Coverage from our recent debate that saw two sides fiercely fight over the motion: ‘Online advertising doesn’t need to be creative’.

Monday, 8 September 2008

We at the IAB try our best to champion online creativity, from the Creative showcase awards we run alongside Microsoft Advertising, to our events where we showcase the most innovative work out there. However, no matter how creative a campaign surely it needs to generate sales or leads? With the internet so engrained in results and measurability have we created a double-edged sword for ourselves? We decided to put this up for debate and explore creativity versus that all-important click-through.

Kieron Matthews kicked off the debate with a few perimeters for the teams to follow and test questions for audience for example that age-old debate, whether women are better drivers than men… “Small man with a big point to make….online advertising is massively successful but doesn’t rely on creativity” boasted Philip Smith of Haymarket. He was quick to point out that his team were not anti-creativity and that they were there “to praise not bully”. However, he argued that the bottom line is results. This was reiterated by Henry Rowe from FaR Partners, who quoted several IAB PwC adspend study figures, “90% of online advertising is functional, not creative.” This set a benchmark for the evening in what could be referred to as the ‘great search debate’. TradeDoubler’s Ben Wood, moved onto talk about search which holds the lions share of online advertising, integral to the debate motion, pointing out that “search relies on relevancy not creativity and although creativity is important it’s not necessary”. This was a point which was soon to be refuted by search expert Tony Samios, Steak Media.

The opening gambit from those in favour of the motion came to close with Henry Rowe discussing the future and the semantics of the motion, “it is in the present tense…online advertising doesn’t need to be creative”. He explained how it is important to remember here that this debate “is not about digital experiences, it is about advertising and although a destination can be creative, getting there is functional advertising” referring to a slide containing a piece of code being displayed on screen, he attempted to strip creative down to pure and simple, unromantic numbers.

The ever eccentric Chris Clarke, a newbie at LBi, opened his rebuke with “let’s not get into semantics here” deflecting the argument away from search and talking about the internet’s position in life today, and how it ceased to be a one-way platform a long time ago. He also noted however that search was a “uniquely creative act” where you use a unique string of words to drive traffic and how it has to be integrated in the creativity of a campaign as the customer does not make that distinction. It appeared quite tricky to move away from semantics given the direction the debate was taking. David Pugh-Jones of Microsoft Advertising picked up from Chris and ran through what a Microsoft Advertising employee would be doing arguing against the motion? Even though technology is important it is just as important for it to be used in a creative way which ensures a thriving business. A need for creativity has been recognised by such a huge technology provider as key to the success of their business.

Tony Samios of Steak Media moved back to the ‘great search debate’ with a chuckle at the other side and explaining a plethora of reasons why creativity is integral to a successful search campaign, “brands are not engaged in silos, they need to be consistent and engaging”.

Chairman Matthews moved onto grill the teams further before opening the debate up to the floor, posing questions on the foundations of online advertising being embedded in measurability and whether brands were not spending more on online creativity due to the fact they don’t understand how to measure it. “Have we built an albatross making online synonymous with measurability?” he asked. Philip Smith was quick off the mark to mention that we are debating the present and not the future and should not be drawn away from the motion as online advertising has not always been about “all this fluffy stuff” but it was indeed about measurability.

A very heated couple of minutes ensued where Wood announced he was “sympathetic to your argument” for Samios to retort “you should be” only to be corrected by Smith “we pity your argument actually!” But before Clarke lost the will to live he stated quite simply that as it is a creative decision to do a simple execution to a specific audience, it is a creative decision to execute an online advertising campaign.

A few of the audience dared to ask a couple of questions of the riled panelists before the final vote which surprisingly revealed the team against the motion to be the winners with the final audience vote at 93%, swung from the original 81%, before we all headed back to the bar to discuss further over some much needed drinks and canapés.

• Look out for futures debates, here