2017 global effie awards insight guide - Amazon Web Servicescurrent.effie.org.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/... · 2016 global effie awards insight guide sample 4 judging overview Final

Report for: Agency Name &

Brand Name

“Campaign Title”

2017 global effie awards insight guide

™

™

2016 global effie awards insight guide sample 1

Contents

02 introduction

03 judging overview

05 your entry

07 scoring sections overview

15 overall tips

19 moving forward

20 contact effie


introduction

Thank you for purchasing the Effie Insight Guide for your submission. We hope this will help you understand the scoring of

your case and help you enter more effectively in future competitions.

Below is an outline describing the information you will find in this report:

1. Judging Overview: Learn how judging works in the various rounds.

2. Judge Insight: The Scoring Sections: Review the requirements for each of the four scoring sections, along with

insights from judges on what they are looking for and tips for presenting each section effectively.

3. Judge Insight: Your Entry: Read the feedback provided by the judges who evaluated your submission. See

detailed outline below.

4. Judge Insight: Overall Tips: Review overall advice from this year’s jury regarding the importance of storytelling,

brevity, proofreading, etc.

5. Moving Forward: A summary of tips and basic entry information for next year’s competition are provided, along

with Effie contact information.

Judge Insight: Your Entry

Judges are asked to respond to the following questions for each case they review:

What are the strongest elements of this case? Why?

What are the weakest elements of this case? Why?

What questions remain unanswered after reviewing this case?

Along with the judge feedback, we will reveal the average ranking of each of the four scoring sections. Entrants should

take this ranking, along with the feedback, and look back at the original entry. If the Strategic Challenge section was

ranked the lowest, why was that? Review how the lower-scoring sections could have been improved and keep that in

mind when preparing next year’s entries. Pay careful attention to all sub-questions/instructions on the entry form.

We welcome any and all feedback on this Insight Guide. We are always working to improve our programs, so please let us

know if there are insights you would find helpful or alternate questions you would like us to ask the judges.

We look forward to seeing your work in the 2017 competition and wish you the best of luck. If you have any additional

questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

intro / judging overview / winner data / your entry / scoring sections / overall tips / moving forward / contact effie


judging overview

Round One Judging

Round One Effie Judging occurs in cities around the world from February to March. Thanks to our generous host and

sponsor, Facebook, judging events were held in London, New York, Sao Paulo, and Singapore.

Each judge in the first round of judging is assigned a selection of cases across a range of categories. Cases are judged

on an individual basis.

Because judges in Round One are reviewing a variety of categories, providing context for your marketplace/category is

helpful so they can understand just how challenging your situation was. Judge feedback has indicated that context is

crucial in helping them understand your challenge and the significance of your results.

Additionally, judges are reviewing 10-15 cases in a day, so brevity is appreciated. Clear, concise, and personable entries

tend to stand out over long, overwritten entries filled with jargon.

Judges enter their scores for each of the four scoring elements, provide insight on the specific questions asked about

each case, and have the opportunity to mark a case for disqualification or advancement. After Round One judging is

complete, the Effie Judging committee meets to review the scores. While the scores are the main determinant if a case will

become a finalist, the committee also reviews flags recommending cases for advancement.



judging overview

Final Round Judging

Final Round Effie Judging took place in April. Final Round judges review, as a group, all finalists within a category, and like

round one, all elements of each case are reviewed and scored. Judges read each finalist case and then review the

creative materials. Judges provide scores for each scoring element and offer insight on the questions asked. At the end of

each case, room leaders initiate a discussion about the finalists in the category. Judges have the opportunity to change

scores after the group discussion.

All jury members sign confidentiality forms and review work within a secure judging location arranged by Effie. Jurors are

specifically matched with cases that do not prove a conflict of interest – for example a judge with an automotive

background would not review an automotive case.

Judges are looking for great results against challenging goals – a truly effective case. Simply entering impressive numbers,

without context regarding why the numbers are impressive in the context of past performance, competitive context,

category context, etc. and how the communications are directly linked to the results, will not garner an Effie.


