When the Andy Awards gave its top prize, the Grandy, to R/GA's Nike+ project, it broke convention by awarding a website and not a TV spot for the first time ever. It was bold, brave and it signaled that interactive work has truly come of age. Nike+ has been dominating interactive and cyber categories on the awards circuit this spring, but in heralding it in the same breath and space usually reserved for television work, the Andy's jury made a statement: the grand prize should go to the best idea. Period.

However, other innovators haven't been so lucky. Yes, I'm talking about the breakthrough integrated work, like Axe "Gamekillers", that was shunned in all corners of Cannes last year, inlcuding the Titanium. Perhaps it's because interactive and online work has been growing as a serious medium for years that Nike broke through, while integrated campaigns are still, in many ways, looking for a standard definition. Or perhaps it's because it's on the shoulders of the innovators and early adopters that others find success.

In speaking with me about the 2007 show, Cannes Lions CEO Terry Savage made a telling comment: "Quite often the leaders are recognized retrospectively," he said, noting that, as a show, Cannes' responsibility is to reflect the changes happening in the industry (see Cannes Report, pg. 23). "You can tell the pioneers, they're the ones with the arrows in their backs."

How true. The Titanium award was created as a retrospective make-good, attempting to honor BMW Films the year after it shook the ad world. The second installment paled in comparison to the first, but a wrong had to be righted, and so the Titanium was born. It's been plagued by an identity crisis ever since, hence the integrated shut-out debacle, but Savage hopes that the creation of an Integrated category will help clarify the parameters of the Titanium award, and will prevent any other instances of blatant ad-discrimination.

Still, that's little consolation to last year's hopefuls. Luckily for Axe, it's been lauded at many of this spring's shows, in which it was still eligible. But it's a tough go for the trailblazers when they're spurned by the very shows that serve to legitimize the best, most innovative work.

So what to do with such a catch-22? On the one hand, you could argue that it's up to the shows to be a little more proactive as opposed to reactionary, as was the case at the Andys, so that history is not only written by (or about) the winners. On the other hand, it might be a good idea to put less credence in the awards establishment, and instead focus on the absolute best, most awesome, fun and appropriate ideas. That's not to say awarding outstanding work doesn't have its place or its relevance, but as we've seen, the industry's collective hard-on for hardware is not the only arbiter of innovation.

Good luck to all those innovators holding their breath, hoping this is the year the jury will get it. And have a great time at Cannes!

Cheers,
Rae Ann Fera
Editor