So, apparently Jeff Goodby isn’t happy with advertising award shows these days. In his recent Adweek article he says that agencies are becoming “irrelevant award chasers” and that the real measure of great creative work should be “fame”. You know, like has your Mom heard of it. Or would your cab driver’s eyes light up when you tell him the work you’ve done.

In spirit, I agree that award shows are insular and self-serving. In the past few years there’s also been an influx of questionable (fake) entries and overall, I’d say that award shows have become less about “great work that works” and more about “great work we got away with”.

Having said that, I also think Jeff is being naïve (cue lightning strike on my location). Fame, as a measure of greatness, has an awful lot to do with levels of exposure (ie: big budgets, national media buys). It’s a lot easier for Burger King or Hewlett-Packard advertising to get “famous” than it is for a local clothing boutique. Does that mean the work for the boutique is any less creative or great? Of course not. It simply means fewer people will see it because the media budget is measured in dimes instead of dollars.

By Jeff Goodby’s definition, great (famous) advertising will be reserved for big brands with deep pockets. Ripe stuff coming from the principal of an agency that made its reputation on the back of an obscene amount of award show hardware.

The bottom line is that agencies have always needed award shows for self-validation. It’s the one stage where small agencies can compete, idea for idea, with big agencies. They’re an annual barometer of shops and individuals that are hot and executing great ideas.

The trick is keeping it all in perspective and, as an industry, doing our best to keep each other honest.