April 14, 2008Is it time to phase out the creative function?
Filed Under: Creativity
|
|
My latest Adweek column is out. It's titled, "Is it time to phase out the creative function? Why departments and dynamic duos no longer get the job done."
Here's the text:
For too long now, I (and I suspect you as well) have been troubled by the dearth (or death) of creativity in the industry. I've said it before, but "creativity sucks." Well, it does.
What's your favorite commercial of all time? Does it not trouble you that it's from 1984 or earlier? How about the new marketing offerings online? Or as I like to call it these days, "traditional interactive."
Legendary creative director Bill Bernbach was credited as the person who first paired a copywriter and art director together. It was cutting edge at the time. Innovative. Bold. Relevant.
But today, when it comes to methodologies and processes that attempt to surprise, delight, "tell stories" and, oh yes, sell stuff to people, not much has changed.
Bernbach would be turning in his grave at the state of the union right now. He's the rebel who said, "Safe advertising is the riskiest advertising of all," and for some reason, none of us are paying attention.
So where does the problem lie? It's not within the spun-off media department. Rampant innovation (sometimes out of necessity) has resulted in thriving media agencies. But more importantly, we've seen the birth and growth of the media-neutral planner and the philosophy of communications planning. In both cases, it is the rise and dominance of the generalist that has prevailed over the myopic traditional specialist.
When I worked at TBWA\Chiat\Day, maverick interactive creative director Doug Jaeger created a new format for interactive: in addition to the copywriter and art director (20 percent technologist, 80 percent creative director), there was a wizard (80 percent technologist, 20 percent creative director). Brilliant. Ahead of its time. Lost on us.
The simple addition of a bit of imaginative science to the intangible and mystical art component became the ultimate counterbalance.
Anomaly aside, today's creative industry is stuck in limbo, suffering an acute identity crisis that has one foot in Cannes and the other in Databases for Dummies. (Mark my words: A black-rimmed glasses-wearing nerd will win the Grand Prix for Best Database in 2012, perhaps even earlier.) There are still way too many agencies that are advising their clients to keep the URL off the 30-second spot because it "dirties the otherwise clean presentation and work product," think Flash is a superhero and wouldn't know a keyword if it came up and slapped them across the Face(book).
Part of the solution is to take a page out of media's playbook and, in the ultimate form of flattery, imitate the same best-practice formula blow by blow: launch a creative-neutral discipline led by "creative generalists."
The romantic in me thinks it would be as simple as that, but a little nagging voice wonders whether it is in fact too late to save the "advertising creative" as we knew him or her. The fact remains there's just too much unlearning and relearning required in order to teach the old dogs new tricks. The new creativity is one in which every single person present at the party should be able to contribute -- from the obvious or lowest-hanging media counterparts to account people to (gasp) clients. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course I'm also referring to consumers -- from consumer-generated content to co-creation to advanced crowd-sourcing programs.
Creativity is just way too important to be left to a single person, a dynamic duo or a department anymore. The world is too complex and fragmented for an oversimplified one-size-fits-all "story." The challenge is really how to overcome a one-two sucker punch of attitude and aptitude. The former will have decades of superiority, arrogance and separatist elitism to overcome, whereas the latter will need to focus on an entirely new set of rules and technical nuances.
I'd begin by losing the word "creative" from any job title and thus, any walking silo. Every -- and I stress every -- single person involved in the process of engaging, surprising, delighting, empowering and converting consumers has to be creative. Any less will just result in failure.
If truly great ideas do come from anyone and anywhere, isn't it time we walked our talk and proved the power of listening, learning and collaborating accordingly?
My company, Crayon, is a strategic advisory group, where there are no individuals with the word "creative" in their titles. There will never be any people with the word "creative" in their titles. If we do end up hiring people who will naturally gravitate closer to the transformation of strategy into actionable solutions and/or represent a specific specialization, I'll leave it up to them to come up with a title that rewards their imagination and tests their creativity. It can't be worse than mine, chief interruptor.
Until then, think about: your organization and how it comes up with ideas; how much time is wasted by slowing down the process; how little time is actually spent collaborating with insiders and outsiders; how difficult it is to change course midstream or how much credence and influence are given to the public (consumers, customers, bloggers, etc.); how many different platforms or approaches were taken into account and to what extent every possibility was factored into the equation and the true potential of the ideas was realized.
Depressing, isn't it? But it needn't be.
The new creativity is a brilliantly blank canvas that demands complete immersion and representation by all parties, platforms, technologies and approaches. It's ours for the taking, but it will not be accessible via incrementalist and siloed thinking.
Consider this your creative brief.
I think it's likely to get some good conversation going...
SPONSORSHIPJaffe Juice – brings a fresh new marketing perspective and commentary from industry thought leader and author Joseph Jaffe. Click here to find out more about sponsorship opportunities. Jaffe Juice continues below... |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/307546/28075548
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is it time to phase out the creative function?:
Comments
Joe,
Excellent commentary. A decade ago, I tried to create a team approach to internal communications at Starbucks. Marketing wouldn't play. But retail and human resources did.
