Judging at the IPA

I had the honour a few weeks of being one of the industry judges at the 2010 IPA Effectiveness Awards. These awards have the reputation of being the most rigourous and difficult in the marketing and communications world. It is worth taking a further look, here. They are only held every two years as it is felt it would be too ardous on potential entrants to have them every year. 'Even' years are open to agencies, media owners and clients worldwide, and 'odd' years are limited to campaigns with a total annual marketing communications budget of up to £2.5 million and have to be submitted by agencies, media owners and clients in the UK only.

Two things separate them from their Effie cousins above anything else, in addition to the every two years piece. Firstly, they absolutely require evidence that the activity paid back on the investement made ie fees, production and media. If the paper doesn't show this has been achieved then it will be disqualified. Secondly, the entries are far longer than the Effies: with 'even' years being limited to 4,000 words and 'odd' years being 3,000.

This year was, by all accounts, a very good year. A very high number of entries, just under seventy, and the majority of a high standard. There were about 30 industry judges who are split into two groups, each group will mark about half the papers and everyone in each group reads all the papers that are allocated to that group. Each paper is generally reckoned to take about one hour to read. The box of the papers you have to read arrives one day in a big box with a judging form and a survival pack that includes; Nurofen, Pro Plus, an energy bar, an energy and a small bottle of champagne. Very sweet. So with briefing and a day's judging I guess I notched up close to 40 hours on it. And what a privilege.

The quality of the entries was fantastically high, and very enlightening, in the main, to read. The judging day, with a group of very well informed judges, with a broad range of experience (see here for more details on the judges) was equally enlightening and great fun as well. The discussion throughout the day was extremely high and enjoyable.

A number of observations about the papers really popped. The really good ones are clear to read. Superflous adjectives grate. There needs to be more general knowledge about econometrics (so many papers have them now, over half, and we were too often hanging on our econometrics specialist's every word). It is a time consuming task to write a really good one. If you can make the paper work without economics, do it, as it will likely be easier to follow. Too many charts is as bad as too few.

A big thanks to David Golding, convenor of judges and Marie Oldham, the deputy convenor, who steered us through the day with a deft touch and from our short-listing of entries the client judges now have to decide who gets bronze, silver, gold and grand prix. I am already looking forward to the awards dinner in November.