How Innovation and Integration Continue to Shape the Future of Marketing

New brand-based Clio jury weighs more than 600 submissions

Bali, Indonesia—In its inaugural year at the Clio Awards and the first time brand executives have judged work as part of the overall awards program, the Innovation & Integrated jury convened over the course of three days in Bali to weigh more than 600 submissions in the category.

The jury consisted of chair Steve Vranakis, executive creative director, Google Creative Lab, U.K.; Christine Dilandro, svp, head of media and integrated marketing, Citi; Juhi Kalia, head of Creative Shop, India and Indonesia; Ann Rubin, vp, brand content and global creative, IBM, USA; Kathleen Hall, corporate vp, global advertising, Microsoft, USA; Lars Terling, global head of a product business unit and director of FM/FMX product line, Volvo, Sweden; and Peter Carter, managing director of brand building integrated communications, Procter & Gamble, USA.

While chiefly charged with focusing on the creativity and originality of submissions, the theme of how return on investment, digital disruption and technology are shaping advertising and product development also served as an inevitable backdrop to the jury discussions.


        (L. to r.) Rubin, Carter, Terling and Hall 

After completing their deliberations, the jurors sat down with Adweek to discuss the creative trends that came through the craft they considered and the debate about both the merits and shortcomings of the ideas behind the work.

Adweek: What were the most important marketing themes to come out of this experience?

Carter: Whatever the hot social issues of the day are, those always came through, whether it was bullying or racism or Syrian refugees. It was advertising as a microcosm of what's happening in the world.

Dilandro: There were also brands working on innovations that could very well be helpful in the future. There was a greater good element and that dimensions what they [brands and advertisers] stand for in terms of doing meaningful work. 

Vranakis: The Innovation [panel] had a huge element of social impact. Brands very much honed in on a cause that was aligned to their core beliefs and values and really went to town.Reaching their target through the shared values that the brand and their audience hold dear seemed to result in fresh and surprising work and a winning formula.

Where the themes of innovation and integration strongly represented in the work submitted?

Hall: I think collectively we all agree that the term integration is a bit antiquated. It used to be TV, outdoor print and you had integrated. Now it seems to be mushy. What defines an integrated campaign has become nebulous.

Rubin: And I think the submissions weren't very clear about what their integrated elements were. Is PR an element? Is it a collection of elements? Or is owned platforms, or being on your own social channels, a tactic of integration?

Dilandro: I think the power of digital is evolving how we might want to look at the label of integration because it can appear through a digital channel only, but still have an array of activation points.

What, if anything, surprised you? 

Rubin: That we were not immensely impressed overall with the quality of the work.

What was missing?

Carter: The real breakthrough idea; I didn't see that dynamic twist. Yes, there were incremental differences. But that game changing experience didn't happen for us this year. 

Vranakis: I was continuously surprised by the smaller more regional brands who are doing so much with so little. They're really tapping into genuine insights that result in work that is more meaningful and beneficial to their audience. So much of the best work gave back, added value to people's lives and was empathetic to the hardships they endure.

Do you feel that strong ideas really came through the work you saw or did the rush to innovate and integrate get in the way? 

Recommended articles