assignment nine - feedback time

w+k london will tell you that Paul Colman is a great client and I can see why they say that. He's been the most thorough of all our judges to date, including me, and probably the most demanding. That's how you get great work, but I should warn all the entrants that they're not going to be heaped in praise. Here's the summary of this thoughts:

"On the whole all the entries were a little disappointing.  There was some good stuff in all of them, but they didn’t realise the ideas nearly as well as they could have.

I found it hard to pick a winner as they all had some strength’s, but in different areas – some had insight without strategic justification, while others had strategic justification without any real insight into the sport.

In terms of a winner I’d chose A. It didn’t cover a lot of aspects of the problem and wasn’t that well presented, but there was enough in it for me to want to know more.

A special mention should go to E, which was head and shoulders above the others in terms of presentation; brilliant use of images and succinct but powerful words. Unfortunately thought there was a lack of strategic justification, therefore it didn’t win."

But don't be downhearted because a) this was a really tough task and b) Paul's comments should defintely help you get better.

I'd add this for myself; you're almost all using lots of pictures and stuff, which is great, but don't use pictures instead of using thinking. Your pictures should help to clarify or amplify the points you want to make, but you should have a really clear sense of those points. The presentations should be logical and clear without the pictures. I don't mind ambiguity in an ad but I don't think we should accept it in a strategic document.

All the entries are below, with Paul's comments. Also you should have a look at the notes that Paul wrote for himself before he started marking them (told you he was thorough). You should look at these because they illustrate the discipline that leads to great strategy. I suspect that I too often give the impression that great thinking springs from a few days mucking about blogging and drinking coffee, it doesn't, it comes from the sort of rigour Paul demonstrates  here (a word document).

MMA-A.ppt  MMA-B.ppt MMA-D.ppt MMA-E.PDF feedback_to_entry_e.doc

So, many thanks to everyone for playing. You took on a high-level of technical difficulty and not many people were brave enough to attempt it so congrats to everyone who took part.

I'll post the next assignment in the next couple of days, I think we might do some back-to-basics stuff.

Comments

[Paul H. Colman]

I should have been clearer in my thanks to everyone who entered. I found it interesting to read your approaches to the problem and found it useful to my own thinking to consider your thoughts.

If anyone thinks I wasn't clear or want clarification on anything then please comment on this thread and I'd be happy to respond.

[russell]

Oops. Forgot to mention a prize. Can the author of A get in touch and I'll sort out something splendid and suitable.

[Colman]

You not offering my prize then?

[russell]

Ah yes, of course. The winner is also entitled to a signed photo of Paul Colman and/or a MMA lesson.

[russell]

Maybe if we'd mentioned that upfront we'd have had more entries.

[Gustavo Casas]

i´m looking forward for it,
i hope you can accept my assignment as well!!

[The chap that did "E"]

Thanks for the feedback Paul. Was clear, and helpful. I'll try and do better next time.