British Arrows 2024 jury chairs hold court

What was your first reaction when the Arrows contacted you to ask if you wanted to be chairs of the respective juries?

AB: Hermeti and I were chuffed for a very personal reason, because the Arrows was the first award we ever won, for our very first film in 2008, at Grosvenor House [for Boots, Moment of Truth]. This was pre-mobile phones and we ran looking for a payphone in the hotel. We called our parents in Brazil, collect, to tell them we had won an award. It’s a very emotive memory that we have.    

Being the chair of a jury is humbling. You get the elation and the joy, but you also feel the weight of the responsibility.

HB: We hold [the Arrows] in a special place in our hearts.  [That win] gave us so much energy for the rest of our careers. I guess there was also a lot of learning involved, to appreciate all the amazing things out there on the same night, to try to understand what makes a great, powerful film and to try and emulate that feeling as many times in our life as possible. Being the chair of a jury is humbling. You get the elation and the joy, but you also feel the weight of the responsibility. It’s always a thrill being in jury rooms, but orchestrating the thing is a very rare opportunity. Very quickly after the request it was like, can we be really great at that? We haven’t done it that many times.

Above: This Boots spot, from 2007, garnet Ana and Hermeti Balarin their first ever advertising awards at the British Arrows.

RR: Simon [Cooper, Arrows Board Chairman] was very flattering, so that worked. It’s a huge thing. I’ve been on juries for different awards and organisations and the idea of being the chair of the Craft jury is a privilege. More and more, where I am in my career, I find I’m looking to the next generation, looking at the way work is evolving from when I started to now. I find myself reflecting on the changes much more. Also, I’m struck by the fact that so much of craft is at such a high level. The base level is so high.  It used to be that the most funded and the most creative work would be very well crafted. Now, everything is. Consequently, the things that excel really have to be exceptional.

So, you think it’s a bit more of a level playing field now?

RR: Everyone has learnt from the people who have gone before. The young directors want to really show what they can do, even on the most modest script they want to bring added value. I think we take that for granted how well things are made. 

What’s the difference between being on a jury and leading a jury?

AB: You need to be very diplomatic when you’re chair of a jury. Discussions can get heated and there are always louder voices that, sometimes unintentionally, will end up dominating the conversation. I think it’s on the jury chair to get a balanced view. 

You need to be very diplomatic when you’re chair of a jury. Discussions can get heated.

HB: Also, you should sometimes challenge with a divergent point of view. Instigate more debate. The more points of view that are thrown in there, the more scrutiny, and the more certainty as well. If you go through that barrage of opposing views and you still come out with [the same result], you feel that you have done your job and didn’t leave any stone unturned. 

Above: Hermeti and Ana Balarin, chairs of the Arrows jury, and Rick Russel, chair of the Craft jury for 2024.

RR: It’s almost taking it to the next level of objectivity. Is it the best crafted overall? Is it the best execution of the idea? You have to do that creative director approach of stepping back. I think that’s a really important role.

What will you be looking for in the entered work? 

HB: For Ana and I, it’s always about the idea. If the idea doesn’t stack up, while it can still get the highest accolade in Craft, it should not reach the highest levels [in the Arrows category]. A brilliant idea, plus brilliant execution, makes for brilliance overall. I think that’s the one area that we’re going to be hellbent on; the idea, and whether it’s brilliant. Not so much in the Arrows, but people have also got really good at doing case studies, and you wonder; is this a great case study or is this a great idea? 

People have got really good at doing case studies, and you wonder; is this a great case study or is this a great idea? 

RR: [This discussion about idea vs execution] always come up in Craft juries. Sometimes a spot can be brilliantly crafted, but the idea isn’t there. It’s about judgement, about taste, it’s about a more sophisticated view. You just have to get the room to tune into that, and then the right things tends to rise.

Above: A big winner at the Arrows 2023 was CALM's suicide prevention spot, which Hermeti Balarin says is "as good as any film that’s ever been made".

What makes a good jury, in terms of the people on it?

AB: You need to have some people who are very experienced, who have lived it and done it. But, thankfully, it’s becoming a trend for more and more juries to bring new voices into the mix. The importance of bringing in not younger people necessarily, but people who are newer to juries, is that some people, myself included, have become professional jurors now. You know how it works and you know how to play the game. People who haven’t been on juries that much, they don’t do that. It’s more of an untainted view, and they’re better at calling out the bullshit. It’s necessary to have that balance. 

