A few things recently have made me question exactly what qualifies as a ‘good’ ad. Is it one that the client likes? The best job the production company / director / creative team could do? How about award winning? Well reviewed? That got the client and/or AD promoted? That kept the client’s account with the agency?
‘Good’ should be measured by effectiveness, of course. Depressingly, I know that many medium-to-small sized clients are still not accurately measuring the effectiveness of their communications output, even now. And the frequent assertion “well we sold a lot of product while/immediately after after the ad was on-air” isn’t a terribly accurate measurement, failing to take into account every other possible external influence on sales apart from the actual blumin advertising in question.
But as well as effectiveness, perhaps we should be considering if an ad is ‘good enough’. Considering the available budget, client’s experience, agency’s skill and complexity of the issue the communication was attempting to address – in that context, was the ad/communication the best it could be?
We can’t all churn out Sony Balls, Compare the Meerkats and Hare&Bears every week. Especially when the agency team may be willing, but the client’s budget, vision and bravery are less so. But we can do our best job given the circumstances and make sure any ad that leaves an agency is good enough to meet and exceed the client’s objectives.
Because if we aren’t solving client’s problems, we’ll be all out of a job.
Totally. I’ve said before there should be a set of marketing awards which rewards those who have made the best of their circumstance, and not just rewarding those who happen to have the clients or budget to do great work every time.