We reckon sometimes our job here at AdTown, is to say the things that dare not be said. At least not out loud. Sure, we'll try to be fair, but we also want to make it clear, as Clint Estwood once said 'opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one'. (And as a friend of ours once added 'yeah, and some of them stink').

So from time to time we'll air an opinion that's just us, well, to be honest, blatantly abusing our position of power by using our own website to air that opinion. Agree, disagree, we couldn't care less. We're just into saying what we think, so for what it's worth, here goes. With any luck, and we know some of you are thinking the same damn thing, we can clear a few things up along the way.

There's no question there were some question marks over last year's 'People's Choice' awards. We certainly raised an eyebrow at what a presence KWP! had... yeah, they're good, but are they really that good? Or was their influence a little more like China's influence over Tibet?

A few facts: The suggestion to even do a People's Choice Awards came out of the awards review sub-commitee, which was headed up by Peter Withy - the 'W' in KWP!. Mostly, entries were sent to KWP! Mostly, KWP! had at least one, if not multiple pieces of works in the finalists each month. And KWP! won it - lets face it, with that many pieces in the finals their chances of winning were right up there with an African marathon runner or a Bulgarian 'female' weightlifter.

To further the 'controversy', we were also brave enough, in our very first article ever on our very first day online, to suggest we may have seen the end of the People's Choice Awards. What can we say? We thought they'd ended up a bit one-sided and weren't really sure they achieved much. (Unless you worked at KWP! that is.)

That said, we should probably clear up a few things:

1. A People's Choice Award is probably a good way for someone to win something without an uptight interstate judge having to agree the piece of work is awesome. Which as we've seen time and time again, happens about as often as Britney wears undies.
2. At least another friggin wine label didn't win and that has to be a good thing.
3. The Advertiser were awesome to not just consider, but totally support this kind of initiative.
4. Tracey at KWP! was awesome for helping organise the judging and that's why the entires went there. Hell, someone had to do it and our guess is, as usual, there weren't an awful lot of hands in the air. (Maybe a crap agency could do it next time? Any volunteers?)
5. The Advertiser assure us they continue to be keen on the idea and want to keep it going in 2008, making it bigger and better.
6. While Pete Withy was in fact a judge, judges weren't able to vote on their own work.
7. Judges also included Greg Knagge (Clemenger), Jim Robinson (JAM), Marty Pepper and Loewn Steel (Oasis/Kojo). Which, we have to grudgingly admit, is a reasonable spread.

Dan Demaria from The Advertiser confesses there were a few IT problems but apparently they're all sorted and as he pretty legitimately points out "I'm sure Google, Facebook and the invention of the wheel had many 'learnings' befoe they got it right". Fair point. He added "The intention is noble - to get great work out there. The judging process was completely clear and transparent". (He also said our site was good and a "great initiative" and that kind of arse kissing alway goes a long way with us so he's got our vote, that's for sure.)