As they emerged blinking into the sunset after the PR Lions award ceremony, the heads of some of the world’s biggest PR agencies could be forgiven for looking a little sheepish.
They had just sat through an awards show that did not see a single PR agency take to the stage in the category which shares its name. Only three PR firms, by our count, won metal of any kind – Prime PR, One Green Bean and MSL Stockholm. Four if you count advertising agency Scholz & Friends, which houses a credible PR arm.
Now in its fourth year, the Cannes PR Lions tends to trigger soul-searching within the PR industry. It is easy to self-flagellate over the reasons that PR firms have been unable to outshine their advertising peers. Yet, we have analysed this issue in some detail, and it remains difficult to avoid the conclusion that the awards, in their current incarnation, are simply not configured to recognise the best global PR work that exists in such categories as corporate, crisis, reputation management and public affairs.
Even if you accept that the Cannes Lions are a vehicle to access the consumer marketing side of the equation, there is plenty to ponder in the results from this year’s competition. Unlike last year, when the judges made behavioural change a clear priority, this year’s panel appeared to place a higher premium on, as jury president Gail Heimann put it, “an unbelievable, jaw-dropping idea.”
In this respect, this year’s version of the PR Lions can be viewed as following the template already laid down by most of the other award categories at Cannes. Indeed, the high premium placed on the entry video, says 2011 jury president Dave Senay, effectively marginalises everything about PR except the consumer-facing campaigns that are able to display cutting-edge creativity. Senay characterises this as an approach that favours the “starburst” idea rather than the sustained creativity of “sunlight”.
This publication has frequently expressed the view that the PR industry needs to sharpen its creative edge if it hopes to play a more central brand-building role. That does not mean, of course, that creativity should exist in a vacuum from results, which is an impression that is hard to avoid when surveying the award-winning advertising work at Cannes. The PR category is a long way away from that state of affairs; it would be a genuine shame if that fate was to befall it.
After sitting on the jury, and enjoying the fellowship of other PR jurors, I can report that most of the work submitted lacked the relevance and the stature to justify hauling home precious Lions. I am very disappointed in all PR agencies (except maybe those in Australia, Italy, Romania, and Sweden), because we didn’t rise to the level of competence, effectiveness, and sassy work that justifies this global stage. To paraphrase my once boss Jay Chiat, Good enough sucks… and in this case, there wasn’t even enough good enough. The time has come to stop blaming ad agencies for “stealing” our communications stature, and to do, extend and promote extremely good work. The PR bar needs to be raised, and it starts with better ways to capture and utilize insights to do much more than justify tactics and to learn to promote our great work in culturally relevant ways. The shoemaker’s children need to polish their shoes and stop whining about what the tailor’s kids are wearing.
The shoemaker’s children need to polish their shoes and stop whining about what the tailor’s kids are wearing. This line in Marian Salzman’s comment says it all.
Pingback: The Facebook Ad Debate | Indian Social Media Landscape
Pingback: Can PR Firms Make it at Cannes? «
Pingback: Public Relations agencies fall short at Spikes Asia