I was on the Campaign Press awards jury with about 8 other people.

All the ads were laid out on tables.

We were told that we had to give every ad marks out of 10.

Then the 3 with the most marks would be the winners.

So I picked the 3 I liked the best and gave them each 10.

Then I gave everything else zero.

At the adding-up David Abbott asked me why I’d done that.

I said because only 3 ads could win I wanted to weight it in favour of my preferences.

David was furious and said it was against the spirit of the judging.

I didn’t agree.

But that’s what happens on awards juries.


Later on we had all the shortlisted press campaigns laid out on the floor.

The ones from which we’d eventually pick the winners.

I was looking at the BMW campaign.

Opposite me, Tony Brignul was also looking at it.

I said to him, “I’m not sure about this campaign Tony.”

He said, “I know what you mean.”

I said, “Of the six ads here, three are great and three are boring.”

He said, “Exactly, three you would vote for and three you wouldn’t.”

I said, “It’s a shame, three of them I wish I’d done, and three are just deadly dull.”

He said, “Absolutely. three are well thought out and intelligently expressed while three are just trivial and facile.”

After about ten minutes we both realised we’d been talking about exactly the opposite three ads.

The three I liked, Tony found glib and flashy.

The three Tony liked, I found dull and boring.

And that’s what happens on awards juries.



Not facts.