I know some of you are occasionally critical of Campaign, but I think they've really got their shit together this month with a string of well put-together Top 10's of 2008.

However, the only one the Guardian deemed worthy of highlighting was the list of Top 10 Turkeys.

It seems we're fascinated by bad ads.

The Guardian piece attracted over 150 comments - the most I can recall seeing on there all year.

And the TV's Worst Adverts site regularly makes the chart of the UK's Top 10 ad blogs.

However, an analysis of bad advertising begs a very important question - what exactly IS the definition of a turkey?

To my mind, a badly dubbed foreign ad, like the Renault thing at No.3 on the Campaign list, is not a genuine turkey. It's just a badly dubbed foreign ad. Different category.

Similarly, a badly-lit ad with second-rate celebs (e.g. Carol Vorderman loan sharking) is not a turkey either. It's too cheap and scrawny to be a genuine contender for Christmas dinner.

No, surely a true turkey is an ad for which the makers had high hope... followed by great disappointment. It's an ad where you can see a wide expanse between expectation and result, between budget and pay-off, between effort and effectiveness. That's the land where the turkeys gobble.

By those criteria, the Gillette schtick (Campaign's No.1 turkey of the year) isn't really valid... because I doubt the creatives at any point thought it could be good.

What's your nomination?