Now in its 25th year, PR Awards Asia-Pacific remains the region's benchmark for communications excellence.
But in a landscape shaped by AI, political volatility and shrinking attention spans, what does truly award-winning work look like today?
We asked two of this year's judges, scroll below to read what they had to say.
Amanda De Silva, VP & Head, Corporate Communications & Sustainability, Asia Pacific, DHL and Ross Rowbury, Senior Managing Director, Co-Head of Group Corporate Communications, Nomura Holdings
Everyone agrees that comms is more complex, with more channels, more scrutiny and more stakeholders. In your view, what is genuinely harder for PR professionals, and what are they still using as an excuse?
Ross Rowbury: We used to talk about moving at the speed of news. With an every shifting political, societal and geopolitical environment coupled with advances in technology the speed at which we need to assess, decide and provide counsel has increased significantly, and will continue to increase going forward. Sorting out the important from the urgent and learning how new tools can help teams and comms leaders work at increasing speeds is genuinely harder.
Amanda De Silva: These days I think it is much harder, especially for the agencies and consultancies, against the backdrop of an increasingly fractured media environment, to show how they can help clients cut through the noise. A lot of PR professionals or corporate communications teams are still trying to draw a line in the sand between them and Marketing, however, much of it these days is a grey, or rather, overlapping area.
PR often claims to shape business, culture and counsel, not just reputation. In today’s volatile, politicised and AI-driven climate, where is that influence realistically taking hold, and where has communications become impossible to ignore?
Amanda De Silva: Social platforms for sure have seen a rise in their influence in the last few years. I have to say though that it is precisely in times of uncertainty that communicators have a critical role to play. When so much is being said, when we are assaulted by content from everywhere, it is important for an organizations to remain steadfast in its communications to its key audience groups and show what they stand for, what their capabilities are, how they can deliver, and to internally build or strengthen their culture. Now where that takes place is of course dependent on who their target audiences are and the channels where they consume their content, but above all, what is most important is that across the different platforms the narratives are aligned.
AI, data and predictive tools are fast changing the mechanics of the job, from monitoring and message testing to content creation. Beyond efficiency gains, how do you see the tech change judgment, creativity and accountability in communications, and where should the industry draw a line and be more cautious?
Ross Rowbury: We are in the midst of a revolution in the way people consume, assess and store information. At the same time, the speed and cost at which “convincing” content can be produced is becoming more conducive to misinformation and disinformation. I don’t think there is a new red line. We still need to focus on accuracy, authenticity and objectivity in what we put out. But I believe that society will become more demanding in its expectations of communications professionals to hold that line and the societal backlash for not fulfilling those expectations, or being complicit in breaching that line, will become more intense and forceful. I think we all hold that same principle but are struggling to figure out the right method with the new technologies available.
Amanda De Silva: I don’t think the rules have change. The platforms, channels, and methods might have, but at the end of the day, organizations and brands just have to be honest. Only they will know how their customers and stakeholders might take to, for example, an AI version of their executive, rather than using their actual executive for communications. More than ever now, audiences seek authenticity, and so brands and organizations need to figure out what is the tipping point where they start to lose credibility due to the creative AI techniques they have employed in their communications.
For industry folks entering Campaign Asia’s PR Awards, what’s a common weakness you see in submissions and what would make you sit up and take notice by the second para?
Ross Rowbury: There are two things that are critical. The first is that some of the submissions are just written badly. They do not address the category questions or in some cases have clearly been written with another category in mind. I sometimes wonder if people go back and check “Have we answered the brief here?” Or, there is a plethora of jargon that just ends up being the proverbial word salad. Keep it tight and answer the question being asked. The second is that many submissions fail to show impact. They can be very impressive in design and implementation, but some submissions leave you asking what did they actually achieve through all this?
Amanda De Silva: I usually can tell within the first paragraphs whether it will be an interesting submission based on their scene-setting. I quickly want to know what the gap was or issue they needed to solve. I want there to be a teaser about the amazing results or a quick hint about how they moved the needle, and also a snapshot or overview of their campaign.
Many entries claim impact, cultural relevance and business value. When you assess a piece of work, what tells you the substance is real and not simply a polished case study?
Ross Rowbury: There must be data and evidence of a change in behavior in the audience being addressed. If there is no change in behavior it is difficult to identify the business value.
Amanda De Silva: I think impact needs to be clear. I look for how the campaign influenced stakeholders, and how that then led to a commercia success, or it shifted mindsets – the more data sets to prove this, the better the evidence of success.
If you could offer this year’s entrants one piece of advice, what would it be?
Ross Rowbury: Focus on what is being asked in the submission and write it well. The supporting materials don’t replace the submission, they are there to supplement it. Like any piece of comms writing, the submission needs to grab your interest and make you want to invest attention to the rest of it, within the first couple of paragraphs.
Amanda De Silva: If there is a way to showcase good quality data and creative ideas as to how you have managed to stand out amongst your peers as a result of your campaign, then that might bode well for your submission.
