Ogilvy finally returns Gold Effie won for rhino horn project that made false claims
Ogilvy Vietnam’s ‘Saving Africa’s Last Wild Rhinos, By Poisoning Them’ case film
Ogilvy has finally handed back an effectiveness award it won for a campaign to curb the rhino horn trade in Vietnam because bogus claims were made in the case study video.
Effies president Neal Davies told Mumbrella this morning that the “correct decision” had been made, and Ogilvy had returned the Gold Effie the agency won in April for the ‘Saving Africa’s Last Wild Rhinos, By Poisoning Them’ project.
“We always expected Ogilvy to do the honourable thing, and that is exactly what they have done,” he said in an email.
Ogilvy APAC announced one month ago, at the end of July, that it would hand back the Lions it won at Cannes for the project, claimed to be an attempt by the Vietnam office to reduce rhino horn consumption by infusing the horns of African rhinos with poison.
An Ogilvy spokesperson said that the Effie was handed back much later than the Lions as each award entry was different and merited a separate investigation. Cannes is mainly a creative awards show, while Effie is about proving the work actually works.
A statement from the agency about returning the Effie will not be made “as we don’t have more to say over and above our original statement,” the spokesperson said.
In a statement released in July, Ogilvy APAC noted that: “Some elements of the campaign material created to support the NGO’s efforts to reduce Vietnamese consumer demand for rhino horns did not run in-market as stated in our submission video.”
Claims made in the video include the campaign website getting hacked, rhino horn consumption in Vietnam dropping by 77% since the campaign launched, and a press conference that connected the Vietnamese media with the poison treatments happening in Africa via live satellite.
YouTube comment on Ogilvy case film
Update. WildAid, an NGO that works to curb the rhino horn trade in Vietnam, commented on the campaign’s false claims: “Our primary concern with this campaign and subsequent Cannes entry was its use of survey data showing a significant decline in rhino horn demand within Vietnam, and that the campaign had a causal role in such declines. As has been widely reported, many conservationists have been highly skeptical of this survey’s accuracy. We have much work to do to achieve significant reduction in consumer demand for rhino horn, and it’s of course premature to be touting any perceived victories. We agree with Ogilvy & Mather’s decision to return these awards.”
A report by Save the Rhino about horn poisoning to curb the trade has raised doubts about its effectiveness, suggesting that rhino poachers do not care whether or not the horn is tainted, and the treatment may be even raise the price of horn making it even more desirable for poachers and consumers.
Ogilvy’s Vietnam’s rhino horn campaign helped Ogilvy reach the top of the APAC Effies index. The removal of points won for the Rhino Rescue Project idea will not affect the agency’s position at the top of the table.
“The charity said in July that it would be issuing a statement to clarify the claims made about the campaign, but has yet to do so.”
I think its partly because the culprits who executed this scam have left the agency a while back….one is in mccann bangkok…the other in Y&R HK selling colgate toothpaste (fitting punishment).
It’s hard to bring them to book now because the agency signed off on their misdeeds.
But this is a way smarter move than the morons who gave us iSea….own up, take your shaming and move on. Don’t make a scene by acting like a blowhard.
ReplyI believe the fact that the dense horn can NOT be infused with poison is the reason questions are raised about this tech and any claims regarding it’s success?
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/poisoning_rhino_horns
http://www.pachydermjournal.org/index.php/pachy/article/view/351
The intent was solely for the best interests of rhinos and deterring poaching, but the problem was that after the technique was invalidated they continued to promote and market the practice in order to ‘trick’ poachers into believing these treated rhino horns are poisonous. A friend recently returned from the Rhino and Lion park in Joburg and had been told that they are poisoning the horns and it is working as the only poached rhino on their property recently was a new arrival that hadn’t been treated. And this was a vet science student who shared this experience with me. The park staff are telling guests that it is working and the only reason they lost that ONE animal is because their staff and visitors believe the rest of the horns are poisonous. The fact of the matter is…poaching syndicate leaders follow social media and scientific publications…so they KNOW it is a bluff. So it won’t serve as a deterrent for very long, if it has at all. And subjecting rhinos to risky and unnecessary anaesthesia and treatments is costly and dangerous.
ReplyHave your say