Members of the 2016 Final Round Jury


your entry

Judge Feedback

Entry ID#: 9999

Entry Title: The ABC Campaign

Brand Name: ABC

Category: XYZ

*Note: The sample comments below are not specific to a single Effie entry – these are samples of feedback provided by

judges on a variety of cases. The feedback you receive will be from the judges who reviewed your entry.

This is an example of a case that did not become a finalist. If this entry became a finalist, additional feedback from the

final round judges would also be provided.

What are the strongest elements of this case? Why?

• Very well written case, strong business results. Good in-market understanding.

• Good understanding of how to reach the trade audience.

• Human interest element.

• The idea is rooted in the consumer understanding and is based on clear insight.

• There was intelligent use of digital channels, especially mobile.

• Focused strategy and target audience. Strong connections to planning. Globally adaptable. Good approach.

• Creative consistency in addressing the problems.

• The flexibility of the idea to adapt locally to the four main markets.

• It creates a very positive and relevant personality for the brand. Very authentic, emotional, memorable.

What are the weakest elements of this case? Why?

• This is not really a global case.

• The objectives are vague and not measurable.

• The quality of the insight amplified in the work was poor - just an observation on audience expectation.

• The idea that a celebrity can substitute a big idea.

• No innovation. The execution didn't surprise me.

• Focus on local markets felt lacking from written case.

• The potential of coverage data or a more intuitive engagement.

• The lack of interaction on the web platform.

• Given the number of elements, the video submission seems quite incomplete and a little confusing.



What questions remain unanswered after reviewing this case?

• How can we tell that this case wasn't simply a new product launch that went well, rather than communications

that drove success?

• Why is the campaign no longer running? What was the effect of promotional activity on sales?

• What was the real business issue they were trying to solve?

• Proof that this was a new media approach

• Did they maintain a dialogue with customers?

• How does this communication + digital platform affect sales?

• Does it qualify as a Global initiative?

• How did it impact the personality of the brand?

Ranking of Scoring Sections (High to Low):

Idea

Strategic Challenge / Objectives

Results

Bringing the Idea to Life


scoring sections

Weighting of the Scoring Sections

Effie weights each of the scoring sections as follows:

Strategic Communications 23.3%

Challenge & Objectives

Strategic Insights & Idea 23.3%

Bringing the Idea to Life 23.3%

Results 30%

The weighted score is what the Effie Judging Committee uses to determine finalists and winners. Additional analytical

reports are examined to ensure accuracy. The committee also looks at judge flags, which note cases that judges feel

should move on to be a finalist or winner.

While finalist/winner flags are reviewed, the numerical scores determine which entries become finalists, and from those

finalists, which entries are awarded a Gold, Silver, or Bronze Effie trophy. Each winning level has a minimum score required

in order for a finalist to be eligible for an award. Effie Trophies are awarded in each category at the discretion of the

judges. It is possible that a category may produce one or multiple winners of any level or perhaps no winners at all.

Becoming a finalist does not guarantee the case will win an award.

All entrants are notified in if their case is a finalist. All finalists are notified if their finalist case is winning an Effie.

Winners will find out their award level at the night of the Awards Gala.

In the 2016 Effie Competition, the Results and and Strategic Insights & Idea sections scored highest on average, while the

Idea and Bringing the Idea to Life sections scored the lowest on average across all entrants.



scoring sections

Strategic Communications Challenge & Objectives

Elements are assessed for both suitability and ambitiousness within the framework of the Strategic Communications

Challenge.

How did each area relate to the stated objectives and were the objectives fully explained? Entrants should detail what

objectives they had and why they are significant in the context of their situation. If the entrant did not have objectives

upfront or they were open objectives, they should explain this. Objectives should be outlined by country. Judges

consistently state that they can tell when objectives have been retrofitted and down score entries because of this.

Many entrants ask how the judges score the Strategic Communications Challenge & Objectives. For additional insight on

this, we’ve provided part of the judging instructions here.

Judge Instructions

How did each area relate to the stated objectives and were the objectives fully explained?

Entrants should detail what their objectives were, and why these objectives are significant in the context of their situation.

Past judges have found it easy to tell when objectives were retrofitted and typically down score entries because of this.

