Could we just judge the creative, and ditch the case study video?

In the wake of the Cannes Lions controversy, there has once again been much debate and discussion in the advertising industry about award shows and the unethical behaviour they often elicit. 

When a Grand Prix, three Golds, four Silvers, and four Bronzes, all need to be handed back in shame — and a CCO resigns — due to case study videos misleading the juries, it’s naturally big news and draws negative attention towards the famed ‘International Festival of Creativity’ in the South of France. 

Below is Brazil’s DM9 Creative Data Grand Prix winning case study video, for which an investigation revealed the use of AI-manipulated footage in the ‘Efficient Way to Pay’ campaign for Consul.

However, I’m not going to sit here and pass judgement on Cannes itself.

I think it’s important that an industry that believes in the power of creativity, celebrates creativity. Whilst I am of the strong opinion that there’s way too many award shows, and I do feel that Cannes is somewhat too inaccessible, those are either discussions for another day, or debates that have been done to death. 

What I am interested in deliberating is a particular element of award shows, and arguably the most influential one when it comes to winning shiny metal: the case study video. 

I have a novel suggestion, though hardly an original one: doing away with case study videos, and simply judging the actual creative work.  

Crazy I know, but perhaps what should decide if creative thinking is worthy of industry acclaim is the… creative thinking? 

My mind immediately went to KFC’s ‘Michelin Impossible’, for which I was lucky enough to win a Lion for a few years ago.

There was no ‘work’ for this campaign. The high point was us sending a KFC franchisee to Paris, to knock on the door of the Michelin head office, and ask for a Michelin Star for KFC’s food quality.

Only a case study video could bring this idea to life. So my suggestion to ditch the case study video would probably rob me of the fame and fortune that the little bronze lion didn’t bring me.  

Hhmm. 

Perhaps for traditional campaigns, all that should be asked to supply is the creative work, plus a short (half a page?) written submission that has the problem/brief, the idea articulation, and the results.   

Yet for non-traditional ideas that don’t have ‘work’ or easy to upload assets, you only have 60 seconds to explain/showcase it, and you can’t include the over-dramatised problem. Nor can have a manufactured cultural impact. Oh, and no music track is allowed either, so you can’t fool people into thinking the campaign was more grandiose than it was. 

Is that a solution? Or is there even a problem to begin with? 

Well, sadly, there is. 

A lot of people, especially clients, would be utterly shocked to know how much time is spent on an award case study video. However long you think it might be, I’m willing to better it’s five times that amount. Minimum. 

Trust me, it’s actually staggering, if not appalling, what goes into a case study video. 

I’m not exaggerating when I say that I’ve worked on multiple campaigns where more craft, care, time, people, and effort went into the case study video than the actual creative work for the campaign. I’m not even joking. 

I once heard of a case study video that had 41 different edits. 41! 

It didn’t even win either. 

An ECD once told me that the best idea doesn’t win an award, the best case study video does. Sadly, he was right. Yet how wrong is that? 

I realise there are production companies and editors out there currently taking me off their Christmas card list. You can almost hear them screaming “Shut up! That’s how we make a shedload of money! It’s bad enough that AI is coming for our jobs, now you want to get rid of award case study videos too, you idiot!” 

Yet imagine if all the time, money and resource that’s spent on case study videos was instead redirected and dedicated to the actual work, and making that better? (Better still, what if it was spent on people not getting retrenched?) 

The hours of writing. The hours of art direction. The hours of music selection. The hours of editing. All spent on the actual creative, rather than the case study video. Makes sense to me. 

Ryan O’Connell

Let me leave you with this thought . . . 

If a case study video is ripe for manipulation, for deceiving, for misleading, for not revealing the whole story, for exaggerating, along with being time consuming, expensive, and diverting creatives away from the actual job they’re paid to do by clients, then why have them? 

I was once told by a wise old soul that great work sells itself.  

Perhaps great work should award itself too. 

 Ryan O’Connell is co-founder and chief strategy officer at Jnr.

Related Content

Opinion For the love of creativity, award organisers must be more vigilant

News Cannes Lions racks up over $60 million in entry fees