Creative Effectiveness Awards

The category of Creative Effectiveness can be summarized in Ogilvy’s famous promise: “We sell, or else.” It’s this do-or-die type of attitude that separates the Creative Effectiveness award from others; a campaign or ad can be creative or innovative, but it does nothing if it doesn’t sell. If research isn’t utilized to ascertain what type of message is most effective in which medium to what audience, if ideas aren’t capitalized to achieve objectives and goals, then it was all for naught.

The winners of this year’s Creative Effectiveness lions were creative and original, but they demonstrated that they made an impact on their target audience. To be eligible for this award, the entrants had to have been shortlisted or won a Lion last year; the reason for this being that the jurors knew the ads fully embodied the creative element, but now they could be solely judged on their actual impact.

 Heineken saw volume and value share increase on a global level; American Express’s “Small Business Saturday” helped invigorate small business while simultaneously increasing use of their card; Insurance Australia Group literally saved lives with their catchy campaign “Dumb Ways to Die;” The British Heart Foundation insured that audiences will remember how fast to pump the chest during CPR (to the tune of “Stayin’ Alive).  All of the campaigns were inventive and ingenuous, but they changed audience behavior and raised sales/awareness in a way that set them apart from other entries.

The Netherlands took the Grand Prix (Wieden+Kennedy Amsterdam), but Oceania took home the most gold (2 for Australia, one for New Zealand). The United Kingdom won two gold Lions and USA received one. All of the ads were deserving of their awards for their unique and successful campaigns. 

Real Beauty?

Dove’s “Real Beauty Sketches” is the latest addition in their efforts to show what “real beauty” is. The premise of the campaign is that women are too negative about their physical appearance; apparently 96% of us find ourselves less attractive than we actually are. So Dove had women describe their features to a professional sketch artist (who never actually saw the women); this artist then heard descriptions of each woman from a total stranger. The portraits, one from each woman and one from the stranger, were juxtaposed, the result being that the self-described pictures were “less-attractive” than the other. The women emphasized their negative features, demonstrating how critical we are of ourselves.

For many people, this ad is effective because it concerns an actual struggle—women do tend to have low self-esteem about their appearance, mainly due to glamour magazines and ridiculous beauty standards (set by men). Its genius lies in the fact that millions of women (and not just women, anybody who doubts their own self-worth) can relate to the ad, thus humanizing the brand and making it more respected. Women will subconsciously gravitate towards Dove soap when shopping because of their emotional connection to the brand; they’ll remember how empowering the ad was and they’ll feel even better for buying Dove soap, because they are supporting something they believe in: “real beauty.”

Here’s where I have to call bullshit on some of Dove’s campaign. Not as an advertiser, but as a consumer (because from an advertising standpoint, the campaign is genius). First, not only am I being preached about “real beauty” from a company that sells beauty products, but they are basing their ideas about real beauty from what? Physical appearances. What if one of the women who came in for a portrait was, by society’s standards, physically “ugly” (disproportionate features, overweight, etc.)? Why are we still basing beauty on one’s physical appearance when true beauty comes from within? Yes, I understand the point of the ad was to show that women lack confidence about themselves, but does an ad that affirms their physical good looks instead of their personality or character really do any good in the long run? There’s also the fact that only one woman of color was portrayed in the ad. I think diversity is a beautiful thing and I think it’s time we started to challenge our nation’s beauty ideals a little more. 

Toxic Rivers Tour

Many environmentally-conscious ads (or any social responsibility ads) run the risk of being preachy-- shaming audiences turns them off. Studies that track consumers’ eye movements have proved that people have begun to ignore the graphic images of diseased organs on cigarette packs completely. Provocative and abrasive are not as effective at changing behavior as they used to be, which means organizations and ad campaigns need to be more thoughtful and subtle in their work in order to persuade publics.

Shock value in ads (like the texting while driving campaign or the Sarah Mclaughlin animal cruelty commercial) is effective at getting attention, but people don’t like to think too much about what distresses them. Comedy, however, isn’t threatening and has a lower risk of turning people off than provocative messages. This is why Greenpeace Mexico’s campaign “Toxic Rivers Tour” is effective; the humor of the ad caught my attention and made me interested in what the organization was raising awareness about. The ad presented polluted Mexican rivers as tourist destinations; the absurdity and tongue-in-cheek dig at the country’s apathy towards conservation serve to include everyone in on the joke, instead of shaming them. It’s easier to acknowledge bad behavior when you can laugh at it, which then makes it easier to rectify said conduct.

 I judge an ad’s effectiveness by my willing to learn more about the organization/product—right after I saw the ad I wanted to look the campaign up online. But more than that, it’s a lesson for future PR specialists such as myself: humor can go a long way. Shock value might be good at raising awareness, but in order to really change behavior and attitudes, laughter can sometimes be the best remedy. 

Find Your Greatness

In terms of getting back in touch with consumers, I thought Nike’s “Find Your Greatness” ads to be an effective way of appealing to audiences while remaining true to brand voice. I viewed two of Nike’s ads from the same campaign, both of which featured regular people participating in everyday activities. The first ad consisted of an overweight boy jogging towards the camera down a back country road, at a time of day when most people are sleeping; before the viewer can discern what is approaching, a voice over tells us that “greatness” is just something we’ve made up. We think it’s reserved for the chosen few, “for prodigies, for superstars.” The voice over tells us we can forget all we’ve previously thought about greatness; it’s at this point that we can begin to make out the advancing form, and as the jogger comes into focus, the voice tells us we are all capable of greatness. The ad ends with a close-up of the boy, breathless but persistent, and the words “Find Your Greatness” with the Nike logo underneath.

