This year’s Annual is not as astounding as last year’s. The best work is great, but frankly there’s not enough of it.
This year, the number of entrants was up by about 15 percent, and the number of entries was down by about the same. Which suggests that more people now want to be judged by the best in the business, but correctly recognize that these are an unforgiving bunch!
(Certainly there was a marked drop in any judge holding up of any piece of work, eyebrows aquiver, with the exasperated comment, “When they entered this, what the hell were they thinking?”)
In truth, it was some small mark of honour to survive the first cull. The problem for the judges was then how high to set the bar; in the event they decided that to lower that bar from last year’s level would be an insult to past winners as well as being condescending to this year’s.
It may be that in the intervening twelve months various factors have contributed to a general drop in balls-out breakthrough thinking: of these, the heads-under-the-parapet economic climate may be the most telling. Clients being more cautious, suits being even more so, and awards-budgets feeling the pinch are, I know from hands-on experience, major factors that have had to be faced and survived. It’s easy to trot out the old quote “in times like these, the most dangerous thing you can do is safe advertising”, but somehow at the critical moment the bottom line seems to be screaming at you to be careful.
The fact remains that to get a Ball in the World Press Awards is a remarkable feat. And to get a Finalist Certificate is far more difficult than getting any Puddy-tats in that self-congratulatory orgy on the French Riviera.
We set out to reflect only the very best, and we’ve done that.
In a recent survey*, Newspapers were shown to be a far more effective medium than on-line advertising and TV, despite the current vogue for the former and the on-going glamour of the latter. And setting-aside the generally woeful standards of press barons in marketing their own product, it behoves us, as cold-eyed and level-headed professionals, to insist that clients get maximum bang for their buck.
That means no more than producing cut-the-clutter work. End of story. In golf, there’s a saying that a putt that doesn’t reach the hole rarely goes in; in advertising, any ad that isn’t noticed will not work. Our only job is to put the product in front of the public. All other factors are secondary. We are rarely responsible for pricing, distribution, or packaging, and we have no control at all over what the competition may do. Let the dog see the damn rabbit, that’s all. And make the rabbit as cute and fluffy and appetizing as possible!
Rant almost over. Out of adversity may come effort. I hope so, because business ain’t gonna get any easier for a year or two. I love this racket, and the people who emerge from the daily battle, bloody but unbowed. I once asked Sir Martin Sorrell why, in his opinion,
So….you can be great if you want it enough. But you’ve got to really, really want it.
Finally, a word about the judges: I can’t thank them enough for taking the trouble to come all that way for a start. Also, listening to them dissect the work was, as ever, an invaluable further education. But possibly most telling of all was the fact that despite their willingly (almost aggressively) abstaining from judging on so much of the contending work, the best agencies last year were also, in the main, the best agencies this year. To a man, they felt that this might reflect adversely on them and the show. All volunteered to forego the judging next year if it would help convince our public of our shared principles and our wish to be “above” the unedifying scramble for yet more recognition.
Certainly one answer would be to keep the jury intact, but prevent them from entering. Which would be spectacularly silly. It’s not our calling to find out who produces the second-best work in the world. (“Hamlet” without not only the Prince but all the other main characters as well just might not have the majesty of the original?)
So…with a certain amount of regrets on my part, it’ll be all-change next time. We were, in one way, lucky that Tony Granger was at the last moment prevented from joining us this year, due to some bizarre bureaucracy in The States. So he gets (and has accepted) the first invitation in 2009. I’m negotiating with some monster names as you read this to fill the other chairs, and as soon as that’s done, we’ll announce those names on the website.
I can only guarantee that they’ll be just as tough as their predecessors.
NEIL FRENCH is one of the world’s most famous ad gurus, having shaped The Ball Partnership, Ogilvy & Mather and eventually, the other WPP agencies.
.
