Perspective: Campaign’s top 300 is a fair assessment of agencies’ fortunes

It’s here. The only day of the year when agency heads skip Campaign’s front page, dive for the middle of the magazine, thumb the pages until they find their report, punch the air in delight, turn purple or head for the loo.

It’s here. The only day of the year when agency heads skip

Campaign’s front page, dive for the middle of the magazine, thumb the

pages until they find their report, punch the air in delight, turn

purple or head for the loo.



It’s also the day when we at Hammersmith get some idea of what it feels

like to be the referee, Andy D’Urso, with a pack of Manchester United

players baying for his blood.



I still tremble at the memory of having a week’s holiday at home

interrupted a few years ago by a message on my answering machine from a

former agency chairman demanding I phone him in Ireland to ’discuss’ -

his euphemism for a verbal duffing up - my comments about his shop.



Not wishing to pay BT for the privilege of a ritual slaughtering, I

failed to return the call.



Campaign’s 300 rankings understandably provoke heated discussion and

high emotion. What’s said about an agency influences how it will be

regarded by its peers, whether or not the best talent will want to work

for it and may even help determine the future content of client

pitchlists.



It’s essential that we take our responsibilities seriously. And we do.

So before any agency chief executive angrily hits the phone, it might be

worth pausing while we get a few things straight.



The sheer time and effort spent on putting together the 300 - planning

began well before the end of last year - is indicative of the importance

we attach to it and the care which goes into its production. Much

thought is given to each report with words weighed and fine-tuned before

they become the finished article.



Each writer recommends a score but all go before Campaign’s editorial

jury for a final verdict, a process which hopefully filters any personal

prejudices out of the system.



Whether there are enough checks and balances to make the results fair is

for you to judge. We don’t duck from harsh words when they are needed

because to do so would destroy our credibility.



So no apologies to Bates UK for asking when it will put a stop to

poisonous internal politics and get back to doing what it used to do so

well. No regrets either about reminding CDP of what a cracking agency it

once was and ought to be again.



No qualms about suggesting that Duckworth Finn Grubb Waters might have

missed its opportunity by failing to sell out. Or wondering aloud

whether Wieden & Kennedy’s brand of West Coast cool will ever travel

better than Californian wine.



We’re not arrogant enough to claim we’re always right. But we think a

tight and careful editing process means we’ll be close to the bull’s-eye

more often than we’re wide of the mark.



It’s worth thinking about before grabbing the phone to let off

steam.



Don’t call me though. I’m booking plane tickets for Tierra del

Fuego.



Campaign’s editor, Caroline Marshall, is on maternity leave.



Topics

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus