So I’m one of the judges at the AME festival and the category I’ve been given to look at is ‘best insight’.
There are a lot of entries … covering a lot of categories … and I have to say the standard of them overall has been average.
Sure, there are some fucking awesome ones, the sort of insight that not only pulls you in with its genius, but also makes you hugely jealous with it’s discovery … however there are some that are nothing short of a scandalous embarrassment.
To be fair, some of the issues are because …
1/ Some entries come from agencies in countries where English is not the native language … so they can’t articulate themselves as they would like to and end up being at an immediate disadvantage.
[The fact entries have to be submitted in English is an issue in itself. I appreciate it’s the language of business but we are in Asia and it kind of reflects many of the issues I talked about here]
2/ Some agencies just don’t know how to write a compelling submission meaning it’s all over the place and you literally have to put it together like a written jigsaw.
… however that still doesn’t excuse the fact that there’s a hell of a lot that are utter bullshit and the fact certain agencies felt it OK to enter means they either are deluded [which I doubt], think the judges are so fucking stupid they might not realise [which I hope not] or believe that because the company behind the awards make so much money from putting them together, they will encourage everyone to not be too harsh for fear of stopping them entering next year. [which is possible, but not true]
While there are many types of insight, at it’s heart, they’re all about WHY stuff happens rather than WHAT.
As a concept, that shouldn’t be too hard, however it would appear there’s a hell of a lot of people who view that as one of the greatest challenges known to man because entry after entry was just pointless or generic observation, after pointless or generic observation.
Now I don’t know who is to blame for it.
Clients: who obviously don’t get what an insight is and just want something that makes them feel they’re great regardless of relevance or reality.
Agencies: who seemingly don’t care what an insight is as long as their client keeps spending money with them.
Planners: who don’t get what an insight is due to bad training, talent or understanding.
Of course not all entries were bad. As I said, some were fucking astounding … however if I was to look at the overall standard, I’d say it was a distinctly average bunch.
And that breaks my heart because it undermines what we are all capable of doing and contributing to both industry, commerce and culture.
However one thing that really, really, really got my goat was how many submissions had insights that bore no reflection in the work that was produced.
In many cases it was like I was looking at 2 totally separate entries.
The thing is, this is a marketing effectiveness award [though based on the entries, it’s really should be called an advertising effectiveness award] with the goal to show how your genius/devious approach, transformed the success of your brand in disproportionate terms.
If you end up with an ad that basically is either [1] the same as it always has been or [2] a category cliché … then I can’t see how you can claim you contributed something innovative that had a devastatingly positive effect on the brands result.
Effectiveness awards are more than just the result, it’s how you achieved the result … and if you’re going to say it’s the insight, then make sure you tick off the following criteria:
1/ It’s a genuine insight … not an observation or just plain bollocks.
2/ The insight is fresh, interesting, relevant and – to a certain degree – explainable … not some ‘bland’ or ‘state-the–obvious’ rubbish or some statement that suddenly makes an appearance with no explanation and then is never touched on again.
3/ The work reflects the insight … that doesn’t mean the work is the insight, just reflects it.
4/ The work that reflects the insight is work that doesn’t reflect the category. As far as I am concerned, it shouldn’t reflect a brands ‘usual’ approach either …however if you are doing something genuinely different to the category, then I can sort-of accept why you might want to enter it again, even though winning with that insight one year makes me think you shouldn’t be able to enter it again the following year. But that’s just me.
5/ The results you’re claiming actually mean something. Something tangible and commercially valuable. Including how many fucking ‘facebook likes’ you got or that some 16 year old spotty blogger in Singapore thinks “it’s like, totally rad. Dude” is not effectiveness, it’s called making a silk purse out of a pile of shit. And you can include ‘how many youtube hits’ in that as well. Basically anything that tries to flog ‘awareness’ rather than shareholder value.
Of course, the alternative is to not enter any awards where I have been kindly asked to be a judge … though I know the other guys casting their eyes over the entries and they make me look like Mary Poppins.
Saying all that, apart from some truly amazing entries that deserve all the praise they will get – the award event is shaping up to be truly awesome with some fantastic speakers ranging from Mark Earls and Rory Sutherland through to PT Black and founder of Tudou, Gary Wang so if you find yourself in Shanghai on the 12th and 13th May and don’t mind being seen in public with me, pop in and I’ll buy you a drink. As long as it’s a Diet Coke.