Lynx case will lead to better self-regulation

"Don't fire the baker," pleaded Dr Lance De Masi, President of the International Advertising Association UAE Chapter. The head of the largest IAA chapter and president of American University in Dubai, hoped agencies would not make creative executives redundant as they face the challenges of a transformed advertising scene in the region. "You would have all the presentations, but no one to do the work," he said. Intending to talk about the late Dubai Lynx episode with Fortune Promoseven Qatar, he opened up to different concerns of the advertising world. The IAA, led by this man who was the executive vice-president and COO of Impact BBDO Dubai, seems to maintain a balanced stance on what has happened, what could be done and what needs to be achieved, on both sides of organisers of such events and the agencies. De Masi did not free clients from their share of the responsibility either. He spoke to Emirates Business in his office at AUD. Is the IAA angry with FP7 after what has happened since the Dubai Lynx awards announced withdrawing its Agency of the Year title? The IAA is not angry, I wouldn't use the word angry. I think that while a lot of attention has been focused on one agency and what that agency seemed to be doing, we must be very honest with ourselves and not focus on that individual agency but on the industry's participation in the awards and the awards themselves. We are representing the advertising industry and are major sponsors of the Dubai Lynx. In fact, following the emergence of these issues, we conducted in-depth and lengthy interviews with agency heads to try to understand their views of the awards and what has happened. We have provided the Lynx with that feedback. What findings did you achieve from those interviews? Very interesting results. The findings were three-dimensional. The first dimension is the clear recognition by the industry of Lynx as a very positive mechanism for encouraging and celebrating creative excellence. The second dimension is a consensus that Lynx needs to tighten up, in terms of the rules and regulations, the cultural sensitivity, the eminent international jurors brought in, the documentation which accompanies the entries to the awards, that actually serves evidence that the rules have been complied with. The third dimension is the consensus within the industry that what will really make this work is not the regulations alone, but additional self-regulation. Hence, the industry realises that compliance with the spirit of the law will make these awards better, moving forward. Operation within a universally accepted ethical framework is required. It is not something that Lynx can legislate, but is that the industry must decide to express and comply with. But we are referring to very well established agencies. Afterall, it was not FP7 alone that had works disqualified and withdrawn from the competition. Why would they present non-compliant work? Wouldn't that be compromising their reputation? I can't get into the psychological nuances of what caused the situation. I think we need to keep in mind that the rules were in some ways rather open-ended and hence invited liberal interpretation and provided the opportunity for action that may not have been directly prohibited, but did fall outside the spirit of the rules. In the absence of experience regarding the consequences and implications of such actions on the awards and the industry, I think, people took a greater than desirable degree of liberty with those rules. I see these all as a process of maturation and I am encouraged by the fact that the industry itself realises what has been risked here and understands the role of self-regulation in making this and any ceremony work here or anywhere else in the world. I believe this embodies a process of continuous improvement leading to a more successful future for the Dubai Lynx Awards. Does this imply that the IAA has blamed the Dubai Lynx for what happened? I don't blame the Lynx, just as I don't blame legislators who make laws. You legislate to the extent you can, and I think the Lynx organisers are quite experienced in making the laws. It is not a question of blame. I repeat, I think it is a question of learning and gaining from experience, and I think their response was a proper one, in terms of realising given some of the complexities of the region that the awards needed rules that were perhaps more specific and requiring additional documentation. That response is an over responsible, balanced one coming a considerable distance in terms of the legislative aspect while preserving the integrity of the awards ceremony as an event that should promote creativity. One of the ads was disqualified for religious sensitivity. Wasn't the jury aware of this kind of sensitivity? As you notice in the Lynx statement, they have made reference to consultants that have been appointed to introduce the jury members to the various sensitivities of the region including cultural norms and