(UPDATED: See my response to Business Week's reaction to my comments, here.)
Call it the audacity of hype.
There's a lot of commentary right now about the Obama Campaign for America winning two Grands Prix in the Titanium and Integrated Lions categories at the Cannes Advertising Festival last week.
But in my opinion, the campaign should not have won these prizes for a couple of reasons:
1. Cannes is about creativity. The Obama campaign was not about creativity, but about strategy - using myriad channels to get out the message and the vote. Sure, there was the idea that strong community building enabled consumers to help build the Obama brand. Yes there was all the text messaging and what not. But there was nothing especially creative about that, or any particular element or mix or elements.
2. Some are arguing the campaign won for effectiveness. Well A.) Cannes has never been about effectiveness alone - if it was, any number of infomercials would win over creative work. And B) though this may sound contrarian, I'd argue there was nothing especially effective about the campaign, despite the candidate's decisive win.
Here's why: There was not a lot more transformative than what Howard Dean, and to some extent, John Kerrey, had accomplished in terms of social media four years ago. And, most important of all, if John McCain had done everything Obama had done in digital and otherwise - and if Obama had done none of it - the results of the election would still have been the same.
The 2008 election was a referendum on Republicans in general, and President Bush-style Republicanism in particular. Whoever the Democratic nominee was, they'd have won.
Indeed, considering the difficultly Obama faced winning his own primary - Hillary Clinton had to give him her delegates to even cement the nomination - the integrated campaign was not phenomenally successful.
Just sufficiently so.
And that doesn't sound convincingly Cannes at all.
BELOW ARE MY EXPANDED THOUGHTS, IN RESPONSE TO BUSINESS WEEK'S REACTION TO MY COMMENTS:
Business Week took me to task for slamming the fact that the Obama Campaign won two Grands Prix awards at Cannes.
In a post the other day, I argue that in my view, the campaign should not have won for a couple of reasons:
1.
Cannes is about creativity. The Obama campaign was not about
creativity, but about strategy - using myriad channels to get out the
message and the vote. Sure, there was the idea that strong community
building enabled consumers to help build the Obama brand. Yes there was
all the text messaging and what not. But there was nothing especially
creative about that, or any particular element or mix or elements.
2.
Some are arguing the campaign won for effectiveness. Well A.) Cannes
has never been about effectiveness (alone) - if it were, any number of
infomercials would win over creative work. And B) though this may sound
contrarian, I'd argue there was nothing especially effective about the
campaign, despite the candidate's decisive win.
Here's why: There
was not a lot more transformative than what Howard Dean, and to some
extent, John Kerrey, had accomplished in terms of social media four
years ago.
The 2008 election was a referendum on Republicans
in general, and President Bush-style Republicanism in particular. In my
opinion, whoever the Democratic nominee was, they'd have won.
Indeed,
considering the difficulty Obama faced winning his own primary -
Hillary Clinton had to give him her delegates to even cement the
nomination - the integrated campaign was not phenomenally successful.
Just sufficiently so.
Business Week's David Kiley took me to task over these contentions. He writes:
"It’s interesting that Mathieson says that the most effective campaign of the last 12 months shouldn’t have won anything. The chatter this year, more than any other, was whether the Cannes festival still carries relevance.
"I don’t think, as Mathieson says, that the awards should be about creativity alone, as in creativity of copy, art direction and cinematography. The awards should reward creativity of idea and execution no matter who it is achieved. And divorcing creativity from effectiveness seems like an irrelevant notion to me...Having a really well orchestrated, multi-dimensional and creative campaign win at Cannes is a good lesson for the industry."
Actually, we're not in (complete) disagreement on what makes for a good winner - we just disagree on whether the Obama campaign really met the criteria.
First of all, I would have been more exact to say “Cannes has never been about effectiveness alone.” (I have since amended the post to reflect this.) And that was what I was trying to say about informercials. If Cannes was about effectiveness alone, we’d see infomercials win all the awards.
I did not intend to suggest that creativity and effectiveness should be divorced. Quite the opposite.
In
fact, as far as Cannes goes, that's my entire point about the Obama
campaign. The campaigns that win should be represent a marriage of the
two. And that's something, in my opinion, the Obama campaign didn't
really pull off.
Kiley calls the campaign "well orchestrated, multi-dimensional and creative campaign win at Cannes is a good lesson for the industry." I call it well-orchestrated, multi-dimensional and (on its face, anyway) effective. I just don't think it was that that creative.
While
it was strategic in its application of media, digital and otherwise, in
my humble opinion, there was little that was different than what Howard
Dean – the real trailblazer – and to a lesser extent, John Kerry,
accomplished in 2004.
It’s also my (apparently contrarian)
belief that the Democratic candidate was going to win this election
whatever they did or did not do in digital media. And that's not a slam
of those involved with the initiative - they did their jobs well.
As
for his comments about the relevancy of some of the work entered at
Cannes, I agree with Kiley. Too many campaigns put creative above
effectiveness. And too many agencies enter work that's very creative,
but did not move the needle appreciably for their clients.
But Cannes is supposed to be about the creative application of strategy (and the strategic application of creativity).
To
put effectiveness over creativity at Cannes would be like giving the
Oscar to "Transformers 2." The movie is extremely effective at selling
tickets, is surely creative in its application of digital technologies
and is brilliant in its marketing. But is it truly a work of creative
inspiration that also moves the needle?
In my humble opinion,
a Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty” (or this year, even a lot of
Crispin's work for Burger King) beats the Obama campaign any day. It’s
creative and effective. Not just effective alone.
Personally, I think there’s a difference - though obviously many will disagree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDING UNBOUND WAS JUST THE BEGINNING:
THE ON-DEMAND BRAND: The New Book By Rick Mathieson - Details Coming Soon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick Links:
BRANDING UNBOUND The Blog
BRANDING UNBOUND The Book
ADWEEK Magazines Excerpt
Rick Mathieson.com
Recent Comments