I know the Academy Awards isn’t a popularity contest, but I hated seeing The Hurt Locker win best picture. Hated it with a seething hatred that kept me up all night, and sleeplessness hasn’t done much to improve my mood today.
Advertising award shows are to blame.
You see, no matter what the Academy says, Avatar was this year’s best picture. Think what you will about Avatar’s story being cliché, its dialogue hackneyed and its acting wooden. You’re probably right, but you know what, who cares? Avatar isn’t about nuanced plotlines and performances. It’s a special-effects spectacular – almost three hours of digital 3-D wizardry that created a world unlike anything seen on the big screen before and that let audiences tromp through that world in ways they never imagined.
Avatar worked. Worked until it became the highest grossing film of all time, effectively rewriting the rulebook on 3-D and digital animation. That’s got to be worth something.
In contrast, The Hurt Locker is the lowest grossing Best Picture winner in history, with worldwide theater earnings of around $20 million, compared to Avatar’s $2.5 billion.
Of course, ticket sales don’t matter to the Academy. They’re judging “theatrical art,” and billings aren’t a barometer of Best Picture merit.
Advertising award show judges critique in pretty much the same way. They’re judging “advertising creativity,” so the most unique, shocking and entertaining ads usually take the top prizes, irrespective of the money those ads earned or lost for the companies that ran them.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Often, the most creative advertising is also the most effective, especially in this new age of social media. The ads that creatively capture the public’s attention get seen more, passed along more, and deliver more of a return on an advertiser’s investment.
However, open almost any award show-winner’s book, and you’ll find it chockablock with creative-but-ineffective (or creative-but-fictitious) advertising. Because of this fact, a growing number of advertising agencies are refusing to enter creative award shows. Granted, many of these agencies are refusing to enter for the same reason that the ugly kids in high school “refused” to go to the prom, but it’s still a trend.
There’s a popular, and utterly incorrect, saying in the ad industry that “It isn’t creative if it doesn’t sell.” Lots of creative ads don’t sell. A more accurate adage might be, “If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t advertising.”
Advertising is commercial. The purpose of advertising is to sell products, sell opinions and sell behaviors. If an ad doesn’t sell, it’s flawed at a fundamental level.
This year, I was behind the scenes at a local advertising awards show and watched a panel of judges debate the merits of two different advertising campaigns being considered for “Best of Show” honors. Both campaigns displayed excellent craftsmanship and creativity. Both captivated audiences in their own way, one with humor and the other with emotionally engaging stories. As the debate raged on, one judge mentioned how the emotionally engaging campaign meshed so well with the company’s Web site, which he visited earlier in his hotel room. Another judge agreed with him, having visited the Web site too. Then the judges all had an epiphany: If the one campaign was so compelling that the judges visited the company’s Web site after seeing the ads, maybe it should be the Best of Show. Faced with two “creative” advertising campaigns, maybe the one that sold its product better should win. Go figure.
Both Avatar and The Hurt Locker were commercial films. (The Hurt Locker isn’t art house). Both were artistically brilliant in their own way. However, one film’s “art” captivated the world, while the other’s art captivated critics.
I’m siding with the world on this one.