Abby controversy: The argument continues... <font color=#FF0000><b><font face=Verdana size=1>Abby Awards!</font></b></font>

The Bombay Ad Club clarifies its position on Lowe Lintas’ allegation. And judges Chax (of Leo Burnett) and C. Gangadharan (of chlorophyll) comment on what happened.

There's a whole lot of flak in the air. And the picture gets hazier by the minute.

But first, here's the Bombay Ad Club's rejoinder to Lowe Lintas' allegation on the violation of judging procedures for the forthcoming Abby Awards.

In a letter to agencyfaqs!, Kaushik Roy, executive director, Mudra Communications, and member of the executive committee of the Bombay Ad Club, says, "We believe that the judging has been done to our fullest satisfaction, and more importantly, to the satisfaction of most of the judges who went out of their way to congratulate the Club for such great work."

Expectedly, the Ad Club appears to be a trifle cut up with Lintas for taking the matter to the press. "We do not appreciate the fact that a letter addressed to the Club with a request that we reply to them in 24 hours is first released to the press, and then faxed to us," says Roy. "If at all, this should have been released after 24 hours. We have no option but to reply to the complainant through the press."

Specific to the complaint, Roy writes, "We do not believe that any one judge is so powerful that he or she can overpower eight other veterans, each having 20 years of experience. Nor do we believe that the Convener did not have the matter under control. This, then, is an insult to the other judges and the Club." He goes on to provide proof of the committee's conviction. "When we checked with the other judges in the room, they seemed comfortable with the outcome of this particular judging. Moreover, our system takes care of the bias in judging. The highest and the lowest points are removed. When we checked the individual scores, it came through clearly that there was no sign of any ‘influence'."

K.S. Chakravarthy (Chax), national creative director, Leo Burnett, was one of the judges who had a ringside view of what transpired. And he, for one, does not agree with the Ad Club's reasoning that judges can't be influenced. "I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of what happened in the session," he told agencyfaqs!. "However, everyone knows that juries get influenced. Let's face it - we're all mortals. The reason why most juries have checks and balances is because there is scope for influencing and bias. If we can't be influenced, why would the Ad Club's brief to the judges specially mention that no judgemental opinions should be proffered or entertained?"

And Chax feels that the comment passed on the indya.com campaign was definitely judgemental. Without taking names, Chax said, "I think what happened was wrong… and it certainly is ‘influencing'. You cannot make a value judgement of this kind before the scores are put on paper. Because then, the jury's judgement is impaired by an influence."

Interestingly, C. Gangadharan of chlorophyll, who was also one of the judges, doesn't share Chax's views. "What the Pandey brothers said was that the indya campaign is too reminiscent of the John Miller campaign, and so it is not an original idea," Gangadharan explains. "And despite this, the indya campaign was not pulled out of contention - it was voted upon by every single judge. There was nothing unfair about the whole thing."

But didn't the Ad Club brief forbid judges from voicing their opinions? Gangadharan doesn't think so. "Before we started putting our scores down, everyone was free to speak about whether a campaign was a copy, or whatever. Of course, we couldn't say why we liked or didn't like a particular ad, as that would have been judgemental. But we could raise the question of originality."

Gangadharan cites another example to make his point. "In another category, there was this ad for Lafarge Cement, made by O&M. Here, one of the judges pointed out that there was an international campaign for an interior designer along similar lines. After investigation, the Lafarge campaign was not selected. As you can see, even O&M suffered."

Gangadharan doesn't look at what the Pandey brothers did as lobbying. And he also believes that the Bombay Ad Club has given a pretty good account of itself this year. "Lobbying has been rampant in almost every award in the country," he said. "But I must say the judging has been the most fair this time - in fact, the fairest in the 10-odd years I've been associated with the Ad Club." And he also subscribes to the Ad Club's contention that judges cannot be influenced all that easily.

Chax admits that the Ad Club has done a pretty good job, but… "There are holes that need to be plugged," he says. "But instead of dwelling on what has happened, the Ad Club must now work on making the process even better next year."

And although Chax is sympathetic to Lintas - "Personally speaking, Balki has every right to feel offended… after all, no one can dismiss any creative work in such cavalier fashion." - and feels that the indya campaign is not modeled on John Miller, he is critical of the manner Lintas has chosen to air its grievance. "Lintas did the wrong thing by going to the press. If it had a problem, it should have made its point at the Abbys. What Lintas has done is bad for the industry." Gangadharan too isn't very amused with Lintas. "I think Lintas is grossly overreacting," he says.

In all this, one vital point that remains unresolved is what was the Ad Club's brief to judges - speak or don't speak? Gangadharan appears to think it was the former. Chax and Balki insist it was the latter. agencyfaqs! tried to get in touch with the Ad Club committee for a final clarification, but all calls and emails went unanswered.

Looks like a case of miscommunication between the committee and the judges. But then, it happens only in India.

© 2001 agencyfaqs!