Entrants are advised to provide judges with an understanding of the category, competitive and other context as well as to

outline the goals they had for the case or to indicate why they may not have had upfront goals but why what they have

achieved is significant. If context regarding the category situation is missing and/or understanding of why the goals (or

results achieved) were challenging this would be a reason to score lower. The definition of the Strategic Communications

Challenge is the glue that shapes the other elements of the case.

Please ensure that the Strategic Communications Challenge is clearly understood, both as described in the case

and from any other knowledge you may have of the particular category. Assess the remaining elements of the

case for both suitability and ambitiousness within the framework of the Strategic Communications Challenge.

Weight should be given both to the degree of difficulty and to whether the entrant has provided enough context

to evaluate the case’s effectiveness in this section.


effie insight: When writing your entry form, carefully read and answer the

detailed instructions under each question. Often judges complain they

felt the entrant did not provide full information.


scoring sections

Entrants are advised to provide judges with an understanding of the category, competitive environment,

and any other pertinent background information.

Entrants should also outline the goals they had for the case, globally and in the individual markets. If the

entrant did not have objectives upfront or they were open-objectives, they should explain this.

You may choose to provide a lower score if context regarding the category situation is missing or if an

explanation of why the goals were challenging is missing.

FAQ: HOW DO I JUDGE THE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS CHALLENGE & OBJECTIVES?

The definition of the Strategic Communications Challenge is the glue that shapes the other elements of the case.

Please ensure that the Strategic Communications Challenge is clearly understood, both as described in the case

and from any other knowledge you may have of the particular category. Assess the remaining elements of the

case for both suitability and ambitiousness within the framework of the Strategic Communications Challenge.

Weight should be given both to the degree of difficulty and to whether the entrant has provided enough context

to evaluate the case’s effectiveness in this section.

Entrants are advised to provide judges with an understanding of the category, competitive environment, and any

other pertinent background information.

Entrants should also outline the goals they had for the case, globally and in the individual markets. If the entrant

did not have objectives upfront or they were open-objectives, they should explain this.

You may choose to provide a lower score if context regarding the category situation is missing or if an explanation

of why the goals were challenging is missing.

Judge Advice on the Strategic Communications Challenge & Objectives

“The best cases clearly articulated the challenge for the brand, the category and competitive landscape, and what

the overall goals were. They also had KPIs that aligned well to that challenge that were clearly not retro-fitted to the

resulting outcome.”

“A large number of entrants seemed to omit critical information around the challenge. Why is it important? Why is it

an issue for their consumers / brand / business? Who is the strategic target and why?”

“Provide ample context on the competitive set to help judges understand the challenges being faced by your brand.

Clearly identify your KPIs and then prove how your program met or exceeded those KPIs.”

“Be careful your KPIs don't look like they were retrofitted. Help me understand why they were important and why they

were set at that level.”



scoring sections

“More context on the marketplace challenges, the brand challenges, the opportunity, the audience and the key

drivers that lead to the solution/idea.”

“Make it clearer if these are challenging or typical objectives. Every marketing goal is to grow share/sales but what

makes it particularly challenging? Also, be clearer on expectations and how you set those benchmarks so it doesn't

look like you sandbagged results.”

“Telling me what your objectives were, and more

importantly telling me why those objectives matter is the

difference between passing through Round One and

not.”

“The best entries made it very easy for me to understand

the situation they found themselves in. I am not in their

business every day, so I need to be updated on the

problems that they were facing. That set the stage for the

rest of the story. And if they did that poorly, I wasn't able

to fully comprehend the rest of the story.”

“It was important that entrants were able to set the stage

for their Idea and demonstrate why specific results would

be critical. The entries that successfully articulated their challenges and objectives told better stories overall, and

helped link the various sections of the case together.”

Idea

Judges evaluate how inventive the idea and the strategy behind it is in meeting the

Strategic Communications Challenge and how closely the idea, strategy and results

address the challenge.

Judge Advice on the Insight

“The best cases were simple, powerful and were based on a powerful insight.”

“Clearly explain how you arrived at your insight and why it's relevant to your

marketing challenge.”

“The stronger the business and consumer insight, the better the communication plan.”

“Always make sure the idea/insight has some discussion of the target audience. What makes it particularly relevant to

this audience segment?”