Not only did we cut costs but, if I may say so, we created some fun and interesting stuff. How do I know: the retail store partners began paying attention. And when those busy folks start to notice what corporate is sending them, we must be doing something right.
Posted by: Lewis Green
Hands down this is the most provocative post and commentary I have seen in a long, long time. Great job.
I actually forwarded this on to my account supervisor and creative director at my agency to see how they would respond. I imagine some interesting "conversation" is going to result from that.
The systems needs to be shaken up. The traditional agency model has become so complex that great ideas can't break through and you have fighting amongst agencies over which creative is best...not which idea is best.
Thanks for getting this discussion out in the open...now lets hope people listen.
Posted by: Dave Knox
Great post. I have been railing against this for most of my career. I find it especially frustrating when the "Creative Department" walls itself off from the rest of the agency / world. Sometimes I think they are afraid of being found out. A fear that, based on observing the output, is often justified.
Posted by: James Hipkin
I wonder if you have ever seen this, just came across it today: http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=4
Posted by: Jim
Nowadays, it seems that creativity needs to be thought of in distributed terms, and there is a fluid, evolving nature to it. Certainly militates against fixed paradigms of centralized "creative." Great post.
Posted by: Steve Woodruff
Absolutely sound reasoning. Creativity, just like inspiration and hope, comes from diverse sources.
Pax,
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew Ebel
I've been troubled by this short-sighted fiefdom since I was introducing interactive to agencies 2 decades ago. Thanks for saying this out loud.
I want to add that your talk last night for MIMA was more than reassuring - it also spun my head around to finally internalize what social media could mean to my business. Many thanks - and I'd like to add one question for you and anyone else who contributes here:
What kind of call are you seeing for ways to introduce accountability to Social Media - that is, is the marketing world ready to imagine this as a trackable pre-lead stage in an aligned selling process?
Posted by: Michael Bonner
Phase out the creative function?
Surely you mean phase out the job title Creative?
Posted by: Stan Lee
Making the simple complex is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that’s creativity.
- Charles Mingus
No it is not time to phase out the creative function. It’s time to refine things and become leaner, more dexterous. We can all start by eradicating the phony buzz words. The money saved should be shared with the people that would bring this about (yeah, right). And things like a direct mail package need not be treated as if it were the holy grail - you are simply trying to coerce commerce through the mail slot. Stop trying to overdue it.
The biggest problem is that most BDAs are now run by individuals that have never and can not perform in the arena in which they lead.
In this era of economic uncertainty, coupled with too many agencies vying for an increasingly diminished piece of the pie, it is imperative that a kind of renaissance worker is developed. One that can think on their feet, design something, have it production ready from the start. People who can also turn a phrase and are literate. I have witnessed attempts at this from several companies but the failure always boils down to the fact that the upper management is always loathe to give power to anyone other than their hand picked sycophants.
In my area of specialty alone (studio production, along with proofreaders) there are always some exceedingly bright people that are actors, writers, painters, photographers, musicians etc. that are never offered the chance to expand their horizons. Lip service is often paid to these concepts but they are never fully implemented. As soon as a few people come up through the ranks the entire agency environment is invigorated by hope and possibility. In the old days you heard stories about people like Michael Ovitz rising up from the mail room. The lack of that type of happenstance is the main problem.
Posted by: Studio Maven
As I tweeted you, I found myself nodding along in agreement as I read this.
The old single copywriter/art director system was an ideal way to create print ads, which were the main output of ad agencies at the time the system was created.
That was 60 years ago.
Posted by: Toad
Hi Joseph
Hugh Mcleod and I recently chatted about creativity and he pointed me in the direction of a book you may already be familiar with, but I am currently devouring. The author is Mark Earls. The book is “Welcome to the Creative Age, Bananas, Business and the death of marketing”.
He points out that creativity is what makes us human, more so than rational thought. Creativity, not rationality, is the “icing on the human evolutionary cake” — so go create and realize the ultimate evolution of what makes us human :-).
It sort of fits with your post, so thought I would share for your readers.
Posted by: RichardatDELL
Joseph, You're being too kind. Basically what your saying is that anyone with a title that includes the word creative will tend to be selfish and approach assignments in a self-serving way. So what's new? Creatives are 'it's-all-about-me' people. Bill Bernbach probably recognized this and was tying to soften the egos by taking the creative duo approach. It seems to me that our creatives need to 'join the conversation'. It's now about us. Heaven forgive us to ever think that our clients might be creative, or their customers, or spectators, etc...
We are a mature industry. There is no one currently active in our industry that has not modeled this role (learned) from someone else. It is collectively our fault and we need to change the model. Hopefully by 2012 we can change the perception, and our creatives will been seen as collaborative individuals. Please, if only for the sake of preventing the nerds from taking over!!!
www.premierstudios.com
Posted by: Gerald Smith
JJ - great post. Perhaps you should consider changing your title to Chief Agitator? I won't charge you for that one either :-)
I (obviously) wholeheartedly agree with your observations, and with most comments posted.
