I recently spent 4 days on a jury judging D&AD TV & Cinema.
There were about 1,500 ads from Shanghai, Taiwan, Bangkok, Israel, USA, South America, the middle east, ex member-states of the old USSR, you name it.
There were 22 people on the jury, about half from the UK.
The others were from Paris, New York, Toronto, Buenos Aires, Australia, Colorado, you name it.
So it was a very interesting mix.
Ads from all around the world, judged by people from all around the world.
Truly international.
And I found that difficult.
Especially when we got to the discussion stage.
Because each member of the jury would begin talking about an ad by saying, “I like it.”
Or they’d say, “I don’t like.”
Whether it was an American talking about a Chinese ad, or a German talking about a Brazilian ad, or a Canadian talking about a Russian ad.
“I like it.”
“I don’t like it.”
I found that difficult because it’s one of the first things I teach students not to do.
When we’re simply a consumer, we react to advertising.
That’s all we need to do, just react.
So we can be subjective: we don’t have to think about it.
But when we become a professional we can’t do that.
We can’t carry on reacting without thinking.
Now we have to be in charge of how other people react.
We have to make them react in a certain way.
And to do that we have to be OBjective not SUBjective.
We have to remove ourselves and our personal tastes.
We’re not simply experiencing a piece of advertising anymore.
Now we’re doing a job.
Now we’re professionals.
We have to think about what we’re doing.
So we no longer say, “I like it’ or “I don’t like it”.
Now we must always begin a criticism with, “It works because….”.
Or, “It doesn’t work because…..”.
Using this language forces us to fill in the second part of the sentence.
It forces us to back up our opinion.
It forces us to explain.
And that forces us to think.
And that forces us to behave like professionals.
Objectively, not subjectively.
That’s why I always encourage students to train their minds by always using the correct language.
“I like it” is wrong on two counts.
Number one, it talks about “I” and that’s wrong.
We are not the target market, so we’re not important.
Number two, it says “like it”.
That’s a feeling, not a thought.
So that expression has no place in an objective discussion about a piece of work.
On the other hand, “It works because….” Is right on three counts.
Number one: “It”, we’re talking about the piece of work, not just someone’s opinion.
Number two: “works”, we’re talking about the function it’s supposed to deliver, not how it makes us feel.
Number three: “because”, we have to back up what we say, with reasoned argument.
And it’s very hard to have a rational debate with an emotional response, such as “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
Dave, I don’t not like your blog
I liked the post.
Ciaran
Good post - I like it. Don’t ask me why, I just do.
Did you find that judges form certain regions reacted to advertising differently? Like the North Americans all like one thing, while those from Asia liked something else?
Or was it simply a war of opinions and egos with no patterns?
It works because I like it.
No Johnny - you should like it because it works
Good post and great advice Dave.
It applies as much to selling work in to clients as it does to judging awards too:
‘I like it’ is no argument to get someone to part with their marketing millions.
But ‘It works because…’ gives a business argument they can take to their money men.
It’s something I always try to remember in front of clients.
Like Alistair Crompton said: ‘Think like a creative, talk like a businessman’ (or something to that effect)
you just hit on one of my pet peeves dave. “i think iit’s funny so it must be a good TV ad” etc.
(great captcha: fourty-four calves!)
you are right on. people in my senior management talk like that all the time and it frustrate the hell out of me.
and you get me thinking too - sometimes I might say these exact same words without realizing it.
Thanks so much, dave.
there’s subjective & there’s uber-subjective.
cannes jury (true story):
A: “I like it.”
B. “why do you like it?”
A: “it’s subtle.”
B: “OK. so it should win something.”
always wondered what kind of criteria is ‘it’s subtle’.
Hi Christian,
I can’t really say it was regional, more “I like it cos it’s funny.”
And you can’t really discuss that because it’s subjective.
Hi Vinny,
Yeah, it used to be getting people to like the ad was a way to get to the goal.
Now getting people to like the ad is the goal. That’s it. Job done.
“I sell products not advertising.” Brilliant.
I thought exactly that when Don said it.
