Financial Times

Way forward for SLIM and the ad industry
By Nimal Gunewardena
As a Past President of SLIM and the Founder President of the Four A's and someone who for many years worked on the Joint Blueprint Committee to develop and improve SLIM Awards and the ties between the two industries, I am sorry to witness the rather acrimonious breakup and the raging battle between the advertising and marketing bodies.

In the process, I see much hot air being blown, accusations being thrown at the two industries and rather theoretical arguments being bandied about without a true appreciation of the issues and practicalities of the matter. In particular, I refer to the argument whether SLIM Awards should be judged on the Creativity or Effectiveness of the advertising.

There is no doubt that all forms of marketing input including advertising must in the end deliver on business goals whether it is building brand equity or enhancing market share and sales. Effectiveness of advertising and other communications tools is the desired goal from a marketing and business point of view. Creativity is only means to an end, though a vital aspect. However, in today's cluttered world of information overload, it is Creativity that makes the marketer's message stand out and be heard and it is Creativity that builds the image of a brand and gives it meaning and value. Without Ideas (another name for Creativity) and their effective execution, business, marketing and effective and persuasive communication can hardly survive.

Creativity is a key objective of the ad industry. Strategy is the complementary aspect that ensures that creativity is effectively directed. Effectiveness can only be judged if there is data in the form of market research data on communication effectiveness or market share and sales results. In fact, all these years what was judged at SLIM Awards was Creativity and Strategy - though this was mis-termed Effectiveness! The material submitted for SLIM Awards - the ads and a brief note on communication objectives and target audience - are simply insufficient to pass judgement on effectiveness. So, the whole argument, in fact, is a non-starter!

If Effectiveness is what marketers and SLIM are concerned about, and quite rightly so on the advice of SLIM's senior advisory panel of senior marketing professionals, then SLIM must proceed to restructure and relaunch its Awards as Advertising Effectiveness Awards. For this to happen research and quantitative data will need to be submitted and considered by the judges, as now happens with SLIM's Brand Excellence Awards. One cannot purport, by any stretch of the imagination, that SLIM Awards as it is currently structured judges the effectiveness of the advertising in the marketplace, for the simple reason that data to judge this is not submitted and it is simply not practical within the judging process, where several hundreds of entries are judged, each briefly for a couple of minutes, to evaluate effectiveness.

While this debate has been highlighted as the main point of contention in the Ad Awards controversy, the parting of ways between the professional bodies of the advertising and marketing industries is unfortunate but understandable. While various accusations and motives have been bandied about for the breakup, it is good to understand what really happened so that we may proceed to emerge from the continuing confusion and move to a possible way forward and eventual cooperation in the future between the professional bodies.

The Joint Blueprint Committee which had been in existence for several years as the discussion forum between SLIM and the ad industry, was a valuable forum for dialogue and decisions on improving and conducting the Ad Awards. The abandonment of this forum and breakdown in dialogue naturally led to the dissension between the stakeholders. In recent years, as the ad industry came together in the professional bodies of the Four A's and IAA, it has sought to address matters that affected the industry and have a greater say in moulding these to meet industry aspirations.

That it wanted a greater say in the Ad Awards - in terms of its structure, the event and benefits from its profits - is true. The decision for SLIM was whether to listen to the needs and even "demands" of its customer and accommodate its key stakeholder, or to pull back to the earlier position of an "independent" organizer acting more unilaterally. Though in recent years it appeared that such accommodation and cooperation was sought and pursued through an MOU between SLIM and the Four A's, the ad industry felt a lack of genuineness in its implementation, and SLIM appeared to feel that the ad industry was becoming overly demanding. The relationship grew uneasy and has now crumbled.

Crises are always useful turning points to revisit and analyse what one has been doing by rote and make a change for the better. As suggested, SLIM could restructure the Awards to reflect its needs to reward market effectiveness, through an Advertising Effectiveness Awards programme. This, however, needs a significant change after studying effectiveness awards schemes or the "effies" model. Launching this will not only meet the marketing fraternity's expectations but also help to bring back participation from the mainstream ad industry.

The ad industry having made its move for self-determination, must now move with commitment to keep its promises and develop its own Awards not only to meet the professed global standards but also meet criteria of credibility, fairness and transparency and to reflect the advent of new media and new forms of marketing and corporate communications. Again much re-thinking and planning is necessary. The young professionals who work in the industry and wish to see their talent being recognized will eagerly await the industry's promise to deliver such a programme by mid-year.

The crisis has helped the ad industry to come of age and come together. There will always be competitiveness and complaints within the industry. We may not all agree on all matters, but we need to let the need for cooperation for the sake of the industry overcome our stances of dissent. The industry has its own priorities to pursue not only in awards but also in training and development and advocacy on industry issues. It is heartening to note that these issues are now beginning to be addressed, and this could be furthered with everyone's support.

Back to Business