of thing fairly often) and has to deliver a social or political message. (My favorite bit from Mars Attacks is right at the end, when Lukas Haas, getting a medal or something for saving the world, mumbles something about how everyone should live in teepees.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:00 PM on June 21, 2009


If I understand this correctly, they're sending a message to ad agencies that do public service announcements (PSAs) on things like world hunger and deforestation and win awards for them, saying that they're not actually fixing anything and that they should "create social advertising" that does. In other words, it's a PSA that says that PSAs suck and that the ad world needs to make better PSAs.

Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:05 PM on June 21, 2009 [2 favorites]


YOU WIN. BANALITY.
posted by grobstein at 8:08 PM on June 21, 2009


I'm just as confused, but I won't admit it.

I think it has to do with the way graphic design is used to promote various social causes and the way society tends to reward design for "important causes" irrespective of whether there is any genuine social benefit from the effort.

At least, I hope that's what it means. Otherwise it's just confusing to me.

Did I get it right? Where's my award?
posted by twoleftfeet at 8:08 PM on June 21, 2009 [2 favorites]


People make PSAs to win Ad awards. So we'll make mediocre ads that are anti-bad PSA. Huh.
posted by GuyZero at 8:11 PM on June 21, 2009


Awards can't feed the hungry

Incorrect*

*assuming that awards are made of cheese
posted by found missing at 8:27 PM on June 21, 2009 [6 favorites]


If I understand this correctly, they're sending a message to ad agencies that do public service announcements (PSAs) on things like world hunger and deforestation and win awards for them, saying that they're not actually fixing anything and that they should "create social advertising" that does. In other words, it's a PSA that says that PSAs suck and that the ad world needs to make better PSAs.

Halloween Jack's got it. Osocio is a blog that comments on PSAs (previously on MetaFilter) and StealOurIdeas gives away ideas for possible marketing campaigns on their blog. The statement made is that a lot of ad agencies make PSAs just to win awards, but which aren't effective at making actual social change - sometimes the ads are made *only* for the awards but don't actually get out anywhere.

It's a call to advertisers to think more about the effectiveness of PSAs, not just in terms of "ooh pretty".
posted by divabat at 8:41 PM on June 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


OK, divabat, that makes more sense. Reminds me of how some film critics would accuse directors like Richard Attenborough of making movies like Gandhi and Cry Freedom more for the Oscar than out of any empathy for their subjects or advocacy for their philosophies or causes.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:25 PM on June 21, 2009


It's a feebler, less biting, commentary than this.
posted by felch at 9:41 PM on June 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


No, but they can make rich people feel good about themselves.
posted by delmoi at 10:12 PM on June 21, 2009


the ignorant here thank the more intelligent for this enlightenment.
posted by HuronBob at 3:20 AM on June 22, 2009


being an "industry person," this makes total sense to me but merely illustrates that the authors of this spec campaign do not understand the value of a good strategy and cannot recognize a bad one. or perhaps they have never worked with a capable planner.
posted by krautland at 5:35 AM on June 22, 2009


« Older Did I Say That?...  |  Osymyso - "Intro-Inspection" (... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments