Creative Effectiveness

Embracing Ritson’s Framework, While Acknowledging Its Limits

Introduction

Creative effectiveness has long been viewed as a murky and subjective area of marketing. Mark Ritson's recent presentation, "The Creative Dividend," attempts to change that perception by grounding creativity in clear empirical evidence. Drawing from a substantial data set comprising 1,250 campaigns analysed through the System1 ad testing platform and cross-referenced with the Effie database, Ritson distils effective advertising into three core traits: emotion, fluency and time. The simplicity of this model makes it particularly appealing, especially as creative investment is increasingly under scrutiny.

This article supports Ritson's broad argument. Creativity is a powerful and often underleveraged driver of marketing impact. The evidence that emotionally resonant and fluently branded ads, run over time, deliver commercial gains is strong and actionable. However, like all models, this one has limits. System1's data and methodology, while valuable, are not infallible, and the practical application of these insights requires a more nuanced understanding of consumer psychology, as well as strategy and performance validation. By exploring the strengths and caveats, this article aims to help marketers adopt the framework responsibly, embracing its clarity while not mistaking it for completeness.

Why Ritson's Framework Matters

Ritson's appeal lies in his ability to synthesise large and often complex bodies of evidence into clear and operational advice. In this case, the simplicity of emotion, fluency and time offers marketers a structured approach to what can otherwise feel like an abstract pursuit. Paul Dyson's econometric models have consistently shown that, beyond brand size, creative quality is the strongest lever for ROI, suggesting that brands undervalue creativity at their own expense.

The partnership with System1 and Effie provides an extensive and credible foundation. System1's Test Your Ad tool measures real-time emotional reactions, while the Effie database tracks the corresponding business outcomes. Combining these allows Ritson to draw statistically backed conclusions about what types of creativity work best. The finding that emotional resonance, encompassing any emotion, not just positive ones, drives brand and business outcomes helps demystify a previously vague principle. Fluency, or brand recognition, is also taken seriously. The concept that an ad can be emotionally engaging but commercially useless if viewers do not know who it is for is well illustrated.

Finally, the third pillar, time, reinforces the often-ignored principle that wear-out is a myth. Campaigns that are emotionally resonant and consistently branded perform significantly better over time. These findings collectively raise the bar for how marketers think about, invest in and defend creative.

Measuring Emotion: Strengths and Boundaries

System1's approach to measuring emotion is central to the Creative Dividend model. The platform utilises tools like FaceTrace to map viewers' moment-by-moment emotional responses as they experience an ad. This makes emotional engagement visible and quantifiable. In a discipline often criticised for its reliance on soft metrics, System1 offers a structured way to evaluate whether an ad genuinely moves people.

However, it is critical to understand what these metrics do and do not capture. System1's tools measure fast, explicit responses, essentially asking people how they feel, very quickly. This is not the same as capturing subconscious or non-conscious reactions. Critics, including neuroscientists and behavioural researchers, warn that labelling these fast responses as System 1 in Kahneman's terms risks overclaiming. Dr Elise Temple from Nielsen BASES has pointed out that many of these tests rely on self-reporting in quick formats, which may still engage conscious evaluation, albeit briefly. NielsenIQ has gone further, describing such tools as modern snake oil when they are used without recognising their methodological boundaries.

This distinction matters. Emotional response data, while helpful, may reflect surface-level reactions, whether a story is amusing, touching or surprising, without necessarily indicating persuasion, relevance or memorability. Moreover, such tests are often conducted out of context. Viewers are more likely to pay attention in a research setting than they are in the real world. As such, high emotional scores may flatter creatives who would struggle in live conditions.

In summary, System1's tools are best used as directional guides, not definitive judgments. They are useful for screening, refining and learning, but must be interpreted with a clear understanding of what is being measured and what remains unmeasured. They complement, but cannot replace, real-world behavioural data.

The Risk of Over-simplifying Creative Performance

One of the strengths of the emotion, fluency, time framework is its clarity. But that clarity can also become a limitation if it oversimplifies what drives creative success. An emotional response is essential, but it is not inherently meaningful unless it is also relevant, brand-linked, and strategically aligned.

Some critics worry that emotional scoring is becoming a shorthand for quality, leading marketers to prioritise feeling something over saying something important. In Creative Salon's discussion on the System1 methodology, several commentators expressed concern that creativity is being reduced to a set of reaction metrics, akin to clickbait headlines. There is also the risk of encouraging superficiality. An ad that generates laughter or surprise may score well but fail to change perceptions or behaviour.

Moreover, the framework downplays context. It treats creativity as an isolated input, rather than as a function of media strategy, brand maturity, category norms, or audience state of mind. An ad that performs well in testing may underperform in market if the media plan is fragmented or the message is at odds with category expectations.

Finally, the concept of fluency, while sound, can be rigidly interpreted. The idea that seven brand codes must appear in 30 seconds may lead to cluttered executions that prioritise recognisability over coherence. Not every brand benefits equally from repetition. Distinctiveness should be considered in light of tone, context and brand strategy.

Effective creative often balances clarity and intrigue, repetition and freshness. While Ritson's model helps elevate the importance of branding and emotion, it should not become a rigid checklist or formula. Marketers must retain strategic judgment alongside measurement and analytics.

