Effectiveness and Creativity Are Not Mutually Exclusive

I gave a paper today about objective-setting and how to measure effectiveness (perhaps I can de-brand it and insert it into this blog, like this, though I have forgotten how to do it!). It continues to surprise me how reasonably senior people see creativity and effectiveness as mutually exclusive.

Firstly, we are in a commercial industry. We don't make art.

Secondly, creativity has HUGE value in generating business value. That is to be celebrated. The more we can show the business effect of creative thinking and creative work the better we will all be.

Thirdly, though people may not get out of bed to create value for their clients -  they may do it for the creative bit for example - demonstrating value to clients SHOULD be part of the job. And if you are in client servicing in any way, and arguably we all are, there is no real get out.

Joining The Dots

I made a presentation to The Futures Company this morning called 'Joining The Dots'. It was about how some of that very powerful trend and insight work - whether it be desk or primary research - often gets lost in translation to the creative agency domain. It is a particular bugbear of mine as my career has crossed this divide. It was difficult for me to make the switch from enthusisatic and brainstorming researcher who thought he was being creative to being able to make a meaningful contribution to creative strategy and output. I have seen other people frustrated by the transition. It isn't easy and there is no manual to help you do it - perhaps that is a good idea for one - and my sense is that, inspite of my manuel idea, there is no substitute for the experience of doing it. It is a shame, as the very best ideas I have been involved with have been generated by looking 'outside', for insight or research or trends or some combination thereof. The trick is in bringing them to bear in a meaningful way that creative people can do something with.

It doesn't help that so much of this potentially good stuff gets handed across disciplines in the form of powerpoint and almost inevitably, it gets lost in translation. There is no substitute for talking rather than handing power point decks over. Because the recepient needs to internalise the nuggets of insight and somehow make it there own, in order to create from it, it is no wonder that a powerpoint slide just doesn't do it.

We have also become so specialist that in our process it has become rare for one person to champion insight all the way through the process. Back in the early days of account planning, planners did lots of groups on their own ideas. They were able to understand any creative work that was going into the groups and fed back to the creators in a language they understood. With more and more creative development work being put in the hands of research specialists the passage of good, clean, inspiring information is hampered.

I have more to say on this subject, but that will be for another day. The presentation seemed to go well. Whether the group take me up on the offer to have a further working session is another matter altogether.

Judging at the IPA

I had the honour a few weeks of being one of the industry judges at the 2010 IPA Effectiveness Awards. These awards have the reputation of being the most rigourous and difficult in the marketing and communications world. It is worth taking a further look, here. They are only held every two years as it is felt it would be too ardous on potential entrants to have them every year. 'Even' years are open to agencies, media owners and clients worldwide, and 'odd' years are limited to campaigns with a total annual marketing communications budget of up to £2.5 million and have to be submitted by agencies, media owners and clients in the UK only.

Two things separate them from their Effie cousins above anything else, in addition to the every two years piece. Firstly, they absolutely require evidence that the activity paid back on the investement made ie fees, production and media. If the paper doesn't show this has been achieved then it will be disqualified. Secondly, the entries are far longer than the Effies: with 'even' years being limited to 4,000 words and 'odd' years being 3,000.

This year was, by all accounts, a very good year. A very high number of entries, just under seventy, and the majority of a high standard. There were about 30 industry judges who are split into two groups, each group will mark about half the papers and everyone in each group reads all the papers that are allocated to that group. Each paper is generally reckoned to take about one hour to read. The box of the papers you have to read arrives one day in a big box with a judging form and a survival pack that includes; Nurofen, Pro Plus, an energy bar, an energy and a small bottle of champagne. Very sweet. So with briefing and a day's judging I guess I notched up close to 40 hours on it. And what a privilege.

The quality of the entries was fantastically high, and very enlightening, in the main, to read. The judging day, with a group of very well informed judges, with a broad range of experience (see here for more details on the judges) was equally enlightening and great fun as well. The discussion throughout the day was extremely high and enjoyable.

