Editorial: Why creating iconic ads cannot now be enough

aberration?

Not likely. The judges' job is to separate the emotional from the
rational. Famous though the Cadbury campaign is, the effectiveness case
was clearly not sufficiently proven. But if the ape's absence was a real
surprise, it's equally true that the credibility of the awards is
dependent on judges subjecting entries to the most rigorous
examination.

The awards were set up 28 years ago to convince clients that it was
possible to prove whether or not a campaign worked and if the investment
in it had been worthwhile.

If subjecting each case study to forensic examination was important
then, it is vital now. As the downturn begins to bite, the need to
convince advertisers that they'll reap the rewards for holding their
nerve has never been greater.

In this climate, the temptation is to opt for short-term fixes. This
fits ill with the Effectiveness Awards, which have set out to show the
benefits of long-term advertising investment in a brand. But are
campaigns that produce short-term results while laying the groundwork
for long-term success just wishful thinking? The Effectiveness
Award-winning campaigns for Morrisons and KFC suggest it isn't.

Yet while this may be a comforting thought, it puts an added onus on
agencies. Producing a dazzling piece of creative work is fine, but
clients will also need to hear a compelling case for why it will boost
the bottom line.