‘I like the chocolate because of the gorilla’ instead of I’ like the gorilla’.
I see it differently. When I judge at competitions I’m aware that we’re human beings over and above being professionals. And that being the case, our objective/professional opinions are naturally guided by our subjective/personal values, roles, circumstances and experiences. The jury head therefore has this unenviable responsibility to guide the debate and steer it towards a fair and objective decision in spite of where the “i like/don’t like it” is coming from.
A good Creative Director must be able to give you sound reasons why he/she does or does not approve of your idea. He can even use examples to explain his stand.
But if he cannot articulate those reasons he’s a no good CD.
as usual, Dave is right
Of course allowing 20 esteemed professionals from all over the world to simply vote on personal likes is a VERY expensive way of taking a random sample. You weren’t chairing the panel, were you?
Dave you wrote that you teach your students that, in which university?
And thx for the post. Straight to the point. Great as usual.
Hi Dima D,
I don’t teach on a full time basis, but over the years I’ve taught at Watford, Bucks, Newcastle, Sunderland, Manchester, Leeds, St Martins, and D&AD.
If you’re interested, here are some links about how it got started.
http://cstadvertising.com/blog/2008/09/09/
http://cstadvertising.com/blog/2008/09/10/
http://cstadvertising.com/blog/2008/09/11/
Doesn’t it sometimes depend, though, on who says it?
A simple “I like it” from the mouth of a client can be the sweetest phrase…
Hi Iain,
No, I wasn’t chairing it.
It is expensive, but they want D&AD to be a worldwide brand.
So, by asking jurors from all over the world, they ensure that those agencies in those countries will enter work and get maximum exposure for D&AD in their countries.
They told me they had 22,000 items submitted from all over the world, so it works.
Dave Sir,
This being D&AD you were judging, how important/ relevant is the ‘it works because …’ factor.
I mean, so many times in Private View, esteemed CDs slam work that don’t work.
Yet the same pieces of work go on to win big at award shows - despite the Private Viewer being on the jury.
Just wondering, is there a ’snowball’ effect?
So, a piece of work that wins at D&AD influences Cannes jury to vote it in.
Hi Robin,
This is a link to a short video D&AD made of judges talking about the awards just after we’d finished judging.
http://dandad.typepad.com/dandad/
If you scroll down you get to my bit.
Hi Dave,
It works because D&AD provides an open challenge.
Life without D&AD would be a world of ads with money thrown at them. The more money thrown at them, the faster the race would be to throw more money, and shout louder until every ad on TV became a screaming 1960’s washing powder ad.
The power of persuasion based on rock solid facts delivered in ‘an interesting and compelling way’ to quote Jeremy Sinclair, will always win.
Very few people can do this. Few can still tell the difference between an idea and an execution.
Your Blogs work, because you make them work,
and that takes work. Not a lot of people like that either because they are too lazy, or the complexity of this world smothers them with all its noise.
Great posts, many thanks, especially the bit about D&AD judging. Going through so many ads must be mind-numbing. However, this probably helps highlight the few ads that pop above all the others because of their incredible uniqueness.
It’s like my books
Words are not things and I wish I was the person I’m pretending to be and the website, http://www.scramitsthefuzz.com
People say they like them or they works because…
Freedom flavours:
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-37.html
Thanks Dave.
Will wait to see the spots, although your comments on the ‘Post It’ commercial gives a pretty good idea what it was about.
Thanks.
It would seem Dave’s idea of separating objective and subjective thinking is popular with the commentators here, though there is some question in my mind whether this is indeed possible to do. Legions of philosophers, east and west, have discussed this well before us; the gist of it all being that the ‘higher’ – and why don’t we read that as ‘most successful’ in this context - analytical ground is some sort of transcendence of the two.
Maybe the best way to phrase this transcendent perspective for the sake of this discussion is “seeing things through the eyes of another”, and the pertinent issue would then become, as it should, “who is the customer here”. How one analyzes the question then depends on whether one is seeing it through the eyes of the Panel Chairman, or possibly the Client, or possibly the ultimate Consumer of the ad. I think one’s objective answer could be different in each case.