A number of observations about the papers really popped. The really good ones are clear to read. Superflous adjectives grate. There needs to be more general knowledge about econometrics (so many papers have them now, over half, and we were too often hanging on our econometrics specialist's every word). It is a time consuming task to write a really good one. If you can make the paper work without economics, do it, as it will likely be easier to follow. Too many charts is as bad as too few.

A big thanks to David Golding, convenor of judges and Marie Oldham, the deputy convenor, who steered us through the day with a deft touch and from our short-listing of entries the client judges now have to decide who gets bronze, silver, gold and grand prix. I am already looking forward to the awards dinner in November.

Crowdsurfing

Martin Thomas, author of the book “Crowd Surfing”, paid a visit to Coley Porter Bell last week and spoke about how brands are dealing with the age of consumer empowerment.

His thesis is that, though it has become something of a marketing cliche that consumers own brands whilst brand owners merely control trademarks, in reality the way that companies and agencies talk about brand development and management is largely predicated on the notion of absolute control, a notion that runs counter to what is really happening in a consumer empowered and expressive world.

If you want proof, says Martin, try an Google image search for ‘MasterCard priceless’ or ‘McDonald’s.’ 

All to often the trademark owners don’t really know how to navigate this changed world and come down disproportionately heavily on consumers messing with their brands. Sure, there will be cases where empowered and creative consumers have crossed the line, but all too often the corporate giant gets too defensive too quickly.

My personal favourite is computer programmer, Jose Avila, when short of money and furniture when he moved to a new town, starting to create tables, chairs, a desk, shelves, and even a bed out of used FedEx boxes. 
He posted pictures of what he had done on www.fedexfurniture.com This could have been a brilliant story for FedEx. It is a very creative. And it is a recycling story par excellence. FedEx could have fanned this story and started a whole new strand of interesting PR coverage, stunts, events, etc. But instead of embracing what Jose was doing, the company brought a lawsuit to have the site taken down. The case seems to have gone back and forth, with Stanford lawyers working pro bono with Jose. As of January 2009, the site is down.

But there are people who are beginning to embrace the crowd. People such as Proctor & Gamble’s former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, A.G. Lafley, who describes how business leaders: “are operating in what is very much a ‘let go’ world”, Alex Marks at Microsoft Advertising who talks about “allowing your work to get ‘messed up’”, by which he means allowing consumers to get involved in the creation and dissemination of a brand message, suggesting that “You’ll not only save yourself money but you just might increase your share of voice.” Go to www.ideastorm.com and see how Dell are embracing the crowd and their ideas. Doritos has run a competition for people to send in their ideas for superbowl ads (the winner gets to make theirs and it is aired).

I wonder how long it will be before we create a ‘logo of parts’ and allow people to create their own versions of it, or have an open source brief with a global call for logo submissions for a new identity?

For more details on the book, the blog, Martin or to enroll for surf school, click here .

The End of Advertising

Imagine a city stripped clean of all its advertising. No billboards. No posters. No Adshels. No nothing. In December 2006, this fantastical statement became a harsh reality for São Paulo, Brazil. Known as ‘Lei Cidade Limpa’, the Clean City Law, it was an initiative of Mayor, Gilberto Kassab, and intended to cleanse the city of what he dubbed its ‘visual pollution’. 

Michael Canturi, a designer at Coley Porter Bell, won the company Blue Sky competition, and chose to go to Sao Paulo to investigate. This is his post. 

External Testing For Brand/Taglines

                   Image: PototoJunkie 

1. It is difficult to assess a new brandline without some context. Even the best brandlines benefit from some explanatory introduction.

2. Brandlines generally take years to really build equity. To test them ‘cold’ is not an indication of how successful they could be after years of use and equity has been built around them.

3. Respondents tend to get too caught up in the executional details of a tagline rather than the conceptual side. For example they might concentrate on a full stop/period between the two words or get fixated that the brandline isn’t grammatically correct ie doesn’t contain a full sentence.

4. Exposing respondents to a new identity and its possible applications in a short interview situation doesn’t in any way replicate the real world experience of seeing the brand repeatedly over time.