“If the Strategic Challenge section

was weak, it weakened the entire

entry because the context wasn't

there to understand how big the

idea was, or how profound the

results were. After reviewing these

entries today, it's apparent that this

section is key to a strong entry.”

“If you can't

explain an idea in

one sentence, then

you don't have an

idea.”


scoring sections

“Did the entrant know the audience? Was the insight consistent with the audience’s beliefs and did it actually drive an

insightful notion that a strategy could be developed from? And did the work reflect the audience, insight and strategy

consistently?”

“Don’t just state the obvious - find a human truth to exploit in a breakthrough communications plan.”

Judge Advice on the Idea

“Dig deeper into their consumers and draw links to their brand. A great idea is meaningless if it doesn't reflect on the

brand.”

“The idea is the pivot which turns the smart analysis of the problem into a unique solution that none of our competitors

could emulate. Too many idea statements were generic and displayed no deep consumer understanding.”

“Make the idea crystal clear. Simplify, simplify, simplify.”

“The idea needs to tie directly back to the consumer insight and not be the tactical execution that was deployed. The

idea needs to be crisp, but also tell the judge enough detail so that it is easy to understand how the team arrived at

this idea and why it is meaningful to the brand and campaign.”

“The idea is not a recitation of the tagline!”

“Many of the idea articulations were not ideas. They were descriptions of the goal of the program or they were an

articulation of what the program was, not the idea behind it.”

Bringing the Idea to Life

This section includes the written entry form, Media Addendum, and the creative reel. In the written form, entrants are asked

to explain how they brought the idea to life. Entrants must outline their media and communications strategy, providing

rationale for your media and communications strategies. Judges are looking to know not only what you did, but why you

did it. Why were the channels you selected right for your target audience?

The creative reel is your place to show examples of your work – not to repeat what you outlined in the written case. Judges

review the written case before watching the creative reel, so it is important these elements are created with each other in

mind.

Judge Advice on the Written Case

“Tie the communication strategy directly back to objectives and insights. Without that it's just a media plan, not a

communications strategy.”



scoring sections

“More focus on media strategy. Entrants mentioned TV and print ads, but didn’t always mention where they ran and

how they appealed to the target.”

“Clearly depict how the campaign was executed in market. Was there a "path" you wanted consumers to go on and

what was it?”

“Show the connection between communication strategy and media.”

“Regarding bringing idea to life, more needs to be said about brand media strategies and executions. Very little

demo data, lifestyle data, medium strengths and weaknesses.”

“While the campaigns are delivering on the insight, it's not clear how the media plan pays off or translates that insight

into a communications plan. Often there is a disconnect.”

“With so many channels available to marketers now, part of the challenge is conveying how you achieved reach

across them. How did you place importance of some over others, etc.”

“Integrate the media strategy and show how it links to the full execution as well as, potentially, how it evolved with the

campaign. Show how you were able to "test and learn" if digital was a key component. Ensure that the creative reel is

not redundant.”

“The best ideas had a brilliant kernel of an idea at the core but produced it well and engineered the right expressions

through media and social to give it legs. These legs were also tailored to the core creative strategy, which made the

central idea stick further.”

Judge Advice on the Creative Reel

“In many cases the creative failed to live up to the story. In others, the video totally obscured the ability to view

creative. It became a rehash of the story/case and a lot of salesmanship vs. a true showcase of the work.”

Be sure the written case and video complement each other and do not repeat each other. It isn't about the quality

of the video itself but more about the content.”

“I found that the videos were often more streamlined and clearer than the papers. Are creatives doing the videos?

Maybe the authors of the papers should go back to their cases and streamline to align more closely with the video

submissions.”

“Don't completely repeat the case in video form. Use the video to bring to life the key elements of the campaign.

We've read the written case.”



scoring sections

“Most of the reels did a good job to demonstrating the work. The

best cases told a cohesive story, but did not spend a lot of time

on the set up given we had already reviewed the written

material.”

“Don't turn the reel into a pitch -- it reduces credibility.”

“My biggest issue was that the videos seemed to gloss over the

creative rather than showcasing it. Don't give me a video version

of an over dramatized case. Showcase the creative and tell a rich

compelling story via your writing.”