In any case, “I like it” is simply a short cut taken by people who have tired of monitoring 1500 samples and is at ground (IMVHO) unprofessional. It contributes *no* analysis, either subjective or objective, just a sound in the room really.
I’m a new reader of Dave’s blog, but I wanted to say right off how much I am enjoying it. This combined with catching up on Madmen on DVD and a heavy dose of reading Richard Yates has somewhat defined the last few weeks for me and makes me want to start a career, at my advanced age, in advertizing! Ha. Keep it up Dave.
mm
It would seem Dave’s idea of separating objective and subjective thinking is popular with the commentators here, though there is some question in my mind whether this is indeed possible to do >>>
michael, yes it is. in the same way that a bricklayer can reliably tell you if a wall is straight and level. but if you’ve haven’t laid a million bricks it will always be a bit of a mystery to you.
good ads very obviously work. even if their execution is dependent on subtlety and nuance. it’s largely a matter of intent and ambition. but you can always tell the wheat from the chaff. always. this doesn’t stop the chaff from being frequently hailed as wheat however.
Well said, Vinny.
This is for Michael and Vinny,
Ever since my six week stint at my D&AD bootcamp (where I got my egotistical backside severely kicked each day thank God) I have never looked back.
Why did the D&AD session work where everything before it failed? Here are a list of things I learnt:
Every successful ad is successful because it contains the answers to the three following questions:
1. What is the product?
2. Who are you talking to?
3. What are you trying to say?
I was made to do ads that had all three. It was not easy. To begin with it was very difficult because I was fighting every opinionated Ego (me, myself, and I). I keep it in check now by telling myself ‘Everywhere I go e go’. The ego must be kept on a chain like a dog on a short leash to judge work rationally.
However, once through this barrier (and it is an extremely tough barrier to overcome for some of us) I was able to say ‘ well maybe after all I don’t know everything’ and ‘perhaps that other person does have a point after all’. Sounds awful looking back…
This worked especially well in groups where I felt terribly embarrassed showing my rubbish work in front of other people whose work was working because they did not get in the way of the idea. This really hurt,
I was attending my own crucifixion. The crucifixion of I.
4. Ideas and executions are two completely separate things.
Today, I understand an idea is something that works in itself. It has its own life. It does not live, breathe or die by someone else’s opinion. It has a life of its own. It is independent of outside influences from its creators.
I have gotten off the cross because somebody needs the wood.
An execution is a stylised version of an idea. thousands of executions can be made from one great idea, but an execution is just like one cloud in a sky.
One cloud is not a big idea, a sky with a sunrise, sunset, light and shade, colours, weather, storms, rain, drout, peace, varying shapes, degrees of blueness, rainbows, etc. that form every day that will never be repeated again or in the same place is.
A rule of thumb is: if you can write about lots of executions for an idea and still see even more ideas within those areas, chances are it’s a big idea.
5. An idea has to have legs.
Building a wall is not a big idea.
Bricks and mortar is.
Laying a million bricks to build different things is what gives the individual vision. However, everyone must always be on the lookout for ‘the big I AM’.
The human ego has destroyed some of the best creatives ever.
6. Humility is the true key to greatness.
This is something which in our industry is paifully lacking, and I will be first to raise my hand and admit that until I had been to that D&AD class, I was as bad as the worst of them. Sign-up and start on the right foot from day one. It may hurt to begin with, but its dividends are greater than Gold.
Some people may say ‘Why is Dave Trott still hammering on about the same old things again and again and again?’.
The answer is simple: He knows he is right.
Play it once and see what your gut tells you. Did you notice the production values? If so then the message was lost. To be really objective one must establish the nature of the message, indeed whether or not the ad was about the message at all.
Look out for the ads that are really a collaboration between Art house film maker and Patron as opposed to commercial production company and client. Subjective - Good start. Objective - Shows openess. Next level - Honesty ……….Oh No!
Do not mistake information for knowledge.
Page 55. Words are not things.
@33
Please stop spamming a decent blog.
