A Tale of Two Share Prices

My recent three-year work anniversary at the IPA coincided with the announcement of our latest Effectiveness Awards winners. And despite all the headwinds – the tyranny of the short term, the migration of advertisers straight to platform, agencies’ diminishing market share and the rise of AI – I’m pleased to report not just that advertising still works but advertising agencies also still work.

Now when the IPA talks about advertising ‘working’ it’s worth restating what we mean by that: in short, that there is persuasive evidence, after the fact, that it has delivered profitable returns. 

So, we’re delighted to have released into the wild our latest cohort of papers proving just that: profitable return on advertising investment, almost always in the form of – or via the mechanism of – a stronger brand. In concert with, and sometimes the arrowhead of, a wider marketing or organisational play.

Brand advertising as part of the company narrative 

Of our six Gold Award winners, three reward special attention as ‘mono-brand’ organisations: Nationwide, Specsavers and Currys. Here, the brand is the business and so sales, share and profit ladder up materially to corporate fortunes (rather, that is, than being a favourable line item in a multi-brand portfolio).

For businesses like these – and although none of the winning papers dwell on it – it’s no surprise that IPA-grade brand advertising investment becomes part of the corporate narrative. This is marketing, after all, as
customer-orientation and competitive positioning rather than mere ‘campaigns’.

‘A good way to bank’ must be one of the most concisely crystallised summaries of disruptive corporate strategy, as well as Nationwide’s customer-facing proposition and – indeed – endline.

In its latest annual report, meanwhile, Specsavers calls out its ‘strapline’ (devised in 2003) as a foundational component of its business growth.

And although privately held, the business chooses each year to update its stakeholders not just on its numbers but on ‘Nurturing and developing our brand’: “Our ‘Should’ve gone to Specsavers’ advertising continues to drive strong global awareness. From a headline-hitting bollard stunt in the UK to an airport activation in ANZ, we use relatable everyday mishaps to reinforce the value of proactive eye care in a humorous, distinctly Specsavers way.”

Turning perceived weakness into strength

By dint of being publicly quoted, our 2026 Grand Prix winner Currys is an even more persuasive poster boy for what advertising (and agencies) can do. Identifying and addressing the “crisis in unassisted selling” of technology bought online (a sentence no management consultancy would surely write) the business and its agencies turned the apparent curse of physical retail into a blessing: a latent competitive strength hiding in plain sight.

As its annual report concluded: “Growth in all areas is further boosted by the increasing traction our
brand is getting. Across both traditional and social media, Currys is gaining a bigger, even “cult” status.

"The level of engagement we are seeing is world class. This is being noticed externally (we have won awards from Channel 4 and at Cannes Lions), by our suppliers who are seeing better ROI on their spend, and most importantly by customers, with our Currys brand preference exiting the year at 26%, +5pts higher than three years ago.”

Using advertising for business transformations

In each of these cases, advertising is not treated as a cost of sales or something divisible from the organisation but as part of – and occasionally the lead player – in genuine business transformation.

All three brands happen to conform to the IPA’s profit playbook as popular, consistent campaigns that appeal to the emotions. (It’s interesting to note they are also people businesses, for whom advertising creates strong colleague – and not just customer – effects.)

But at a more fundamental level, each organisation is effectiveness rather than efficiency-oriented, and not just in their attitude to advertising. Dedicated to growth rather than (just) cost-cutting, they are looking to win over the long term rather than just compete over the short. Or, to use Drucker’s shorthand: “to do the right thing, not just do things right.”

The risk of prioritising efficiency over effectiveness

It’s a distinction that Nike’s shareholders must feel especially keenly. Because Nike once was the poster boy for marketing effectiveness: the global exemplar of fame and emotional appeal. And then it swallowed the
efficiency pill.

Nike’s fall from grace is widely documented (your AI agent of choice will also summarise it expertly: at root it’s the story of an unsuitable CEO making the wrong calls during lockdown) but for our purposes it’s a conveniently public morality tale: when you are led by efficiency, your effectiveness is necessarily undermined. And sooner or later the market takes note.

Although its Grand Prix-winning IPA paper quite rightly demurs from claiming it as advertising effect, it’s worth noting that Currys’ share price tripled across the campaign period from 2023 to 2026. (No other UK High Street retail stock comes close.)

Meanwhile, Nike’s share price is down 75% from its 2021 peak. A hyperbolic contrast, perhaps, but this is – in the end – a tale of two retailers, as well as two share prices. One got religion and the other lost it.

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and were submitted in accordance with the IPA terms and conditions regarding the uploading and contribution of content to the IPA newsletters, IPA website, or other IPA media, and should not be interpreted as representing the opinion of the IPA.