Love it or hate it, Cannes Lions is back again. It's been quite a while since I last chatted with friends about this with a glass of rose in my hand at the world's biggest creative advertising festival, but the same old debate persists: is it a blessing for professionals or an evil business venture that misses the mark on real marketing value?
I never liked black-and-white arguments, but for me, the most important thing is that this industry treats itself in a way that justifies a festival. Awards are a great motivation for creatives, and I wouldn't take that opportunity away. However, the rules and unspoken agreements on judging criteria could be criticized.
First of all, I don't think Cannes should be about effectiveness. It may sound outrageous, but in my opinion, a creative festival should celebrate ideas and craftsmanship. Marketing communication is an applied art form (when done well), but that doesn't mean a beautiful idea can't be awarded if it doesn't dominate the sales metrics. If we only award things that "work better than others," we wouldn't need a festival. We could simply compare excel charts and send a Lion to the campaign with the best numbers.
Second, the world is increasingly focused on pure popularity—in social media, politics, and many other fields—and I don't think that's a good thing. Curation by respected creative professionals is what sets a festival apart from an automated dashboard of performance metrics. In fact, the further we move from prioritizing effectiveness, the better we can inspire creatives to come up with fresh ideas that push culture forward, rather than just repeating existing memes or meeting category requirements.
I won't go into the topic of scam ads versus "real" campaigns now; maybe next time. What do you think? How much weight should judges give to campaign effectiveness at Cannes?
Chief of Staff, McCann Worldgroup
4wI'd like to see AI come up with a better quote than that...