Every year, the ad world throws itself a massive party at Cannes, the Clios, and a dozen other award shows. Agencies haul their most creative work on stage, hoist trophies, and slap “Award-Winning Campaign” badges on their websites. Back at the office, the CFO is staring at the P&L, wondering why they just blew $2 million on a campaign that got a ton of buzz but didn’t move the needle on revenue.
The Gap Between “Creative” and “Effective”
If you look at the data, it’s pretty grim.
A famous analysis from the IPA Databank, which examined over a thousand campaigns, found that only 11% of award-winning creative campaigns delivered significant business results. Let that sink in. Nearly 90% of the ads the industry celebrates as “excellent” are, from a business perspective, duds.
Marketing expert Peter Field has been shouting about this for years. He found that the campaigns that win creative awards are often so focused on being entertaining that they forget to be persuasive. The result? Lots of people remember your funny ad, but they can’t remember who it was for. And they definitely don’t buy anything.
Sales. That’s It. That’s the Metric.
Here’s what gets a CMO a bonus versus what gets them fired: growing revenue, gaining market share, and acquiring customers profitably. Not likes, not shares, not “ad recall.”
The simple truth is that marketing exists to make the company money. When analysts Les Binet and Peter Field dug into decades of data, they found that even the most basic, boring “buy now!” campaigns delivered a measurable, if small, return. But those purely “brand-building” creative darlings? Many of them showed no short-term sales impact. Zero.
The magic happens when you blend long-term brand building with a clear intention to sell. Those campaigns delivered huge returns over time. But—and this is the crucial part—they still had to show how they were going to make money.
When “Creative” Gets in the Way
I’ve been in that room. An agency presents a concept so artsy and bold that everyone around the table is terrified to be the one to ask, “Yeah, but will it sell anything?”
Remember that Pepsi ad with Kendall Jenner? It got tons of attention… and was yanked off the air in a day because of the backlash, doing absolutely nothing for sales. A year later, Pepsi ran its “Is Pepsi OK?” campaign. It was far less buzzy in ad circles, but it actually sold soda because it tapped into a real, universal experience.
Or think about the Dollar Shave Club launch video. It looked cheap, cost next to nothing to make, and definitely didn’t win any fancy awards. But it got 12,000 orders in two days and built a billion-dollar company. Why? Because every second of that video was built to get you to click “buy.”
What Actually Sells Things
So what actually works? It’s always the boring stuff.
Study after study shows the same things. Ads that clearly state the product’s benefit outsell those that just tell an emotional story. Ads where people actually remember the brand name (a surprisingly high bar) do way better. Ads that actually ask people to do something—a clear call to action—get more people to do that thing. And keeping your message consistent everywhere you show up gives you a huge lift.
None of this is sexy. None of it will get you a gold lion at Cannes. But all of it sells product.
Just Look at Amazon
By our industry’s standards, Amazon’s ads are just plain ugly. “Utilitarian” is the kindest word for them.
But they work. In fact, they work incredibly well at one thing: getting people to buy stuff. Their product listings, sponsored posts, and follow-up ads are all designed with one goal in mind. They’ve tested everything. Their conclusion is simple: for getting someone to click “buy,” a clear picture, a big price, an obvious button, and a bunch of five-star reviews beat a clever concept every single time.
This isn’t to say creativity is useless. It just means creativity has to be in service of the sale, not the other way around.
You Need Both
Look, I’m not saying we should all make ugly, boring ads. The best marketing does both: it builds a memorable brand, and it gets people to buy things now.
Your ad has to build mental shortcuts—colors, jingles, logos—so people think of you later. But if it’s just memorable without being persuasive, it’s just art.
What You Should Be Asking
If you’re the one signing the checks on these campaigns, you need to start asking more challenging questions:
- What number is this supposed to move, and how are we tracking it? And I mean revenue, new customers, or market share—not “impressions.”
- Draw me a straight line from this creative idea to that number. Don’t let them get away with vague hand-waving about “brand awareness.”
- How do we know the ad worked? What’s our control group? How do we prove it wasn’t just a good month?
- And the most important question of all: Can someone who sees this ad figure out what we’re selling and why they should buy it? If the answer is no, you’re not advertising; you’re just gambling.
Creative brilliance and sales results shouldn’t be enemies, but if you have to choose one, choose sales—every single time.
Your creative director might quit if you kill their brilliant idea. Your CFO will fire you if you can’t grow the business.
An ad’s job isn’t to be beautiful; it’s to change behavior. The ugliest product demo that converts is worth more than the most stunning short film that doesn’t.
Stop chasing awards. Start chasing sales. Your brand doesn’t need another trophy for the shelf. It requires more customers. Act like it.
Discover more from New Media and Marketing
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
