Harnn Massage Balm, Deep massage , print Thailand

Yep, I emailed it to adlist this morning saying "when visual ideas go bad" - got to be careful me though, else agencies quit submitting stuff to us. wusses

Honestly, the more submissions we get the less time I have to sit and chat with each creator to make sure it's the real deal. But so far, we've been pretty OK in regards to scam ads, probably since when freebie-mails (as opposed to ad agency domains or PR company domain emails) submit work I still take time to ask them if it's a real ad or what. Freebie emails are an obvious giveaway.

This is not to say that agency-email addies haven't submitted non-approved work and later regretted it. They have. We star these agency names and keep watchful eye on anything they submit in the future (if they do). We've had to remove 3 campaigns out of 50,000 ads so far as scam ads/not approved/ and the latest reason "rights issues". I hate removing anything, and prefer to mark them as spec or whatever they turn out to be.

You are making total sense to me. Who was it that said winning an award with a scam ad is like pummeling your competition at the special olympics - it just makes you an ass? (Totally paraphrased as I can't remember who said it now).

I'm guessing that there might be a visual language pun here that we are not getting, or perhaps it's "an advertising naive" countries attempt at winning Cannes with a literal visual that just doesn't quite work.

Also, I actually like the job - if it was a real job that paid me it would be great - and think that it is part of of my responsibility to try and ensure that spec ads / student work is marked as such and that the submissions are timely (ie; not two years old) - to keep matters straight as I think it keeps the 'brand name' of Adland a high quality one in the sea of adblogs out there. Yeah I'm nuts. I'd be even crazier if this was my real job, I betcha.

But I don't think it's your role to worry about whether they're scam ads or not - that legal obligation should lie with the creator or submitter of the work. Not sure if that's legally the way it works, but it should be.

I see what you mean here, and that does make sense - but around 2003/04 or something, suddenly everyone got in the habit of sending us links (youtubefuckinglinks) with a message along the lines of "Someone sent me this.. ...." - it got to the point that I refused to discuss those ads, as they were clearly ads but the creators would create free email accounts and try to stealth it onto Adland. Somewhere it became important to keep secrets - and that is fine I can keep a secret but don't fucking keep it a secret from me. If the submitter can't tell me who they are then I consider it rubbish - but yaknow feel free to post it yourself to the front page with that line, and let the readers make their own judgement (that is after all how this place works). Usernames with no previous posts to their name are viewed with a pinch of salt - everyone has to work to get "credit" around here.
We've had teams submit their work before the creative director even saw it - and the creative directors later begging us to pull the work down as well. Advertising is a game of who fakes it the best it seems. Honesty is not what it used to be.

I think our Chinese friends exposed how you're not to blame for 'reporting' quite well, even if they couldn't understand it. [an aside: don't see many of them here any more, do we?]

No, we don't see them around much. That was quite.... interesting. To a point, then it got a little scary. Then I got really pissed off. Respect to all real journalists who report about things that may tick some people off if that is what they have to live through daily. That was quite the unfunny episode.