I have to admit that it was with some trepidation that I welcomed the judges to Raffles. Having chosen the best, how would the best get along?

I needn’t have given it a moment’s thought, of course. As is generally the case, the better someone is at his job, the less ego hang-ups he has, and the more relaxed he can be in the company of his peers. Not only did they get along, but it was hard to separate them at the end of each day!

They’ll all have their own stories about the week, but it’s better you ask them personally than for me to tell tales right now. But for those who haven’t met one or two of them, here’s a brief study of each. (By the way, the only bad news we had was that, with two days to go, poor Erik Vervroegen had to cancel because of a recurrence of the illness that had laid him low in Cannes last year. We all wish him a complete recovery).

The good news was that we had the wonderful Jim Aitchison on hand to bring on as super-sub. Jim’s not only a multi-award presswinner in his own right, but is even better-known these days as author of the massive-selling Cutting Edge series of books, which have become the decade’s bible for aspiring admen. He’s Australian, but then nobody’s perfect, and he hides it well. His calm, informed, and considered approach to the work and the business of its evaluation always sets a great example. I know that all the judges appreciated his dropping everything to join us, and I’m personally very grateful.

Mark Tutssel has the overall bearing and look of a Lord Mayor. Mark doesn’t walk; he proceeds. When not being Aldermanic, he looks like someone who’s come to collect debts. He also has a blinding Welsh tenor voice, making up in volume for what it very occasionally lacks in key.

Tham Khai Meng was, for once, only the second-best-looking bloke in the room, and I’m not sure he ever recovered from the fact. Nevertheless his modest charm made us all forget that he was also having a bad-hair day. Khai is one of my oldest mates, and frankly, ever a joy to be around.

Graham Warsop is a hoot. Originally a lawyer (bet you didn't know that), in his white linen jacket and Panama hat, Raffles should employ him to walk about a bit, and lend some tone to the joint. On the other hand, he is a surprising practitioner of bacchanal behaviour after school.

Talking of which... Jeremy Craigen. I'd never met Jeremy before, and I can only say I'm the poorer for it. He's a powerhouse of energy and fun, and has a limitless appetite for... well... for everything, as far as I can tell. In a rather contradictory way, he was also by far the toughest judge on the panel.

Marcello Serpa: I have to be honest here... I was prepared to dislike Serpa. Nobody, I thought, can be that tall (Jeez he's tall!), that handsome, that tanned, that talented, that famous, and that rich, without being a prick.

So I was wrong. Not just wrong, but spectacularly so. He's also damn funny, loves a good time, and is one of the all-round nicest guys on the face of that planet. On the plus side, apparently he can't sing.

That then, was the jury. So I guess it's time to talk about the work and the winners.

As Chairman and casting vote, I can tell you that I only had to use that vote five times, and that was only among the Bronzes and Finalists. Basically, the Golds were unanimous, and the Silvers nearly-so. Had we had to choose a Grand Prix, there might have been a bit of blood on the walls, but I always think that's a silly distinction, and never universally acclaimed, so I'm glad we didn't bother.

In the rest of this Annual and on the website, you'll be able see the work and form your own conclusions, but I really must underline one thing: Copy is far from dead, and in fact may be making a 'comeback', if indeed it ever went away.

One could say that the biggest winner was StuffIt Deluxe, from Saatchi New York. Yes, the art-direction is wonderful, but it's those brilliantly laconic headlines that take the campaign from merely wonderful to historic.

And AlmapBBDO's campaigns for Havaianas? From the agency that invented the misunderstood and over-imitated 'Here's a great pic, and here's the logo' genre a decade or so ago come two astounding campaigns.

In one, the copy is the differentiator, and is deliciously witty, and in the other it's all and only copy! Witty again (and personally I'd have added a copy award for these) and a visual delight, but it's a headline-only campaign! And no logo. Who needs one?

East Timor; as you'd expect from Ogilvy Singapore... lots of lovely copy to complement the delicious and utterly original visuals. Soroptimists? Entirely a copy-idea, art-directed with economy and care. Chemistry's Newspaper campaign; just words (a tip, read them with a slight Irish brogue, and they're even better). And so on...

Yes, there are blisteringly good illustrations in here, and glorious picture-only ads that reward you for spending just that extra second to appreciate, but humans still communicate with words, not semaphore,... and the adworld seems to have begun to remember that.

One final tip for next year. Good judges really appreciate campaigns. An idea should be expressable in several ways, or maybe it's not such a good idea after all. So one ad is just an ad; two is a coincidence, three is a campaign. Four or more is better still; it's easier for a jury of this quality to extract a weaker ad from a campaign so that it still shines (which is what they did) than to extract one and find that they're left with one or two ads, which tend to get a Finalist certificate by way of consolation.

Enough already. Enjoy the work.