I’d like to know what Dave thinks about this:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=20410220367&oid=2230475082
@34 Get a life.
Jack
No need to keep plugging, I’m sure every page in your books are thoroughly absorbent and up everyone’s alley.
I second Phil’s very polite request.
Ciaran
I wonder if you can apply this to people?
The most unpleasant agency experience I ever had involved trying to find out why the chairman was gunning for me and attempting to terminate my career. We went out for lunch; I asked him what the problem was; he replied, ‘I don’t know; it’s something subtle and deep.’
I don’t think he liked me.
Let’s see Dragana,
I know it wasn’t me or Gordon, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Amanda or Murray……hmmmmm……
My lips are sealed, but no it wasn’t any of you lovely people. To paraphrase Woody Allen, my years at WTCS were the most fun I had with my clothes on….
this blog post reminds me of the simplicity of language you used with account teams over the years - when they would come back from a mtg and say ‘the creative work is client approved BUT…’ - you would correct them and say ‘well its not approved then’ and they would insist it was by repeating ‘yes it is approved dave, APART FROM’ and you would correct them again and say ‘well its not fully approved then’ - they would say ‘it absolutely is approved, YOU JUST NEED TO’………..and so it would go on…..
They were the days Nic.
When we had a proper traffic system and account men had to care what creatives thought.
kevin,
it’s always painful starting out doing this. i can vividly recall the gruesome awfulness of my first stabs on a D&AD course aeons ago.
the thing that made everything fall into place for me was the realization that not everything is subjective.
and that some ideas are just undeniably good regardless of the typeface used. so i focussed exclusively on (trying) to produce work that is just undeniably good.
and you’re right, the acid test of a great idea is how easily others can add to your idea. big ideas make everyone’s life easier as my old boss used to say.
I remember coming back from an Aer Lingus meeting and going into John Salmon to tell him there were a couple of small changes. As I stammered and stuttered through the debrief he stopped me and said:
‘Hang on a second Ciaran, your balls are coming loose, why don’t you take a breath and start over.” They were, and I did, and everything was fine. You’re right, those were the days.
Ciaran
Cheers Vinny,
What a lovely quote from your old boss! Someone who kept the chalice of creativity from being tainted.
Hi Ciaran,
Yes, it’s no fun being an account man and its no fun having to argue over work. Although I never met John Salmon, I wished I had done. I had to attend a meeting with Bernard Jacobs one day as a junior creative. I asked him where I should sit at this vast table. He looked me straight in the eye and said “SIT THERE, WHERE I CAN SEE STRAIGHT INTO YOUR EYES” I was absolutely terrified. Nailed to my chair. Fortunately the work was approved.
I dread to think what would have happened otherwise.
By and large I agree with you here Dave. And you are right - “I like it” - is not a sound yardstick. Unless - as Paul points out - the words are uttered by the client…..
But help me here. I’m not sure I would be able to say ‘it works’ when shown - say - Gorilla for the first time. I mention the Cadbury’s ad not because it’s the only example - but because some ideas come from somewhere that is so left of field it’s hard to look beyond ‘I like it’. Any thoughts?
Hi Stephen,
I always tell students, what I’m saying won’t work 100% of the time.
Nothing will.
But it will work 90% of the time, and that’s not bad.
For me Gorilla fits into the 10%.
I don’t think you can get there by logic.
So, I tell students, you either choose to work in the 90% that you can get to by logic.
Or the 10% that you can’t.
For me 9 out of 10 is better odds than 1 out of 10.
I’m not a genius so I can’t depend on luck, I have to use logic.
That seems fair. And who’s to say that of the 100% of ads that make up the 10%, 90% of them probably ‘don’t work’. (Enough percentages already!)
Those who evaluate advertising in terms of “I like it, you’ll piss your pants watching it, it sucks” are similar to the couch-potato-football-professionals.
It’s to comfortable way to give feedback.
What’s sadder is that I’m in this creative school now and the CDs there often bring in opinions without any supportive argumentation, or just seem to make up arguments just to look objective.
Throwing passages from advertising books is not of any value.
How about putting a little more brain in it?