Some (Not Us) Feel Droga5 Isn't Worthy of Creativity's Agency of the Year


In the spirit of living up to our apparent affinity for mudslinging as noted by MultiCultClassics, we give you this just-received tidbit from a reader who just doesn't think Droga5 should have been awarded Creativity's Agency of the Year crown.

The reader writes, "Apparently many higher up in the NY ad agency world are irritated and confused as to how Creativity could name Droga5 as agency of the year. they haven't produced one national campaign, have not one one new piece of business. no real breakthrough work for the year and the business they are producing for are pro-bono. people i know that work at Droga5 are equally as confused by the whole thing. internally they're hearing about "cut-backs." also pissed as to why the whole agency wasn't photographed for the cover. yikes. people are pointing to the obvious infatuation Creativity Magazine editors have with the agency. one female editor is roaming the halls at D5 a little too frequently. maybe it's droga's charm? i say, more power to em. screw the holding companies."

Granted, this is unsubstantiated rumor and it could have come from some pissed off creative who thinks their agency should have been handed the annual award but this stuff is just to much fun not to share, Besides, as AdPulp comments, it's all about transparency.

However, we think Droga5 has done some especially great work over the past year and certainly merits at least some form of shout out.

by Steve Hall    Dec-21-07   Click to Comment   
Topic: Agencies, Industry Events, Opinion   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Maybe this is the media's way of saying no one really stood out this year. The usual players continued to produce the usual stuff. Maybe the media is as bored as the rest of us. If that's the rationale, then Droga was a good choice. Tap Project and Honeyshed were ambitious and different, to say the least.

Posted by: jason on December 21, 2007 11:36 AM

Probably just a letter from a very jealous creatve.
They are a great choice for AOY.

Posted by: KEV on December 21, 2007 1:11 PM

the industry needs a kick in the balls. Go D5.

Posted by: Bdog on December 21, 2007 1:48 PM

Yeah tap was cool... but gimme a break! They came up with that idea in a vacuum before they spoke to literally "cold-called" UNICEF or anyone else about it. It was not built as a creative solution to anything. Plus, I saw their submission reels for tap, and all the results they show are total BS. Nice idea (even though it wasn't intended to be what it became). Great cause too (again, an afterthought). But don't make up totally fictitious results in order to get noticed Mr. D! If Creativity Mag were to call UNICEF to get the real scoop, I'm sure we'd see the first ever industry recognition award rapidly repealed.Good creative is one thing, INTENTIONAL creativity that GENERATES STRONG RESULTS is another... and that is what should be judged here. An accidental "afterthought" campaign that generated maybe a few hundred K's for charity in one market (and NOT the $Millions that saved UNICEF that they tout) just doesn't cut it for what's supposed to be truly honorable recognition. How low will they go? Using poor innocent people who are dying of thirst... is that what it's come to? How about all those folks who's lives were NOT saved that Droga5 has claimed were? Are they martyrs to Droga5's success? Droga5 failed to hit the "results" mark they tout to the media, and in their submissions. So I think the real message here is that agencies, moving forward, should LIE THEIR ASSES OFF to win awards. I also think the magazine should be ashamed... this awards program they've created is now entirely suspect. It holds no weight, as far as I'm concerned (along with thousands of other industry insiders) Next year, perhaps they'll create a special "Droga5 Award" for the agency that's done a truly fantastic job spinning fictitious success stories, and promoting themselves far better than they do their clients.

Posted by: Anonymous on December 21, 2007 1:48 PM

Maybe the Creativity honor is consolation for Droga’s inability to win Agency Spy’s Sexiest Man in Advertising award.

Posted by: HighJive on December 21, 2007 1:52 PM

No jealousy. Building careers on FAKE ads is not only a joke, but should be criminal in creative departments.

Though I do think Fake Agency of the Year should have easily gone to the (now recently exited) Saatchi crew (everyone knows who they are).

Posted by: Jas30 on December 21, 2007 1:53 PM

I guess the photo retoucher should have spent more time trying to make Droga's leg straight. Bad use of the Clone stamp tool!

Posted by: mystic on December 21, 2007 2:22 PM

wow, you're right mystic. that leg is awful. i'd be pissed if i was him

Posted by: stevey on December 21, 2007 3:35 PM

actually, the photoshop work was done to EXTEND his legs. i'm told droga is a very short man.