The Missing Context: Strategic, Rational and Category-Specific Factors

A further limitation of the Creative Dividend framework is its implicit assumption that all purchasing is emotionally led and that brand fluency is the universal equaliser. While this may be applicable in FMCG and impulse categories, it becomes less relevant in more complex or deliberate purchasing environments.

System 1-based models focus almost exclusively on what Daniel Kahneman described as System 1 thinking, meaning fast, emotional, and automatic responses. But as the WARC commentary suggests, many decisions involve System 2 or even System 3 processes. In high-value, high-stakes or unfamiliar categories, rational information, credibility signals and reassurance play a greater role. Even emotionally engaging campaigns in such spaces must anchor themselves in a clear value proposition.

Sustainability-led products, for instance, require a dual appeal. The consumer must feel good about the choice, but also be convinced it is substantively better or less harmful. Similarly, B2B campaigns often rely on clarity of offer, demonstration of value and long-term relationship building. In these contexts, emotional and fluent creativity is helpful, but not sufficient.

Creative also needs to be relevant to the decision-making moment. Ads that work brilliantly in general brand awareness may fall flat when the consumer is in active consideration. Ritson's model does not account for this. It treats creative effectiveness as one-size-fits-all, rather than varying by task, funnel stage or audience sophistication.

To be most effective, creativity must be context-aware. Emotion and fluency remain essential, but their value depends on what the brand needs the consumer to do and where the consumer is in the journey.

Validating Creative Through Real-World Outcomes

Pre-testing creative can reveal potential, but actual effectiveness is proven only in-market. Ritson's model, drawing heavily on System 1 data, is strongest in predicting likelihoods. But no test can confirm outcomes before media spend meets the real world. For this reason, marketers should treat such tools as indicative, not conclusive.

Richard Kirk from EssenceMediacom notes that while pre-testing has value, it cannot replace performance validation. The actual test of creative effectiveness lies in how it shifts market share, improves brand metrics or drives incremental sales. To understand this, brands need to invest in more rigorous measurement, including media mix modelling, brand lift studies or matched market testing.

This point is critical as campaigns evolve. A strong emotional score does not mean the message is persuasive, nor does brand fluency ensure action. Testing should be complemented with outcome-based metrics that track long-term brand health, customer behaviour and revenue impact.

Moreover, performance tracking allows marketers to improve their use of emotion and fluency over time. It shows which messages stick, which assets drive recognition, and how creative interacts with media choices. Such learning loops are essential for continuous improvement.

Ritson's model offers valuable guidance, particularly for early-stage creative assessment. But it should be embedded in a broader framework that includes post-launch validation, strategic alignment and behavioural impact. This ensures that creativity not only feels effective in theory but proves itself in the market.

Conclusion: Using the Model But With Discipline

Mark Ritson's Creative Dividend model brings welcome rigour to a field often dominated by opinion. Substantial data and long-standing econometric findings back the emphasis on emotion, fluency and time. Used effectively, the model helps marketers focus on what truly matters in advertising and provides a language to justify investment in creativity when budgets are tight.

However, the tools behind the model have limits. System1's measures are practical but partial. They capture immediate emotional response and brand recognition but cannot fully predict how consumers will act, especially in more complex or considered buying contexts. Nor can they substitute for strategic judgment about message, media and market.

To get the best from this framework, marketers should adopt it with discipline. Use emotion and fluency as guiding principles, not checklists. Run creative consistently but validate its impact through real-world performance data. Understand that emotions need relevance, and branding needs clarity. Recognise that not all decisions are emotionally led and that persuasion takes different forms across different categories.

The real creative dividend comes not from following a formula but from combining strong principles with careful validation and strategic intent. Ritson's model is a strong starting point, but the work does not end there.

References

Ritson, M. (2025). The Creative Dividend: Four Ads, Three Factors, Two Bears. Presented in partnership with System1 and the Effie Awards. https://system1group.com/webinars/the-creative-dividend-mark-ritson

Dyson, P. (2023). Top 10 Drivers of Advertising Profitability. Accelero Consulting. https://www.acceleroconsulting.com

NielsenIQ (2023). Modern Snake Oil: How flawed System 1 research methodology is driving costly mistakes. https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/education/2023/modern-snake-oil-how-flawed-system-1-research-methodology-is-driving-costly-mistakes

Temple, E. (quoted in Mi3). (2025). Ritson says System1 and Effies deliver most important advertising thinking in a decade. https://www.mi-3.com.au/24-06-2025/most-important-advertising-thinking-10-years-ritson-says-system1-effies-ad-effectiveness

Creative Salon (2024). QOTW: Is System1 and the drive for emotion-led effectiveness helping or hindering creativity? https://creative.salon/articles/features/qotw-system-1-effectiveness-debate

Kirk, R. (2024). My take on System1 and creative scoring. LinkedIn post. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/richkirkmedia_my-hot-take-on-system1-and-creative-scoring-activity-7266902911807283200-UkB7

WARC (2024). Burst your bubble about System 1 strategies. https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/opinion/burst-your-bubble-about-system-1-strategies/en-gb/6655