Dave’s Take

I have been fortunate to have worked with some great creative talent throughout my career and as a result, I have received my fare share of awards. I say fare share because I seldom submit entries for award consideration. My philosophy towards industry awards is “trophies don’t sell soap.” While it’s great to receive recognition from one’s peers, I believed that good creative should be driven by the desire to help your client rather than creating a campaign that will look good in competition. I say ‘believed’ because recent research has forced me to rethink my position.

According to a new study by the British consulting firm, Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA), a definite link between creativity and effectiveness has finally been discovered. Their research examined 213 case studies of ad campaigns over the past eight years, involving such prominent clients as Cadbury, Budweiser, Audi, Honda and Volkswagen. Their findings? Creatively awarded campaigns are eleven times more effective than campaigns that were not awarded industry accolades. Eleven times – that’s a lot. How could I have ever doubted the value of Addies, Tellies et al.? Maybe because I still don’t buy the multiplier of eleven in terms of award winners over never-rans.

“Creatively awarded campaigns are a more reliable investment – they achieve greater effectiveness levels,” said Harnish Pringle, director general of the IPA. His report considered a wide range of qualifiers, including sales, profits, ROI, likeability, emotional appeal and market-share growth. “Creativity and effectiveness are inseparable. This is a good step, but there’s still a lot of work to do to show the exponential value of great creative ideas,” warns Bert Moore, chief strategy officer of Lowe Worldwide. Clearly the study is a dire warning to those CEOs that believe cutting costs brings the best return on investment.

While I’m still not completely convinced that a campaign’s effectiveness is vastly related to the number of Addies, Tellies or Cleos it garners, I have to admit the British study has opened my eyes to the realization of a connection between the two. I still need proof from an American research team that the same causality exists in our campaigns. After all, even though we share a language and common heritage, the Brits are in a world of their own.

As someone who has embraced the latest in technology for years, I find myself in a quandary over electronic books. I have played with Kindles and iPads and have found them to be perfectly fine for certain kinds of reading, i.e. on planes, trains and in coffee shops. But when it comes down to really reading, you know – when you can’t stop turning the pages as you lie in bed or sit on the patio in the early morning light, nothing can compare to the feel, smell and familiarity of a good old fashioned paperback book. While I do find myself using my iPhone’s Stanza app to read classics while I wait for my oil to be changed or some other boring necessity, I still can’t make the jump to e-books completely.

Perhaps the plastic and metallic feel of the electronic display unit betrays my underlying love of the feel of pulp. Maybe it’s because I can’t show off the title of the latest tome I’m enjoying with strangers as I pass by their tables at Starbucks. But for whatever the reason, I just can’t abandon my love of holding a book as I read. Like mowing a lawn, I find it totally satisfying to longingly look at the progress my bookmark has made in a reading. With e-books, all I get is a progress bar like my laptop battery display, which gives little reason for a feeling of accomplishment. I also enjoy the anticipation of the ending while savoring the last few pages a great read. With an e-book, all I get is a random number floating on glass.

I have one other complaint, however minor, about e-books – they seem slower to read. It isn’t something I can quantify, but the limited exposure I’ve had with them has lead me to feel they are not as easy to read as printed versions. While my speed complaint has led to several snarky comments from my e-book lovin’ friends, I now get the last laugh with the recent release of the first study of both the Kindle and iPads versus printed books. In the newly published usability survey from product development consultancy Nielsen Norman Group, both the Kindle and the iPad were found to read slower than printed books. The study revealed that reading speeds declined by 6.2% on the iPad and by 10.7% on the Kindle as compared to print. Ha! I knew I wasn’t crazy (at least when it comes to e-books).

Will this surprising discovery hurt e-book sales? Not very likely as evidenced just this week by James Patterson finally passing the one million mark in e-book sales. It seems that when it comes to books, much like with everything else, technology rules. Regardless of what sells to whom, the only way you’re getting my paperback is to pry it from my cold, dead, clammy fingers.