Why exactly was it banned? It's no worse than what you see on some crappy CBS crime show? (Or in any PG-rated film, for that matter...)

Nice try with the long copy...but hard work, no doubt, getting through it.

This is absolute madness.

These comments, no doubt, have been taken out-of-context and most of the PC facist reactionaries who've been out lynch him since weren't even present at the speech.

If he leaves WPP, it's not only a huge loss for the creatives who work at WPP shops, it's a triumph of censorship of the worst, most insidious variety -- the kind that seeks to punish unpopular views, PC or not.

Worse yet is that anyone who speaks up to defend him is then taken to be a "sympathizer" and lynched as well. I've already found myself in heated debates in my own creative department for chalking the comments up to irony and hyperbole. (Two literary devices, mind you, employed by many a talented copywriter.)

In the end, Neil should be remembered for his talent, bravado, and charisma which have influenced creatives the world over and helped them aim higher as practitioners of this dubious craft.

Reactionaries be assured: the real sexists out there aren't the ones making sarcastic comments in public forums; they're the people who silently and furtively use their power to oppress others.

Well, since it's an award for account people, it's most definitely about being buggered from behind!

Actually, I think it's a kind of bogus award, to be quite honest. Even for the suits. Reason being that I worked at an agency once where the head of client service was involved with the judging. Guess who happened to have won?

Plus, the criteria for "effectiveness" is really dodgy as well. Because if a brand happens to succeed in a given year, with a new campaign, it's not necessarily because of the ad campaign...advertising being nothing more than one element in the marketing mix. If the brand also happened to improve its distribution, pricing, packaging, and salesforce in the same period of time that the campaign broke (and let's suppose these variables were tweaked independently of the ad agency's advice), it would appear the campaign worked.

But let's face it. That's not really how campaigns work. They work over the long term with a cumulative effect, building trust and a long term consumer franchise along the way (pardon all the jargon, please.) And the tools that the Effie's use don't come close to measuring consumer's love for a brand...

The Effies really end up being more about awarding agencies on their ability to win tactical, short-term battles for market share and share of mind. And what's award worthy about that?