British Arrows jury chairs target creativity

What was your reaction to being asked to head the Arrows jury for 2025?

FG: I’m trying to find a better word than honoured. I was very humbled, actually. It’s the first time I’ve been the president or the chair of anything, and I think it’s a really important role in terms of making peoples’ jury experience good. I’ve had some really good examples of that as I’ve judged over the years. So, yes, I feel really up for the challenge and very humbled.

I thought, either they’re really desperate and they couldn’t find anyone else, or it’s a very nice thing for them to ask me.

PT: I’d had a call from Lisa [Lavender, British Arrows MD] during the day and I hadn’t had a chance to call her back. When I called Lisa back and she said to me, ‘we’d like you to be the jury chair for Craft’, I was slightly shocked. I thought, ‘What, me?’. All of a sudden, this quick phone call, where you normally think that someone’s asking you for a favour, or for your help in some shape or form, turned into something a lot more important. So, yes, I was taken aback, but I was extremely proud. I thought, either they’re really desperate and they couldn’t find anyone else, or it’s a very nice thing for them to ask me. I’m really looking forward to it.

Above: Franki Goodwin and Parv Thind will chair the Arrows and Craft Arrows juries respectively for 2025. 

What do you think the difference will be between being a jury member and the jury chair?

FG: I think the big difference is you’ve got to shut up, which is not something I’m very good at. I really admire people who are able to give lots of oxygen to a room and bring other people into the conversation and don’t feel the need to add their own voice or opinion all the time. They just create the conditions for everyone else to be heard and to feel really comfortable in expressing themselves.

You’ve got to shut up, which is not something I’m very good at.

This may not be that surprising, but it is very much the same kind of graduation, I think, as becoming a creative leader versus a practitioner. You’re more about the curation of other people’s ideas. You’re more about trying to create the environment for people to be really comfortable and honest and, at times, tough, but in a way that doesn’t impose your personal taste or personal agenda onto things. I think that takes a great deal of confidence, and I’ve always admired people who don’t have to be the first to speak in a room. People who can let everybody else in a meeting speak, and then just come in with something brilliant right at the end that everybody thinks helps.

Above: As a jury head, you have to learn when to shut up!

Sometimes you do have to help when people are struggling with a decision, when you have to pose a few questions or remind people of the criteria and why we’re all here and stuff like that. That’s my experience of really good jury presidents. They have been people that create a room, where everyone really comes out having heard lots of other voices and maybe had their minds changed, and didn’t feel like they were a part of something that had a big agenda.

I think we can take from some of the [jury heads] we’ve learnt from over the time that we’ve done jury service ourselves.

PT: Actually, sort of the same as what Franki’s saying. I think all of [the presidents on juries I’ve been on] have been pretty impartial. They just dip in if they need to, but a lot of the time, they’re pretty impartial. You’ll have the jurors disagreeing with each other, and you might think that the jury chair is, for want of a better expression, the most important person there, but actually, what I’ve always found is that person tends to just observe whatever the conversation is, and then only intervenes or helps – it's help, rather than intervention - if there’s anything that there might be an issue with. So, I think we can take from some of the [jury heads] we’ve learnt from over the time that we’ve done jury service ourselves.

Above: The larger Arrows juries allows for a diversity of thought and opinion, with people from different sectors, in different roles and at different stages of their careers.  

Have you thought about who you want to invite onto the jury with you?

FG: I think the best juries I’ve been on are those where you get people with a very different lens on the work. I think, obviously, with international juries, that can literally mean other cultural references. What I like about the Arrows, and enjoyed about the time that I’ve judged it, is that it’s quite a big room comparative to some, and that affords a little bit of a wider aperture. It's not just creative directors or people doing the same job [as you]. 

I think it’s important to have different practitioners, people that know how hard it is to buy an idea and to keep the integrity of that idea all the way through to execution.