Results

Judges are looking for direct correlations between real objectives and results. For example, if the objective is to improve

brand awareness, the proof cannot be an increase in sales. If you achieved additional results, explain what they were and

why they are significant. If you did not achieve a particular objective, explain why. Do not leave judges with any

unanswered questions or a sense that the situation you set up was not the

actual situation you faced.

Entrants must demonstrate how they met or exceeded objectives using

quantitative and behavioral metrics or other measurement tools.

Entrants should provide background – what is the industry norm? Entries

range from small cases in regional markets to nationwide blitzes. Judges

take into account the environment in which each case exists. It is important

to include category context, as judges may not be aware of your particular

category. For example, a small percentage move in a highly-segmented,

high volume category is more difficult to achieve than a large percentage

change in a small, less-competitive or non-competitive category.

Likewise, a large sales increase for a product that has never advertised before might be less impressive than a smaller

sales increase for a product that has no budget increase but changed its marketing communications strategy.


“Anticipate

objections/questions

and address them.

Exhaustively eliminate

variables. Prove your

work led to your results.”

effie insight: Entries that provide an explanation of why the results are

significant to the business of the brand tend to perform better in the Effie

competition.

“Make sure your creative reel

complements your case by

demonstrating something

discussed in your case. It

should not be an exact

replica of your case wording

OR something completely

additive to yours.”


scoring sections

Judge Advice on the Results

“There was a significant amount of obvious hyperbole and loose connection to strategic goals. Entrants should focus

on using the results to tie up their story in a neat bow.”

“Too many entries failed to quantify the true impact of their work. Many could benefit from more extensive

measurement before, during and after campaigns to show the net change in perceptions or behaviors. Too many

squishy KPIs.”

“Some of the cases used very soft measurement for results like CTR, or visits to sites. These measures are a start but

should not be the ultimate goal. There needs to be concrete business results.”

“Some results were just sloppy and did not align with the objectives established upfront. If you set a sales goal, give

some context as to why that goal is relevant; don't just report a metric without some context.”

“Saying things like ‘exceeded by 520%’ just makes me think that the objectives were stupid rather than results being

good.”

“Talk about the scale of couponing, price cuts, marketplace activity, etc. - no information or context on these means a

downscore.”

“It's all about the results, right? I felt that many cases could show that the work was somehow linked to a movement in

sales, but they were weak in being clear about specifically how the work was effective in driving sales and/or what

specifically the work affected in order to drive sales.”

Presenting Results Effectively

“Charts, comparisons from a year ago, sales versus years.”

“The strongest cases immediately and overtly tied back to objectives.”

“While they all cite results, sometimes the results are not adequately tied

to the stated objectives, or the KPIs aren't appropriate for the goals.”

“Clearly tie results back to your initial objectives. When the results

presented felt vague or disconnected from the case objectives, I found

myself assuming that this was due to an absence of truly convincing

positive metrics to be shared.”

“Relate the results back to the objectives and do so in a storytelling

matter, instead of a data dump.”

“The most effective cases included strong, but concise results balanced

with an equally strong insight.”


“Tie together the story of

how your work drove the

results - the best cases

did this seamlessly, the

worst cases just threw

the results out there as

somehow a self-evident

proof of the value of the

work without explaining

why or how.”


overall tips

Be Clear. Be Concise. Be Honest.

“Make sure your story is tight. It’s easy for good stories to get lost in

overwriting.”

“Be clear and straightforward about what impact you had and

what results your work truly delivered. And we like reading cases

that are interesting, so don't be afraid to inject a little personality!”

“Concise written entries stand out. They are not only refreshing --

they encourage high marks. Remember that The Effies are about

effective communication. Entries that are long on words and light

on substance or impact will leave a juror with the impression that

the campaign was, too.”

“Storytelling is important. The person with the most heart for the campaign needs to be involved in the writing of the

case study. Too dry case studies kill great results.”

“Every part of the story should logically tie back to the points being made. Simpler is better. Nix as much marketingese

from the narrative as you can. Trying to sound like a marketing textbook causes my BS meter to go off. MAKE your

case. Don't just answer the questions.”

“A strong case should read like a story, each section should connect with the one that follows, and it should be

compelling to read. There should be a business foundation to the case that is set up in the beginning and addressed

in the last section in terms of impact of the idea on the brand.”

