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. 

Connecting with Comedy

(blog post for Wednesday, June 19th)

Comedy is an integral aspect in my life; from a young age I have always looked to humor to solve many of my problems. Besides the fact that being funny got me attention, I’ve found that being funny lower peoples’ guards and increases their affability. Comedy is an effective way to connect with people; if you can make me laugh, you have my complete attention.

This proves useful in the advertising/PR world when trying to reach an audience. Many of my favorite ads have been funny, and I find myself more inclined to like a product/brand if they use humor in their advertisements.

Meeting with Conan O’Brien and Katherine Ryan was wonderful for a comedy junkie like me. Both are two very funny people, yet still humble and honest. They both had integrity, which is somewhat difficult to come by in that industry; both of them said that they are motivated by their own comedic tastes and don’t take others into consideration when producing their material. While we aspiring ad/PR people have to be more collaborative, it still proves an important lesson—stick to your convictions and find work that challenges you.

I asked Conan if he thought comedy was an effective way to reach people about social issues, and he said only if it was genuine and the comedy was the driving force, not the social impact. I can understand that; comedy can’t be contrived or it falls flat. But I still believe that more than “shock value,” comedy is the best way to reach people and laughter is the first step in changing beliefs and behavior. It is my hope that I will one day be able to utilize comedy in any campaign I do because while I want to make the world a little better, I also just want to make it laugh.

Celebrities and Enemies

(blog post for Sunday, June 16th)

The first event I attended for the Cannes Lions festival was the Celebrities in the Media seminar. Full disclosure: the main reason why I went was because Melanie Brown (aka Scary Spice) was a featured panelist. But eventually I would like to work in PR for organizations like GLAAD that deal with television/film portrayal of LGBTQ individuals, so it would be beneficial to learn more about harnessing celebrity power for social causes. We’ve been hearing a lot about transparency so far, meaning an advertising/PR agency should be open and honest about the work it’s doing or the companies it represents, and transparency for celebrities isn’t all that different. When the world watches your every move, it’s impossible to keep much discreet. But celebrities can use social media to directly acknowledge controversies related to them so reputation management is easier. Social media also allows celebrities to take the power away from reporters and paparazzi; while this might influence them to reveal more about their private lives than they wanted, it makes fans feel more connected.

I also enjoyed ArnoldWorldwide’s seminar “You Need an Enemy.” Hosting with Shepard Fairey (of the Obama poster fame), Chief Creative Officer Pete Favat explained why each brand is a protagonist that needs an antagonist to thrive. Examples: Nike and lethargy, Apple and boring conventions of the PC, anti-obesity campaigns and the fast-food industry. Favat claims that, by having an enemy, a company/agency produces better, more creative work to outshine their competitor and remains focused on beating said competitor. I think he had some good insights; every brand needs something that makes them look good in comparison (Swiffer cleaning products to regular cleaning supplies, Geico insurance rates, etc.). Even for me, someone who wants to work in the philanthropic branch of a company, it’s important to find whatever it is that contradicts my campaign’s stance and exploit it. Finding an enemy gives you a goal and a purpose. 

Work that Matters

The most engaging seminar I attended today was Coca Cola’s “Work That Matters.” Jonathan Mildenhall, VP of Global Advertising Strategy and Content Excellence, presented a series of Coke ads that attempted to bring awareness to social issues and causes, starting in the ‘50s with ads geared towards challenging racial prejudice to present-day campaigns that aim to mediate national conflicts (India/Pakistan ad). The ads were charming and effective; the whole theater seemed to be touched by the magic of Coke. I myself felt nostalgic seeing the Mean Joe Green ad—I remember going to the Coke museum in Atlanta as a kid and seeing this ad in the video booth. Coke, probably more than any other brand, effectively uses pathos and emotional connections to their brand to retain their consumer base.