There’re directors, clients, creatives… all in a room, and maybe people from slightly different levels as well. The last time I judged there were some conversations about film, and it was just so good to have young directing talent in the room, because they didn’t have the shackles of, I don’t know, knowing who everyone was, or who had done all the work. The Arrows is really about craft, even on my side of the fence we’re still very much looking at the execution of the idea. So, I think it’s important to have different practitioners, people that know how hard it is to buy an idea and to keep the integrity of that idea all the way through to execution, as well as people that are literally only there for the making of the piece.

PT: What I quite like is putting different people together from different levels. Fifteen years ago, the juries were CDs, ECDs and probably all the top creatives. That can create quite a weird dynamic as the chances are that all of their work is in [contention]. It just feels a lot fresher when you can give younger people an opportunity, different people, and you can use a balance of senior people and some younger people who can use the opportunity to have a voice, have an opinion, and enjoy that process.

Above: KFC's Believe in Chicken; "I think KFC have put out some really interesting work this year," says Goodwin.

Are you positive about the work you’re going to see? Do you think it's been a good year for creativity?

PT: Generally, my answer is that the work has not been great. I mean, that’s my honest opinion. The work isn’t as good as it can be, but I don’t think that’s because of the people who are making it. I think some of the constraints that everyone is under, and the way that the industry has changed, is not allowing us to do things that we could do.

I think some of the constraints which everyone are under, and the way that the industry has changed, is not allowing us to do things that we could do.

FG: I just want to say this in the right way, but we [Saatchi's] have been making a lot this year, and I think our output has been very… I almost want to say relentless, in terms of the fact that we've made a lot of work. You know, really big pieces for John Lewis, for example, and I think we’ve been a little insulated from some of the more challenging ways of getting work out, or getting work made. 

Above: Watching the work on a cinema screen has a greater impact. 

So, it will be interesting, but then there’s always those things where you’re like, ‘Oh, I forgot about that!’. Also, you sit in the cinema and you get to watch things properly, not on your phone, not on a link, not going, ‘Oh, please don’t be good, please don’t be good’, because it’s for a rival, or whatever. You get to watch things in the right way with real focus, and I think that’s when you sometimes see a lot more in things, from a craft point of view. My experience of judging is that you really see a lot more in pieces, and you watch them again and you properly look at how insightful they are, or whether they really do make you laugh the third time or whatever.

There will be little gems and things that we’ll have forgotten.

I think KFC have put out some really interesting work this year. I think the Uber work is good. There will be little gems and things that we’ll have forgotten. I’m excited about seeing some different formats as well because there’s been a really interesting trend into documentary and brands telling more long-form stories. Maybe some of that will bubble up over some of the more traditional formats.

PT: I think it’s always good because a lot of the time you go, ‘I haven’t seen this’, because we can’t watch everything and don’t see everything on TV. Sometimes a little campaign comes up, like you said, Franki, and you go, ‘Oh, I haven’t seen this. This is really good.’

Above: Channel 4's ident film was a big winner at the Arrows 2024. 

What is it about the Arrows that makes it stand out?

FG: My greatest memory of the Arrows was the just-back-from-Covid one [2022]. It was the first night out the industry had had for years, and it was mental... just the noise of people talking and reconnecting. It’s always cemented in my heart as a place where we connect, I think for creative and production specifically. It’s where you get to talk to the directors you haven’t seen for a while. It’s where you get to see the producers that you spent three weeks wrestling a job with two years ago or whatever. 

I think it’s a really special award ceremony for the makers, and I think we missed it. I just remember being there and being like, “This is the craziest night because people haven't seen each other in so long.” I don’t think there’s any other award that has that sense of people who have really been through it together.

There’s a lot of awards which are great, but there’s something quite nice about the Arrows, about the Britishness of it.

PT: I think there’s a lot of awards which are great, but there’s something quite nice about the Arrows, about the Britishness of it. We all get the idea, you know? You can be on an international jury where, sometimes, there’s a British idea that doesn’t work or just can’t be translated to an international jury. Sometimes, if I watch something funny at the Arrows, in that big room, and everyone gets the humour, you can have so many people laughing together, which is great.