“Be a storyteller. Entertain me with the submission. I want to hear your voice.”

“Consider the fact that the person reading it may be a creative mind, a media mind, or an analytical mind. Try to

appeal to all by making it a very easy, enjoyable, and entertaining read. Don't focus too much on creative strategy

and leave media strategy out. Really give a full picture of what all the different departments contributed.”

“I’m more likely to believe your campaign was effective if you acknowledge what other factors might have driven

results and give me some reasons to believe they weren’t responsible in this case.”

“Show causation, not just correlation.”


“Present the case in a clear

and concise manner. Don't

be afraid to use visuals to

highlight the data you are

presenting versus typing it all

out - it can be more impactful

when seen in a chart.”

effie insight: You can’t write your way to an Effie, but you can certainly

write your way out of an Effie.


overall tips

How to Improve an Entry

“The entrants should ensure that the results tie to the objectives, that they include performance against benchmarks,

and that they seem real and not manufactured to make the case seem better.”

“Include more measurable objectives, behavioral and business.”

“Nail the insight. Keep market overviews brief. Make sure the insight is a

connective thread throughout the response.”

“Don’t create objectives to fit the results – it’s obvious.”

“I was very disappointed that many people did not enter their work

properly or take the time for more customization in the entry form for

the category entered.”

“More charts and graphs vs. words. It's easier to see results visually than

in a narrative form.”

“Many entries were way over-written. Simple and succinct is better.”

“Check for grammar, typos, math, and inconsistencies.”

Context is Key

“Do not underestimate the importance of benchmarks - and providing reason for those benchmarks. For instance, a 4

week period out of a year is not helpful unless you explain why you used that 4 week period - it just looks like you are

manipulating results.”

“More context around the challenge; more specific, quantifiable results. Without these two components, it was

incredibly difficult to judge the case's effectiveness.”

“Lots of what, not enough why. Why do you want to increase awareness X%? What would that mean to your

company/client in real-world terms? Context was missing on many of the results.”

“Entrants need to provide benchmarks and more than just percentage growth. Without the context for those

percentages, it's hard to tell what is truly great.”

“Where possible, show how your results compare to the relative success of your competition. Just competing against

yourself and past results doesn't seem as compelling.”


“Advertising principles

should apply to case

studies too: write them in

a way that engages

judges, focus on how your

campaign helped achieve

your brand's objectives

and don't over-complicate

it - less is more!”


overall tips

Review Internally Before Submitting

“Write your entry not for a member of your team but for someone who knows absolutely nothing about your category,

client, or client’s business problems. Take special care to answer all questions (and sub-bullets therein) as they were

designed to be answered in that manner for a reason.”

“Have someone outside the team read your case. Too often category specific knowledge was assumed and broad

context not given.”

“To all agencies, please have a senior person and a proofreader read your cases before submitting them. Typos and

logic flow errors create a bad impression.”

“Make the context clear enough for someone who doesn't sit in your office every day and may just be reading their

10th case. Have more than one writer look at it; preferably someone from outside your group. Same for results. With the

creative reel, be clear about what elements are actual marketing pieces vs. context.”



overall tips


“A great case tells a story. It

draws you in and makes

you want to read more.”

“Lots of what, not enough

why. Why do you want to

increase awareness X%?

What would that mean to

your company/client in real-

world terms? Context was

missing on many of the

results.”

“Be careful your KPIs don’t

look like they were

retrofitted. Help me

understand why they were

important and why they

were set at that level.”

“Clearly explain how you

arrived at your insight

and why it’s relevant to

your marketing

challenge.”

“Relate the results

back to the objectives

and do so in a

storytelling manner,

instead of a data

dump.”

“Tie the communications

strategy directly back to

objectives and insights.

Without that, it’s just a

media plan, not a

communications

strategy.”

“Tie together the story of

how your work drove the

results – the best cases did

this seamlessly, the worst

cases just threw the results

out there as somehow a self-

evident proof of the value of

the work without explaining

why or how.”

“More charts and

graphs vs. words.

It’s easier to see

results visually than

in a narrative form.”