Posted by: Tall Tales on December 21, 2007 4:07 PM

just like clock work. An agency wins agency of the year and all the hacks spew their poison. Who ever wrote the original email clearly didn't read the creativity article.
Most exciting agency in ages.

Posted by: paroond on December 21, 2007 11:13 PM

To be named agency of the year is actually proof that you should be agency of the year.
Or as they used to say in Ralph Ammirati's Donny Deutsch's, and my old neighborhood, Hollis, Queens: "Res ipsa loquitur, bubbe."

Posted by: Tom Messner on December 22, 2007 8:51 AM

Don't you have to be a real agency making real ads to win agency of the year?

Hey Paroond...if I make real ads, at a real agency, for real big clients, and win real big awards, am I a hack? Or is the person who makes questionably real ads at a questionably real agency for questionably real clients the real hack?

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2007 9:41 AM


We are unquestionably Creativity magazine's agency of the year.


Posted by: Droga on December 22, 2007 1:37 PM

parnood, if by email, you are referring to article, then yes, we did read the entire article which in why we added the "(not us)" to the headline.

Posted by: Steve Hall on December 22, 2007 11:19 PM

There seem to be three designations now of agency of the year. Adweek, Ad Age, Creativity. The first two now name worldwide AND U.S. agencies of the year.
Which means---since they never duplicate---each year there are five Agencies of the Year and, during the average life expectancy of a CMO, 15 agencies of the year to contemplate.
In fact, the designators are so hard-pressed to create news that sometimes they don't pick any one at all (Ad Age back in the 80s) or they pick some au courant notion (You The Consumer, Ad Age in 2006).
So the designation, rather than just being a good selling tool for an agency, has become a selling tool of the trade journals. "Look who I picked."
There is a leading indicator that can come out of agency of the year, though. For example, in 1982 I worked for that year's agency of the year. Ad Age had a banquet celebrating that and some other things. The CEO of the agency, instead of taking several tables for the key people as usually done, took one chair for the key person, himself. By the end of decade, the agency was defunct.
I do remember one thing very well about the time. Leo Burnett sent us 162 apples, one for each employee. I never worked at Leo, but I have always thought well of them since.

Posted by: Tom Messner on December 23, 2007 10:04 AM


There is also campaign magazine, which named Fallon agency of the year for 2007. I believe your own Euro RSCG (or whatever it’s called) took some honor from the publication in 2006. And God knows how many local and independent sources hand out similar accolades. Like the awards shows, it’s getting a bit zany—and as this post and thread indicate, highly debatable.

Posted by: HighJive on December 23, 2007 1:24 PM

My zenophobia must have led me to forget Campaign.
But agencies who get named do have a year to market themselves as agencies of the year, and that is a good thing. Keeps them off the street.
For the people who work for the agencies, it is outside confirmation that they are doing something that gets someone's attention. No harm, no foul.
My old agency, Messner et al, was once named agency of the year by Shoot Magazine (1992) and I valued it as much as any designation from Crain's or Neilsen. Took a nice picture on the roof of our building with some great old wooden water tanks in the background framed on the right side by the late Twin Trade Towers.
All this because Henry Luce once started naming a Man of the Year. Which led to Person of the Year. Some winners from the past: Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek, Everyone Under 30, and last year, You won. A better pick, I think, than this year's Putin.

Posted by: Tom Messner on December 24, 2007 8:36 AM

dd's a good egg but his entourage lacks luster. his big ideas never come off as well as they should. he should give up the PR addiction and get himself some real partners who can help him live up to that glorious reputation.

Posted by: truth2 on December 24, 2007 2:51 PM

Then again, agency of the year brings compliments (truth2) that can make one cringe and head for shelter

Posted by: Tom Messner on December 25, 2007 9:33 AM

Big deal. Creativity magazine is a piece of crap. The kissing up ist ad rag in the land.

Posted by: Frank Leigh on December 27, 2007 6:53 PM

Sorry, Frank. We’ve worked hard for that title and deserve to get it undisputed.

Posted by: Adweek Staff on December 27, 2007 11:41 PM

Happy New Year!

this is why we peep here...

Posted by: arthur on December 28, 2007 9:55 AM