Bali, Indonesia—In its inaugural year at the Clio Awards and the first time brand executives have judged work as part of the overall awards program, the Innovation & Integrated jury convened over the course of three days in Bali to weigh more than 600 submissions in the category.
The jury consisted of chair Steve Vranakis, executive creative director, Google Creative Lab, U.K.; Christine Dilandro, svp, head of media and integrated marketing, Citi; Juhi Kalia, head of Creative Shop, India and Indonesia; Ann Rubin, vp, brand content and global creative, IBM, USA; Kathleen Hall, corporate vp, global advertising, Microsoft, USA; Lars Terling, global head of a product business unit and director of FM/FMX product line, Volvo, Sweden; and Peter Carter, managing director of brand building integrated communications, Procter & Gamble, USA.
While chiefly charged with focusing on the creativity and originality of submissions, the theme of how return on investment, digital disruption and technology are shaping advertising and product development also served as an inevitable backdrop to the jury discussions.
(L. to r.) Rubin, Carter, Terling and Hall
After completing their deliberations, the jurors sat down with Adweek to discuss the creative trends that came through the craft they considered and the debate about both the merits and shortcomings of the ideas behind the work.
Adweek: What were the most important marketing themes to come out of this experience?
Carter: Whatever the hot social issues of the day are, those always came through, whether it was bullying or racism or Syrian refugees. It was advertising as a microcosm of what's happening in the world.
Dilandro: There were also brands working on innovations that could very well be helpful in the future. There was a greater good element and that dimensions what they [brands and advertisers] stand for in terms of doing meaningful work.
Vranakis: The Innovation [panel] had a huge element of social impact. Brands very much honed in on a cause that was aligned to their core beliefs and values and really went to town.Reaching their target through the shared values that the brand and their audience hold dear seemed to result in fresh and surprising work and a winning formula.
Where the themes of innovation and integration strongly represented in the work submitted?
Hall: I think collectively we all agree that the term integration is a bit antiquated. It used to be TV, outdoor print and you had integrated. Now it seems to be mushy. What defines an integrated campaign has become nebulous.
Rubin: And I think the submissions weren't very clear about what their integrated elements were. Is PR an element? Is it a collection of elements? Or is owned platforms, or being on your own social channels, a tactic of integration?
Dilandro: I think the power of digital is evolving how we might want to look at the label of integration because it can appear through a digital channel only, but still have an array of activation points.
What, if anything, surprised you?
Rubin: That we were not immensely impressed overall with the quality of the work.
What was missing?
Carter: The real breakthrough idea; I didn't see that dynamic twist. Yes, there were incremental differences. But that game changing experience didn't happen for us this year.
Vranakis: I was continuously surprised by the smaller more regional brands who are doing so much with so little. They're really tapping into genuine insights that result in work that is more meaningful and beneficial to their audience. So much of the best work gave back, added value to people's lives and was empathetic to the hardships they endure.
Do you feel that strong ideas really came through the work you saw or did the rush to innovate and integrate get in the way?
Kalia: Usually, over the last couple of years the tech just takes over and the storytelling, impact and the heart of the idea kind of take a back seat. But I think we saw a really nice balance here. There was that tech innovation, but also a lot of really good ideas, building craft and good writing and the great stock and trade of what we do.
(L. to r.) Dilandro, Rubin, Carter and Terling
Were elements like mobile, social, AR and VR and even, perhaps, gamification and geo location adequately harnessed by the work you saw?
Carter: Yes, but it's lead by the idea. Too often we're looking for the latest shiny object and everybody rushes to do that. I think that if you start with the idea first, it doesn't matter if it's executed in radio or outdoor or something that's older media. If it's done well, and it's the best way to bring the idea to light, that's a good integration. So we looked at the whiz bang tech, but only in the service of the idea.
Kalia: Yes, VR is not an idea.
Rubin: There we a lot of uses of VR, not not a lot of innovative uses of VR.
With this judging experience as a backdrop, how is technology shaping the definition and direction of creativity?
Hall: I don't think technology is shaping the direction, I think creativity is still the lead. It's how does and great creativity leverage the technology to make an idea more resonant and meaningful.
Kalia: I think it is changing, especially in this part of the world in Asia with VR and data and creative targeting. But it's really how you creatively leap from that.
Voting jar loose any brand marketing epiphanies?
Hall: For me it was the importance of end-to-end execution and connecting the idea from top to bottom has to be there to really have that bang happen.
Rubin: It's also about idea plus execution because a lot of these submission were great ideas not executed well or they were amazing creative executions but the idea wasn't so good. So we all know this logically, but when you look at these cases it really drives home that you have to have it all, big idea, amazing execution and end-to-end strategy.
Were there any challenges to judging creative from the client perspective?
Carter: If anything I think we ended up being more practical, questioning whether or not a really good creative idea was ultimately in service of the brand. Did it work? Is it scalable? What was the impact? I don't think the Clios should become effectiveness awards, I just think that there should be some focus on the result. That's important to marketers.
(L. to r.) Terling, Hall and Kalia
Woven into innovation and integration, were you satisfied with the storytelling elements in the work you saw?
Terling: We saw a lot of great story telling but nothing that was amazing or mind blowing, not to that level. What was missing was that truly unexpected work.
Carter: I think the things that really had great storytelling we rewarded. But to go through 600 examples there was a lot of gimmicks that we saw instead of really soulful communications.
What were the central hallmarks of the work that took top honors?
Vranakis: We were tasked with awarding creativity and originality. We all know that creativity is a sum of the parts. Strategy, idea, execution, iteration and impact. When I say impact, not necessarily just the results but the overall social, cultural even economic and educational impact that the creativity delivers. So real substance.
Rubin: I think the work that felt less stunty and and more of an ongoing piece of communication that can really connect with and audience and resonate on a few different levels rather than here's just just a stunt to prove something out.
Hall: Also an idea with depth and legs, that doesn't dilute as it expands.
—The Clio Awards will be announcing this year's gold, silver and bronze winners on clios.com on Sept. 12. The Grand Clio winners will be revealed at the Clio Awards ceremony in New York on Sept. 28.