Most Gifted Wrapper

Read the campaign story

Scotch’s Most Gifted Wrapper programme turns gift wrapping into a recurring public competition. Hunter PR identifies itself as the creator and reports activity from 1997; a 3M release documents the 2009 edition’s judging and participants. These records do not conclusively settle the first launch, so the year remains unknown. Annual and regional editions are grouped.

The sources document an event format and promotional intent, not independent evidence that the contest caused sales or that winning demonstrates a product’s superiority. This study omits reach and prize figures. The useful decision is how to make an overlooked skill observable, and how the rules can make that skill understandable to spectators rather than simply create an unusual photo opportunity.

Editorial interpretation: a competition can supply narrative structure through a clear task, visible constraints and a result. The audience does not need to know the participants beforehand to follow the progress. However, the format should not depend on ever larger or more awkward objects. Escalating spectacle can obscure the practical relationship between the category and the skill being demonstrated.

Editorial interpretation: recognising skill can give a routine activity dignity, but the programme should not imply that everyday participants must perform at an expert level. The brand can celebrate accomplished work while leaving room for ordinary approaches. A small communication test can examine whether the rules and judging criteria are legible without running a real contest, offering a prize or asking people to compete under pressure.

Choose criteria that viewers can understand

Define what counts as success and why those criteria matter to the activity. Avoid relying on an unexplained expert decision at the end. Show fictional examples that perform differently against the criteria, then ask reviewers to explain their comparisons. If they cannot identify the trade-offs, simplify the rules before adding more rounds or dramatic presentation.

Separate the skill from the product claim

A talented participant may succeed through experience, planning and technique as well as materials. Do not attribute the whole result to the sponsoring product. Ask viewers what they believe enabled the outcome. If the format makes a brand seem solely responsible for skilled performance, revise the explanation so that human contribution and the product’s limited role remain visible. Ask reviewers to explain a close comparison, not only an obvious winner, because borderline examples reveal whether the criteria are genuinely understandable.

Make participation fair before making it entertaining

A real competition would need clear eligibility, judging, accessibility and prize terms. Early concept work can test the clarity of those ideas using invented entries without collecting submissions. Consider whether novices and professionals are being compared in a meaningful way. Entertainment should not depend on hidden disadvantages, humiliation or a requirement to reveal personal information merely to understand the activity.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: present three fictional designs for labelling a reading-club folder and ask adult reviewers to compare them against clarity, usefulness and readability, with no winners or prizes.

Measure whether reviewers understand the criteria, recognise different strengths and distinguish individual skill from the sponsoring product’s contribution. Compare a competition-style presentation with a simple instructional display. Keep the event framing only if it adds useful structure without making ordinary users feel inadequate, exaggerating technical benefits or obscuring the conditions under which a real competition would be fair.

Stop if the concept relies on humiliation, unsafe tasks, unclear judging or unsupported claims that the product determines the result.

• Use flat original illustrations rather than wrapped objects.
• Explain every criterion before showing the examples.
• Run no contest and collect no public submissions.