Awards are great, you say, but awards don’t pay the bills.
The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, a British group that takes upon itself the role of spokesperson for the industry, would argue with you on that point. They conducted a study that claims that ads that win creative awards are eleven to twelve times more effective than ads that don’t.
IPA looked at more than two hundred case studies over eight years. The report looked at business metrics like market-share growth, sales, profits, return on investment, and emotional appeal to determine effectiveness. The report makes the conclusion that two factors are responsible for the link between creativity and effectiveness: an emotional connection and the buzz spawned by engaging content. (On a related note, the creators of the report argue here that emotional messages trump rational ones.)
The lyrically named Hamish Pringle, general director of the IPA, stressed the importance of quality over cost, saying those advertisers who believe they can’t afford to hire creativity don’t realize that creativity’s effectiveness pays itself off in the long run. “It’s not possible to save 15-20% each year and still work with good quality agencies,” Pringle said.
In other words, if advertisers cut costs by avoiding hiring good agencies, they’re shooting themselves in the foot.
“Creatively awarded campaigns are a more reliable investment—they achieve greater effective levels,” said Peter Field, the marketing consultant behind the report.
The study is a few years old, but if the trend continues, creativity is likely to have become even more effective today. From 1994 to 2002, creatively awarded campaigns were three times as efficient as their non-awarded counterparts. From 2003 to 2010, that number went up from three to a whopping twelve. The statistics beg the question: how much more effective will awarded campaigns be in the future?
See more of the findings here.