During the presentation, however, I couldn't help thinking about the potential backlash for brands/organizations that champion certain social causes. Do you risk compromising a brand’s image/consumer base by championing taboo social causes, such as racism and LGBTQ rights? The obvious answer is yes, there is always a risk involved when you take a stance on a social issue. But sometimes backlash could actually help your brand; case in point, a recent Cheerios ad featured a biracial couple and their mixed-race daughter. While the ad drew a lot of negative comments on YouTube (go figure), the criticism actually brought more attention to the issue of racial prejudice and, consequently, got more people talking about Cheerios. People want to feel that they are taking part in social change; causes such as KONY, the End It movement, the HRC’s marriage equality Facebook profile-picture change, and even Bennetton’s Unhate campaign are all examples of how people will align themselves with a cause purely to feel connected and righteous. Companies like Coke, who effectively connect their brands with a social cause, garner business from people who feel good for purchasing products associated with social issues.

However, an issue that companies (even adored corporations like Coke) face with this kind of advertising is authenticity (buzzword!). Consumers can tell if companies aren't ingenuous in their philanthropic efforts. A few of my fellow students and I met Chris Pearce, the Managing Director at the TMW agency, who wasn’t very impressed with one of Coke’s ads. He said he didn’t see what Coke’s role was in the story of a Brazilian garbage-collector; yes, it might have been “awareness-raising,” but it seemed more like Coke was benefiting more from this man’s story by convincing people if they bought soda, they’d be impacting lives less fortunate than their own. I had to agree; though I think Coke does have some excellent campaigns that have brought about a lot of good, this one missed the mark. It’s important to remember that publics are aware of pretense in advertising—in the words of David Ogilvy, “the consumer isn’t an idiot; she’s your wife.”

That being said, I did experience a mild epiphany during the Coke seminar. Previously, I have thought that effecting social change would require me to do PR for nonprofit organizations or independent agencies; in fact, my exact words were “I wouldn’t feel comfortable working for corporations like Coke who simply want to sell products.” But seeing Coke’s “Work that Matters” presentations made me realize that even big corporations can be philanthropic, and brands have an enormous power to bring attention to social issues that smaller organizations simply cannot wield. Now it doesn’t matter to me what size company I end up working for, as long as I can create work that matters.                          

(blog for Tuesday, June 17th)

An Advertent Advert: Banksy's Words of Wisdom

 Perhaps it's because I come from a background other than advertising that I can view this ad with a more objective, unbiased opinion. Although I did experience a touch of cognitive dissonance while reading Banksy's statements; I know that not all advertising is created equally, and that for every "evil" add that attempts to sell an unfavorable product or service (i.e. cigarettes or plastic surgery), there is an ad that champions a noble cause or is simply just trying to sell a product in a competitive, capitalist society. But at the same time I can see how the average consumer would obtain a distrusting attitude towards advertisements after reading Banksy's statements; I myself paused and reflected over the plethora of ads that target me as a women and try to sell me beauty ideals that often compromise my self-esteem. Companies like Victoria's Secret and Maybelline, Revlon, Dove, etc. constantly perpetuate beauty standards and gender norms that are harmful to young women who feel that these products are necessities for their social worth. So the question is, how do you market such products towards a target audience without objectifying them? Or the real question, how do you get corporations and advertising agencies to care about the impact it has on society?

     I will admit, I have a lot to learn about advertising. I am a young, naive, aspiring PR specialist who would rather work in non-profit for a good cause than earn a hefty salary at a Fortune 500 company whose main interest is to sell products. Maybe one day that will change-- maybe I'll shed my soft skin and come around to the idea of wealth and prestige. Probably not-- hopefully not. At least, not while I can still sympathize with Banksy and his wary disregard for manipulative advertising that sells for profit instead of trying to better the world. This ad is useful to advertising majors, or any communications major, who has trouble seeing through the consumer's eye. Perhaps if more of us understood what it's like to be on the other side of the advertiser-consumer equation, we could begin to change the way advertising relates to, and respects, its audiences.

( Response is to Banksy's Coke Ad)