The ad effectively uses pathos to capture the audience’s emotions; feelings range from intrigue, to admiration for the young boy, to feelings of resolve: I can be great, too. Perhaps out-of-shape athletes watched the ad and decided to pick up their hobby once again; maybe, like the boy in the ad, those struggling for their health will watch this ad and know that losing weight and getting fit isn’t as impossible as it seems. And maybe they won’t do any of this—maybe to some, it’s just a good ad. But would these people be motivated if they saw a 30 second spot about professional athletes performing ridiculous feats? The strength of the ad comes from its human element; it’s effective because it knows how to relate to the masses, not the few. Nike’s campaign not only encourages people to exercise; it’s helping to redefine what we think “greatness” is.

Brand New Traditions

(blog post for Friday, June 21st)

I’ve attended quite a number of engaging seminars throughout the week, but by now (Friday) I am somewhat burnt out from the lecture series. As I pointed out earlier, a lot of these seminars are very useful for those already in the industry—for students, some of the information is lost on us because we aren’t used to thinking like top ad execs are.

But GolinHarris’s workshop “Finding Your Brand’s Voice” was applicable to anybody familiar with brands and psychology. Case studies were shown in which certain brands underwent a makeover that departed from their established identity, which ties back into one of the festival’s themes: authenticity. Sometimes it just sounds like a bullshit buzzword, but it’s an important aspect of retaining brand values and target consumer bases. For instance, Dove beauty products are associated with making women feel like they are worth more than their physical appearance. So if they wanted to seem more appealing to a younger age group, say women 16-25, they wouldn’t take on a Victoria’s Secret-style campaign with flashy commercials featuring supermodels lathering on Dove soap; that contradicts the image they have constructed and would most likely alienate their target market. Seems like an obvious situation to avoid, no?

But it’s a common mistake many companies make. They are so intently focused on their brand that they forget the most important aspect: the consumer. Knowing what the customer wants and fulfilling this want should be the driving force behind any company’s decision to market a product or service. Years ago, Coke thought they needed to change their can’s appearance to appeal to more consumers. Millions of dollars later, they found that audiences hated the new look; what they enjoyed was the traditional can they’d loved for years.

I guess I could be cheesy and impart an appropriate cliché here: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Yet organizations and products still need to be re-introduced from time to time to maintain relevance; from Coke to Apple to Heineken, even brands with devout followers need to keep abreast of the times. This can be achieved without compromising established brand values; all it takes is creativity and innovation. If only there was a festival for that…

Klues for Success

(blog post for Tuesday, June 18th)

Annie Leibovitz’s collaboration with Disney takes an already famous brand and uses iconic imagery to reinvigorate its power. Leibovitz shot a series of photos using celebrities as certain Disney characters, combining celebrity influence with adored characters to connect with all audiences. Disney, like Coke and many other beloved brands, will always have devoted followers but still needs to maintain its presence in the entertainment industry. Disney and Leibovitz created a project that states Disney’s relevance by utilizing its traditions; by combining popular celebrities and legendary characters, the photos capitalize on the nostalgic value of the stories while adding a touch of novelty to the tales. It’s an important lesson in branding and the creativity that is required to keep your client pertinent, without compromising brand values.

I have to stop at this point and make an admission: I love attending seminars and forums, and find many of them interesting and useful, but sometimes I feel the message goes over my head. I think some of the lectures are more helpful for those already in the industry; but as a student, I’m still trying to build a basic skill set. I honestly don’t know much about brand-building and keeping my client transparent because I don’t have a brand or a client. I need advice and information about making that leap from college to the real world; I want to know what it is that can help set me apart from thousands of other PR specialists that will be applying for the same position.

Talking to Jack Klues was probably my highlight of the day, because it was a nice change of pace from the lectures. Being able to talk one-on-one with an established professional afforded us insights that we would’ve have been able to get from seminars or master classes. When he told us that we students should be teaching the execs a thing or two about new trends in advertising, I think it gave us all a little boost of confidence. We’re in that weird transition from young adult/student to graduate/professional, and we have to be reminded that we have more knowledge and insight than we give ourselves credit for.

Let's Talk About Sex(ism)

Even in 2013, I sometimes feel anxious about trying to make it in the industry as a woman. I know sexism in the workplace isn’t as prevalent as it used to be, but I still feel that sometimes I am dismissed or undervalued because I have two X chromosomes.

I didn’t really give much thought to it until I tried to network at this festival. I understand that this week is like spring break in the advertising world; I’m sure they’re less inclined to talk business when this is their chance to cut loose and have some fun before returning to reality. I also empathize with the fact that I’m a student and, besides giving them a fresh young perspective on aspects of the industry, it’s likely I’m getting much more out of the exchange than they are. That being said, I know I have a lot to offer and though I’m still searching for my purpose in the ad/PR world, I am tenacious and am fully committed to developing the skill set I’ll need to be successful in this business.

But it gets frustrating when the men I’ve tried to network with quickly lose interest when they realize I have no interest in going home with them. I’m not the only one; my peers have experienced the same problem. One of my friends had seriously doubted whether or not this industry is the right place for her after multiple failed attempts at networking. It was disconcerting, to say the least.

But my apprehensions were quelled when Susy Deering talked to our class on Thursday. She shared multiple anecdotes of her experiences with sexism (from both men and women), but she took it all in stride. I knew then that I would never let any kind of prejudice come between me and my career aspirations; it’s crucial for women, and any other minority group, to have role models to be inspired by.