FILE – M. Uchimua in the “Sights” TV ad that was produced by McCann Worldgroup Philippines for the Department of Tourism (Photo taken from the video)
The Department of Tourism’s (DOT) decision to end its advertising contract over a “copycat” tourism commercial was an overreaction, an advertising expert said.
Dindo Danao, a member of the Independent Public Relations and Advertising Practitioners Association (IPRAPA), argued that the DOT was also responsible for the tourism commercial, saying that the development of an ad is “conjugal consent” of the agency and the department.
DOT’s “Sights” tourism film, which was produced by McCann Worldgroup Philippines, was pulled out amid public outrage.
Critics pointed out the glaring similarities between the “Sights” film and the South African tourism ad.
“It is unfortunate that the Department of Tourism’s latest campaign drew negative reactions, instead of the desired positive attention to the Philippines,” Danao said in a statement sent to INQUIRER.
The DOT earlier stood by its ad campaign “Sights” and McCann Worldgroup Philippines, but severed ties with the ad agency last week “after a diligent review of the ad materials in question.” The move was seen an attempt to pacify public rage over the fiasco.
McCann, which took responsibility for the 60-second ad, said it was respecting the decision of the DOT and was hoping for a “sensible resolution” to the issue.
It also issued a statement on June 13, acknowledging that the flow of the story in “Sights” “may have similarities with the South African tourism campaign” but vehemently denied that it was a case of plagiarism.
“This should not have been the case, if the parties involved understand a principle widely observed in the advertising industry,” Danao said. “Any campaign output is a work in progress with the conjugal consent of the client and the ad agency.”
Danao, a public relations and advertising professional with a 38-year experience in the industry, said it was wrong to solely blame McCann in the controversy.
“I am concerned that McCann WorldGroup Philippines was unfairly thrown under the bus, apparently receiving the standing that it was solely the one at fault in the controversy. It is wrong,” he said.
He also noted that the allegation of plagiarism was not yet proven as the “proof must come from the court.”
The advertising executive also called on the legislators, who sought investigation on the matter, to look into the protocols of creating advertising materials that are shared by the client and the agency.
“As a professional in the advertising and public relations industry, I would like to emphasize that formulating a campaign material entails a long process, with each of its subset requiring approval from the client,” he said.
He added that “the success or failure of a campaign is also the success or failure of the entire team or partnership.”
“In a partnership such as this, there has to be a shared responsibility, since again, a TV production is a work in progress, with the conjugal consent of client and agency,” he said./ac/rga/ac