La guida completa per Agenzie e Brand su come scrivere un Case Study, in questo nuovo numero della rubrica Gold Brief.
True, a judge reads the written submission only if the video has persuaded them to keep going. But it is the written submission that decides whether the entry wins the final award. And this holds for every international marketing award: from creative festivals to specialist digital awards.
As discussed in our article on how to build a case study video, the video shapes the first impression and the attention a judge is willing to invest. But it is the written entry (the text the jury reads during the in-depth evaluation phase) that provides the details separating a shortlist from a Gold Lion, or from no recognition at all.
The written case study therefore plays a role complementary to the video. A video captures attention and persuades emotionally. A text demonstrates and verifies. An entry that excels in video format but is weak in the written text therefore loses ground in the detailed evaluation phase, when judges compare the shortlisted entries against one another.
In this article in the Gold Brief column we examine the structure of an effectively written case study; its most frequent mistakes, and the logic by which each section should be built to withstand the analytical reading of an international jury.
Gold Brief is the category of the Bliss blog for those who want to understand how recognition in marketing really works. In this column you will find practical guides to the international awards that matter (creativity, strategy, performance, design, SEO, innovation and much more), with everything you need to enter. Because the perfect brief is not written in a day: if anything, it is built every day.
The Purpose of the Text: To Verify, Not Just to Tell
The video of an entry works on the overall impression. The text works on verifying the details.
A judge who has seen a convincing video reads the written case study to confirm (i) that the claims made in the video are supported by specific data, (ii) that the strategy described follows a coherent logic, (iii) that the results reported are measurable and contextualised.
This means the written text cannot simply restate in prose what the video says. It must add the depth that the video format, by its nature, cannot hold: the detail of the methodology, the explanation of the alternatives rejected, the precise documentation of the numbers.
The Structure: Four Sections in Logical Sequence
| Section | Content | Typical Mistake to Avoid |
| Context and objectives | Who the client is, the market, the specific challenge, the quantified objectives | Vague objectives, or objectives stated after the fact on the basis of the results achieved |
| Strategic insight | The observation that led to the solution, and why it was not obvious | Describing the activity carried out instead of the reasoning that produced it |
| Execution | How the idea was executed, with specific rather than generic details | A list of channels and formats with no link to the strategy |
| Results | Specific, contextualised KPIs, explicitly linked to the objectives | Generic or unverifiable figures, with no benchmark for comparison |
Context and Objectives
The opening section establishes the relevance of everything that follows.
It should be built around three elements: who the client is and which market it operates in, what challenge the project had to address, and what the quantified objectives were before the project began.
The most common mistake in this section is stating objectives formulated after the fact, built to fit the results achieved rather than declared before the work began. Experienced judges, particularly at awards such as the Effies, where consistency between objective and result is the central criterion, easily recognise this rhetorical pattern and penalise it.
Strategic Insight
It is the most important section, but also the one most often written badly. It must explain the reasoning that led from understanding the problem to choosing the solution. And to do so, it must answer an implicit question the judge always asks: why this solution and not another?
If the text does not answer this question, even with the best possible execution, the entry conveys operational capability but not strategic capability. Yet most major awards assess the two as separate criteria. And that is what makes the difference.
Execution
This section describes how the idea was executed, with enough detail to make the work verifiable without turning into a mechanical list of activities. Every element of the execution described should link explicitly to an earlier strategic choice: not ‘we produced six video pieces’ but ‘we produced six video pieces released over six weeks to support the consideration phase identified as critical in the strategic insight’.
Results
The section most judges read with the greatest analytical scrutiny. KPIs must be presented with absolute specificity: the exact figure, the measurement period, the baseline, the attribution methodology where relevant. A result that cannot be clearly linked to the objective stated at the outset, even if positive, loses value in the eyes of the jury.
For awards that require financial disclosure or sensitive business data, such as many categories of the Ad Age Creativity Awards, you should check in advance that the client has authorised disclosure of the specific data included in the entry.
The Rhythm of Writing: Density, but Balance
An effective case study is not necessarily long. It is dense, though.
Every sentence must give the judge information they did not have before reading it.
The weakest entries are recognisable by transitional sentences that add no content: repetitions of ideas already expressed in the video; generic descriptions that could apply to any campaign in the same sector.
The word limit set by most international awards, generally between 300 and 600 words per section, is a mechanism that forces you to select the most relevant information. An entry that uses every available word to add specific detail beats an entry of the same length that spends half its words on generic circumstances and the other half on actual content. This principle applies as much to a general advertising award as to a specialist digital contest.
How to Test the Strength of the Text Before Submitting
A useful test is to read each section and ask whether every sentence could be removed without losing essential and/or specific information. Sentences that pass this test (those containing a figure, a name, a reasoned choice) MUST stay. Sentences that describe in generic terms, and could appear word for word in any other case study from the same sector, should be cut or made specific.
A second test concerns internal consistency. The objectives stated at the outset, the insight described in the middle and the results presented at the end must form a logical chain. If a judge can jump straight from objectives to results without the insight and execution changing their understanding of why those results were achieved, the central section is not doing its job.
New Connections (FAQ)
How long should a written case study for an international award be?
It depends on the specific limit set by the award, generally between 300 and 600 words per section. Whatever the maximum allowed, the optimal length is the one that lets you convey context, insight, execution and results with specificity, without filling space with generic description. A shorter entry that is denser in specific information consistently outperforms a longer but diluted one.
Should the written case study repeat the same information as the video?
No. The video and the text serve different, complementary functions. The video captures attention and conveys the core value quickly and emotionally. The text provides the depth the judge looks for during the analytical evaluation: details of methodology, alternatives rejected, specific performance data. An effective entry uses the text to add to, not repeat, what has already been conveyed in the video format.
How do you handle the results section when the client does not authorise disclosure of certain data?
You work with proxy metrics that reveal no sensitive information but still allow you to demonstrate impact. Percentage growth can be reported without the underlying absolute value. An increase in conversions can be expressed as a multiple of the previous period rather than as an absolute number. The basic rule stays the same: no data the client has not explicitly authorised for disclosure, even if this means finding a creative but honest way to convey the impact.