RR: We’ve got the next generation coming up; more diverse voices. That’s something that’s been lacking, but which is also something everyone knows we should be trying to achieve

HB: If you keep it quite close and only ever choose the people that are the biggest names, the highest achievers, you’re neglecting the opportunity for others to learn from those people. When I was first invited to judge something I was like, ‘oh my gosh, this is a huge deal’. You come out realising that this is the next level of understanding. Exposing newer people to such an amazing opportunity puts fresher takes into it.

What's the state of the creative advertising industry at the moment?  

RR: What you find at the moment is clients are being nervous. There’s a lack of boldness and they have to be encouraged a lot. Most clients, their default is to blend in with the crowd. It’s counterintuitive to them to stand out and be different. That’s exactly what you have to do; be the disrupter, think differently, think out the box. It’s always disappointing if there isn’t the confidence to do something special. Particularly when it’s there, it’s written, the idea is good from the agency, it’s been executed well, and then there’s a nervousness to make the bold choice [and run it]. That’s what I tend to notice in these times. 

There’s a lack of boldness and [clients] have to be encouraged a lot. Most clients, their default is to blend in with the crowd.

There are brands that are confident, that just keep doing what they do well. Then there are some that seem nervous. We notice things being delayed or put off, or it’s a bit watered down somewhere in the process. Even from the script to the shoot; ‘oh, we didn’t shoot that option, we decided to do the safer option’. It’s understandable, but it has an effect.

Above: Apple is one of the brands consistently producing great work. 

Do you feel the same from an agency point of view?

AB: Because creativity is such a fluid and ever-evolving thing, it’s always a dangerous game to compare things now to what happened before. Not because what came before was better, just because things will be different. I see that nervousness and I agree with the reasons, but I’d like to think that we’re coming out of that valley. I don’t think it’s generalised yet but I can see clients, and individuals within the client groups, who want to stand out and are starting to become braver. They see people around them, their competition, doing it and they are starting to want to make the standout work of next year. I think there is hope that braveness is coming back. 

Has it reached a point where, if you don’t stand out, you’re essentially not achieving anything?

HB: Yes. It’s ironic that the reaction to challenge is to conform, rather than observe the lack of competition. If everyone else is taking a more conservative approach, the game is easier. Therefore, you could achieve much higher results if you do take a risk. Yet, most people will retract from it. It’s always been a competition against entertainment, not just against other advertising. And it’s not just our industry that is suffering; film, TV, everyone is suffering. 

It’s ironic that the reaction to challenge is to conform, rather than observe the lack of competition.

We’re often coming up short at the moment. But, looking at last year’s winners, there is outstanding stuff that would stack up against any year. CALM is one example; that film is as good as any film that’s ever been made. It’s easier to romanticise 10 years ago than it is to romanticise last year, but that film is… wow! And the things Apple is doing, and Cash In Cash Out, the Pharrell video, that’s as good as any crafted piece from the last 20, 30 or 40 years. I dare to say that creativity is alive and well.

Above: Cash In Cash Out is "as good as any crafted piece from the last 20, 30 or 40 years".

Normally just one person is the chair of a particular jury; how do you envisage it working as a duo? 

HB: Being a married couple we’ve got this question over the years, and it’s obviously changed as our career has progressed, but we’ve always found a way of being united in some respects but taking different roles. We are the same in the way we push for opposing views, or we read each other without having to say much because we have the privilege of being together all the time. I guess we agree on the majority of what makes good work, but sometimes we’ll push for different things. If we are in the same rooms or the same discussions, hopefully that will come into play, that we can help spin things to as many angles as possible, but closing it down together.

Though you might reference work from previous years, do you have to wipe the slate clean and look for the best campaigns this year, and not the best of every year? 

AB: You have to judge within the context of whatever reality we’re in at the moment. The danger is to then say, ‘this hasn’t been a good year so we are going to award it to something… lesser’. We can’t let that happen. But there are great things happening, you just need to be careful not to think it was an okay year so we can just let [the quality of] this year slip, because [those results] are still going to be recorded forever.

The danger is to say, ‘this hasn’t been a good year so we are going to award it to something… lesser’. We can’t let that happen.

RR: With things like CALM last year, it puts the benchmark right up there. That is work we’re saying is excellent, proper excellence that lasts the test of any time. You need those for people to always pitch themselves against. That’s essential every year.