“Many entries were way

over-written. Simple and

succinct is better.”

“My biggest issue was that

videos seemed to gloss over

the creative rather than

showcasing it. Don’t give me

a video version of an over-

dramatized case. Showcase

the creative and tell a rich,

compelling story via your

writing.”

“Have someone outside

your team read your case.

Too often category specific

knowledge was assumed

and broad context not

given.”


moving forward

Summary of Effie Tips

After reading the judge feedback, we suggest reviewing your case to see where answers could have been improved. If

you requested the insight guide for multiple entries, is there a scoring section that consistently is scored lower than others?

Thoroughly review your answers, the aggregate feedback pertaining to each scoring section, and the specific judge

feedback on your case to see what more could have been done.

When preparing your entries for the 2017 competition:

Be sure you answer ALL questions - including the detailed instructions underneath each question. Provide context

and explain the relationship between your challenge, strategy, and results.

Judges may not be familiar with your brand or category. Explain what is going on in your category, with your

competitors, etc. Context is key. Minimize the use of jargon.

Clearly connect your objectives and your results.

Explain who your audience is and why they are your audience. How do your insights relate to your target

audience? Why are your media choices the right fit for your audience?

Clearly outline your communications and media strategy. Explain the rationale behind your media choices.

Explain why your results are significant.

Review the definition of the category you are entering. Make sure your effort meets the criteria within that

explanation. Some category definitions ask the entrant to include additional information in the entry. Judges will

likely down score the case if something is missing.

Remember that judges in round one are reviewing 10-15 cases and they may not have any knowledge of your

category or brand. Be concise and include background information/context.

After writing your entry, ask people not affiliated with the effort to review it. What questions do they have? Do they see

holes in your argument?

Create a mock judging event within your office to see how your colleagues, especially those that do not work on the

brand, would score it. Score a past Effie-winning case for comparison. Effie judging instructions are available upon

request.

Carefully proofread your submission for typos, grammatical errors, etc.

Thoroughly read all entry materials, including the reasons for disqualification.

Review the case studies of this year’s winning work at www.effie.org in the Case Studies Database.

Contact past Effie judges at your company and ask them to review your work.

We also suggest applying to be an Effie judge. Judging is a great way to learn from other work and truly understand the

Effie process. We try to accommodate as many qualified judges as we can, but because of our need for balanced juries,

we are not able to guarantee acceptances of all applications. Visit www.effie.org/global to apply.



moving forward

2017 Global Effie Awards Competition Information

Complete entry information is available at: https://www.effie.org/25/entry_details/2.

Helpful Entry Resources that will be found at www.effie.org/global.

Entry Kit

Entry Form Guideline

Advice from the Jury

Complimentary Case Studies & Sample Creative Reels

Category Definitions

Creative Reel Requirements



contact

Global Competition

Hope Spithaler

Senior Manager, International Programs

Effie Worldwide

[email protected]

Direct: 646-254-6312

North American & Shopper Marketing

Competitions

Entering the Effies

For questions about the entry process, categories, Insight

Guides, or any other general questions about the

competitions, please contact:

Steph Jones

Senior Manager, North America

Effie Worldwide

[email protected]

Direct: 212-849-2755

Carrie Osborn

Program Coordinator

Effie Worldwide

[email protected]

Direct: 646-254-6313

Judging

To apply to be an NA Effie Judge, please complete the

Judge Application Form.

If you have any questions about the judging process,

please contact:

If you have any questions about the judging process,

please email: [email protected]

Positive Change Competition

Denise McDevitt Erica Stoppenbach

Vice President Vice President

[email protected] [email protected]

212-849-2751 212-849-2756

Case Study Database & Subscriptions

Nisha Stephen Erica Stoppenbach

Director Vice President

[email protected] [email protected]

646-254-6311 212-849-2756

Effie Effectiveness Index

Jill Whalen

Vice President

[email protected]

212-849-2754

International Effie Programs & Network

Hope Spithaler

Senior Manager, International Programs

Effie Worldwide

[email protected]

Direct: 646-254-6312


Documents

2017 global effie awards insight guide - Amazon Web Servicescurrent.effie.org.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/... · 2016 global effie awards insight guide sample 4 judging overview Final