5. If a brandline is to be shown, it ought be shown in some sort of context, perhaps with the identity as a whole, even in other applications (ad, exhibition stand, etc.). However, there will then be issue of trying to disentangle which bit of the new identity and tagline has what effect on respondent response.

6. There are issues of secrecy: respondents may ‘leak’ the idea to others, to competitors which whom they may also have a relationship, to the press, to colleagues who may ‘leak’ it further.

7. There are also issues of politics: will an external respondent feel ‘hurt’ if their comments are not taken on board? Will they use the fact that they were asked as a way of showing some favouritism versus those who were not asked?

8. In research situations when confronted by stimulus material that people are unfamiliar with, especially in a business context, there seems to be an overly rationale and negative response. Respondents often want to appear ‘clever’ by being critical rather than looking for the positive.

9. There are cost and time implications of conducting external research.

10. If ‘testing’ does happen, it is better to talk about the thinking and concepts behind the new identity and brandline; for example spend 30 minutes talking to some customers about the strategic direction and personality of the company rather than a crude (and forced) exposure of the brandlines. It should be possible from a wide discussion to understand if the brandline should work. If brandline has to be shown it is better to do it with other elements, generally explaining why things are as they are and leaving pauses for spontaneous responses. It is silly to pretend that the situation is anything but artificial so why not take the respondent through the thinking like it would be presenting into the company. The respondent will at least be able to judge brandline intention against objectives and have a meaningful discussion. It is better than a barrage of questions administered via questionnaire.

11. Ultimately the decision on brandline and brand identity is a CEO decision. It is a question about business strategy and direction and how the company projects itself. The logo is the company’s identity. Input and counsel to the decision is very valuable but at some point the leader needs to make a decision and set a path forwards. 

Coley Porter Bell Blog

A plug for the Coley Porter Bell blog that went live today. It is worth a look, here.

A Different Perspective On An Orc

This is an Orc. It is from Warhammer, a fantasty strategy game that George has got into. The Orc is only about an inch in height but this picture makes it look bigger. And angry.

It minds me of some really good work we did for LEGO company a few years ago. Initially, we couldn't find an interesting way to present the LEGO models. Then Phil and Graham got involved. They started thinking about the models from a kids perspective, namely lying down with head on the floor, playing at the same level as the toys themselves. It was brilliant insight. Whilst adults are looking from a vantage point five or six feet up in air, the kids who play with the things see them much more eye to eye level. Everything flowed from that.

The ads we did, and I don't know if I can find them a few years on, had a sense of dynamism and scale that just couldn't have been achieved it we had looked the issue from our adult vantage point. It was one of the best examples I know of, literally, understanding the perspective of your target.

Microslicing and Insight

I don't think marketing folk spend enought time thinking about the small things; by which I mean the really small, the nano, the granular, miniscule and the tiny. In amongst all the talk about big ideas, perhaps we should flip the telescope and look through it the other way around. In other fields we are seeing the world very differently through new detail, such as the example below, perhaps we can as well.

The world of insight gathering might benefit from some miniscule thinking. Though research may be getting faster, easier and cheaper - primarily due to the internet - I don't know if it is getting any better. In fact, I suspect the opposite. I also see lots of research being commissioned that is a triumph of process over thought and is probably a re-run of some previous research project that has already given us enough information to save us the cost of doing it again. I should confess at this point, I am thinking more about 'exploratory' research or insight development work. As a side point, and the subject of another post in the future, I suspect there is a business to be had in delving through back archives of research for answers before any more research is commissioned.

Anyway, back to the subject of getting more insight by microthinking. I am convinced there are insights to be found, hidden in the small nooks and cranies of the mind and behaviour that conventional research, especially internet research, will never find. They may be things that people are never able to articulate, and therefore can't tell us about, without some skillful input from the researcher, but they exist.

I love the idea of breaking down processes, psychology, and behaviour into tiny little units and investigating each little unit in turn. In those tiny moments there is some real, and new, insight.