It’s awards season again. And the debate arises yet again.

Are awards relevant? Or are they self-congratulatory gestures within an insular industry, detached from the broader audience? Do they hold genuine value for brands and consumers? The jury is divided on this.

Proponents of awards argue vehemently for their relevance, often dismissing sceptics as people incapable of great work and envious of those who win. The non-winners watch the debacle with detached cynicism while returning to the grind of selling their clients’ wares.

As someone who has been on both sides of this debate and served on numerous award juries, here’s my perspective. Awards keep the creative juices flowing.

In any creative or talent-centric industry - films, advertising, publishing, fashion, etc. awards add the much-needed respite and glamour to an otherwise tremendously challenging, insecure, and rigorous industry.

They provide recognition for exceptional work, which is increasingly challenging in today’s economic and AI-generated environment. While some agencies consistently produce groundbreaking work, most struggle with workload fatigue, people turnover, and budget constraints that stifle everyday innovation and creativity.

The creative ego is fragile. Creatives endure a daily onslaught of criticism, both internally and externally. First, their ideas are torn apart by their colleagues. Then, they must muster the courage to present their work to clients, only to face further scrutiny.

Amidst this turmoil, awards provide a respite — a chance for creatives to assert their autonomy and showcase their talents without interference.
But therein lies the problem.

We’ve created two ecosystems: The real work vs the proactive work — the sell-or-else vs. the deliver-awards-or-else. As long as that divide exists, the debate will rage on.

The divide within agencies led to resentment among those not part of the ‘special squad’ with ‘special privileges.’ Often, this squad can avoid jumping into the trenches and getting their hands dirty on the laborious day-to-day agency work.

But life is also challenging for the special squad and their creative head. They are under tremendous pressure to deliver awards year after year.

This divide is exacerbated by separate key performance indicators (KPIs) for business heads, planners, and creatives, with the former focusing on profitability and the latter on awards and glory. The focus on crafting awards can overshadow the need for work to resonate with consumers and drive sales, leading to friction and disjointed teamwork.

In a healthy creative culture, all departments should work cohesively to champion great work, whether for a pitch, campaign, or potential award. Unified collaboration, where all departments rally behind exceptional work, has transformative power.

Clients increasingly prioritise tangible results over accolades, further fueling the debate on the relevance of creative awards versus effectiveness awards. Both perspectives hold merit; ideally, campaigns should strive to excel in creativity and effectiveness.

As agencies grapple with shrinking revenues and escalating costs, the ROI of entering awards is being scrutinised. While awards attract top talent and bolster an agency’s reputation, the hefty investments required raise questions, especially amidst economic uncertainties.

In conclusion, the debate on the relevance of awards isn’t likely to end soon. And perhaps that’s not such a bad thing. After all, the discussion keeps us honest, driving us to question our ecosystem, innovate, and improve continually.

This blog was a part of Manifest's May issue. Get your hands on the full print issue here.

The author is Ruchi Sharma, founder and chief creative officer, HumanSense.