The very first exclusively Irish mobile application awards (The Appys) announced their shortlists yesterday to much controversy. While a mobile app specific awards should be welcomed it doesn’t bode well when straight out of the blocks the awards seems to have made a blunder at best or have tried to pull a fast one at worst.
The main controversy relates to specific apps on the shortlist that weren’t even launched (or live on the app store) before the 1st or 2nd closing date for award submissions.
The explanation for this http://twitter.com/the_appys/status/28994584320 ):
“This app was loaded onto devises prior to closing date and judged under proviso it made the store before shortlist” – @the_appys
Doesn’t hold water when you look at the application and judging criteria:
“Describe the Application (what it does, what platform(s) it runs on, who it’s aimed at, who built it, is it branded, is it paid or free, when it was launched, and what category (or categories) it fits into?” – theappys.ie.
So basically what the Appys are saying is that the judges scored apps that weren’t launched, that weren’t approved by Apple and that weren’t available to the public on the app store! This raises a number of serious questions:
- Are the apps that the judging panel scored on the same as the apps that were ultimately accepted by Apple and made available on the App store?
- Was the shortlist announcement delayed to allow these apps to launch or go live on the app store? And if so how long were they willing to delay the shortlist announcement?
- Was it made publically known that apps not available on the app store at the submission closing date were acceptable as long as they were launched/live before the shortlists/awards???
An example of some very clever marketing all the way from Singapore via Ugly Doggy.
The guys behind Play-Doh are trying to get the simple message across to parents that no matter what the Play-Doh is used to make, it remains safe for kids.
The clever imagery also gets the message across that Paly-Doh is versitile and can be moulded into just about anything thus stimulating the childs mind through creativity.
Thanks to our regular contributor @achgohairithe for sending it in.
Filed under Blog, Print ads
This is the controversial ad that the Brazilian ad agency DDB ‘made on spec’ as part of a pitch but rejected by the WWF.
The newspaper advert features dozens of planes on a collision course for New York landmarks, beneath the slogan: “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11″ and the environmental charity’s panda logo.
It was apparently intended to raise awareness of the greater dangers posed by environmental disasters like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, in comparison to terrorist attacks.
Reports claim hat it was published only once in a small Brazilian newspaper at the agency’s expense – apparently so that it would be eligible for awards. A video version of the advert has also been obtained by Gawker, the New York gossip blog .
This seems to be a complete overreaction to this ad. Yes 9/11 was a terrible outrage committed by terrorists. Yes natural disasters can be much worse than terrorist attacks but why whats wrong with the comparison? It seems that DDB sacked the creatives behind the ad even though the local office of the WWF signed-off on the ad. Hardly fair.
Filed under Advertising agency, Blog, Blogger Outreach, Brand Damage, Brand Equity, Brands, Controversial ad, Crisis PR, Misleading ads, Negative PR, Newspapers, PR, PR Stunt, Print ads