The odd thing is that the judging criteria will be divided between results (50%), idea (25%) and strategy (25%).
So I’m not sure how you incorporate the brilliance of an idea into an ad’s effectiveness (aesthetic effectiveness, perhaps?), but I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that the above proportions should be how every ad is judged.
An ad that is not seen is like the proverbial tree falling in the wood, and an ad that is seen but is not effective must be counted as a failure. That means that the 50% is essential to an ad’s success, whether it’s a 25×4 for a chip shop in Grimsby or a multi-million pound 360-degree fuckfest.
Then the idea part: this is very important because an ad can still be effective even if it’s a pile of shit/rip off/only effective through repetition. The idea part would then reward the pursuit of originality and freshness.
And the strategy: coming at an old problem (they’re all old problems) from a new perspective is always a challenge, and therefore worth rewarding.
So even though this award suggests that it rewards effectiveness, I think that makes it too easy to pigeonhole as results-over-creativity. However, if they really are going to take the process of creation into account, then maybe this is the one to win (obviously, the juries have to be very well chosen).