Why Creative Effectiveness is the Cannes Lion you really want to win
With controversy over the criteria of entry for some Cannes Lions categories Phil Johnston argues the Creative Effectiveness category is the most rigorous ‘effie’ in the world.
Don’t worry. I’m not entering the debate on whether some Lion winners are scam. There are enough voices on that.
And my starting point isn’t even creativity. Because let’s not forget that creativity is just a means to an end. What is that end? Meeting our clients’ objectives, whatever they may be. That’s what I’m here to do.
If you work in an agency that’s what you should be doing as well. If you don’t, you’re in the wrong game.
Well said Phil. This is what’s really at the heart of the awards problem – that all winners should stand up to the ultimate test of advertising which is delivering a business result. I appreciate the need to encourage creativity – but it should be hand in hand with effectiveness. “Scam” ads only win because the awards don’t do the rigour in checking the business results they achieved – they couldn’t exist if they had to pass a acid test of hard metrics achieved. Campaigns cost millions of dollars to create and promote – all award winners should be put through the above rigour and why aren’t they? We want to learn from award winning work which ideas drove the best results at the same time as which ones challenged the advertising world with a new way of doing things.
Lets refocus the award debate and look at the bigger problem that allows scam ads to exist in the first place. We will all be smarter, better at our jobs, and have happier clients if we achieve this if we raise the standards required to win to include business results combined with great creative ideas.
Thanks for writing this!
an excellent excellent article with sound advice and i thoroughly agree with the premise that this is the only award worth winning
congratulations, too
it was a great campaign on all levels
well said Phil and congrats on the Creative Effectiveness gong this year for VM
I thought the Doug Pitt campaign was derivative of an old US insurance campaign that featured siblings of famous people….look it up.
It ran headlines like “What if your names Evert and you cant play tennis?” (Featuring Chris Everts sister) etc etc…..
I am sure price waterhouse cooper wouldnt have an idea about that.
Anyway…agree about the other sentiments of the article.
Nice work PB
It was a great team from all sides who worked on that campaign… Well done all.
So only the Effectiveness campaigns are audited by PWC for veracity.
Got it. The other categories are/can be just “art”. Effectiveness is definitely “advertising’ then.
Nice puff piece, but given all the creatives and suits who created that campaign have left the agency, I’d say Havas’ days in the sun are pretty limited. Especially now the ECD concerned has left too.