Why did you select the winning agency on Best Agency Credentials?

Patrick Jubb: The agency that won best credentials really were very clear about who they were and what their core area of expertise is, and that was then reflected in every single part of their credentials –  most importantly in their testimonials then also enormously in their work itself.  You really got a clear sense that they’re not pretending to be something that they’re not, not trying to do everything, just very good at one thing, evidenced in some of the examples and some of the testimonials online. And that was really a breath of fresh air!

Patrick Jubb: They provided us with a nice appetiser to their main credentials which, if you’re time limited, helps give you a sense of who they are quickly, a little bit of assurance that they are who they say they are, so you can spend a bit more time getting to know more about them.

Why did you select the winning agency on Best Agency Film?

Sarah Ellis: The winner for me was really unique.  It was surprising, it made me smile, and it was just a cut above the rest.  It was just so creative and I definitely would want to see them.

What is your overall impression of this year’s Best Agency Film entries?

Nigel Gilbert: I think an extraordinary variety of approaches.  Some quite didactic and straight forward, others startlingly original.  Clearly what we’re looking for is something that can arrest and excite.

What was a big turn off in the year’s Best Agency Film category?

Philippe Zell: Yes there is one.  All the films that we portray and sell, are not trying to oversell what we can do or to corporate and me feel that they are just selling some stuff to make more money and more margins, something that puts me off weekly.

Best agency RFI category

Peter Cowie:  The three things that we’ve been looking for in an RFI.

Hilary Cross: We wanted them to show that they care about this particular job, they care about us and they actually had thought about what they were going, and I think it’s really important that they had thought about the actual job and not just given generic responses.

Sharry Cramond: We also wanted to make sure they just didn’t use too many words, because if you can imagine that we are going to get ten or twelve of these on our desk, if we’ve just got screens and screens of words then we are just not going to be able to get through it, and this is supposed to be about communication and grabbing attention.

Simon Michaelides:   And demonstration very much stood for the same question so, clearly many of the presentations felt like they were generic in certain clients, and it was the ones that had really taken the response to the specific client that shone through.

Giles Clayton-Jones: And I guess some of the substance and style didn’t really cut it for us.

Peter Cowie:  I think there’s one criteria that we looked at when going through it, if we ask ourselves: ‘we’ve got to see them, got to see them.  They really got that!’

Hilary Cross: And did they amuse us? Did they make us laugh? Were they fun? Because it is all about communication and about making something fun and entertaining.