It was never said that only those people with "Creative" in their title should exclusively own "being creative". I have seen excellent creative ideas coming from all angles, all disciplines and all types of agency folk. And yes, you gasped, but also coming from us... the humble client...
In thinking through your romantic notion though, I struggle, or perhaps even stumble on the following.
It seems that many place the criticism squarely with the "big" agencies, eg. Madison Avenue (even though Madison Avenue is now part dominated by Farm Street in London and the Avenue Des Champs Elysees in Paris). Is that really fair?
Small, different or independent does not automatically mean better. At least the biggies HAVE interactive agencies and you could argue that, over time, it must mean some kind of cross fertilization or infusion will take place. In fact, we have seen some of this already happening in the media world where Carat is re-integrating their Isobar offering.
Secondly, I think we may be witnessing a generational, social-cultural gap. Juniors today are living in the world we are trying to sell to their bosses bosses. Over time, it is impossible to see a world where, when today's juniors have become the bosses bosses, they would approve only those plans with a TV budget share of 75%.
I think that part of the problem today is that the current crop of plan and budget approvers, the people where the buck stops today, have been raised on a steady diet of "TV is king". It was the valid medium of choice for decades, not only creatively but through the lens of all agency and client folks.
The media planners sold and sell their plans on GRPs and CPMs. The daring threw in volumetrics which proved (!) that TV sold product. There are armies of TV buyers and negotiators, whose job it is to buy and execute TV plans day-trader-style. It lended and lends credence to the importance of TV.
The creative execution process involves PPMs, post production, Big Budgets, actors and unions, diva-esque directors, and exotic locations. Talk about important (let alone fun...).
The job of the account manager or brand manager was and is to manage all this madness. Never mind my market share in Poughkeepsie, I am off to (fill in exotic location) to shoot a new toothpaste commercial.
So... as the world changes, the romantic in me says that all of this will change as well, and that the new creativity will be one of Connectivity. Hopefully your contribution and the comments that it generates is a push that accelerates us all in the right direction.
Shame you won't be in BK and Cairo... We could have argued some more :-)
Posted by: artandcopy
Creatives are more important than ever. And better than ever, I find. The true lack of talent is on the account side. Not their fault. No role anymore. And who with enough savvy/smarts would want to be an account director anyway.
Posted by: CD
Hopefully, self-appointed "Industry Thought Leaders" will be phased out someday, too.
Posted by: The Interrupter™
Pussy Post.-)
--Ooh cry the self hating creative....LOL---
or is this just another tech company suck up?
Those trained, and practiced in non tech company driven development and execution of products or services for clients know better.
c3
Posted by: larryr
Great post, Joseph. I think if we're discussing the dearth of true creativity in advertising and branding, if we're truly interested in change then we should begin by doing a massive purge of all the Brand Managers and CMO's and marketing departments who personify a lack of imagination and passion. If you ask me, that's the real reason why we so rarely see anything inspiring nowadays. The changing technology and shifting consumer behavior of the present-day landscape has left them woefully out of their depth. Yet instead of just admitting this and partnering with the creative and savvy people working at their agency, they rein in control and stick stubbornly to what they know... which is too often the textbook marketing that they were taught in school 10+ years ago. Which most often just translates to, "more & louder", where conversation is unheard of.
I realize there are Client-side Marketing Pros out there doing amazing things, but sadly they are definitely in the minority. Put someone in charge of a brand who has vision and adaptability & who isn't afraid to experiment, and I guarantee you it won't matter what titles the people at their agency are given... you will get incredibly intelligent and innovative ideas out of them.
I do agree that teaming Creatives up with Media people and/or IT people is a great idea. After all, Copywriting is a simply a discipline, as is Art Direction. Mixing those disciplines with others would ensure that their creativity isn't restricted to the limits of their technical knowledge.
Posted by: 604grant
Joseph:
I know the creatives you are speaking of. Very arrogant, expert at what they do. Truth is, it is already being phased out. So a little humility, and collaboration with the geek crowd could teach them a few things. It's sort of like that t-shirt - Geek is Sexy.
The hybrid model or generalist is the wave of the future. I don't see the big agencies picking up on that yet. Which is why I started my own.
Posted by: Derek Mehraban
thanks for your article. one spot's that's as good as anything done in 1984 is Guinness. It's pretty right, don't you think?
Also, "Cog" isn't so bad either.
All the best,
steve ulin
Posted by: steve ulin
Oh BTW -
"What's your favorite commercial of all time? Does it not trouble you that it's from 1984 or earlier?"
I think Arnold's work for VW in the 90's is some of the best work ever done in our business, and better than most TV shows and movies from that era too, IMO.
Posted by: 604grant
@604Grant: Let's not forget these wise words from David Ogilvy: advertising's purpose is not to merely entertain, but to sell.
Posted by: davidogilvy
Absolutely love this post. A month or so ago, was in the midst of hiring phase and had a discussion with a supplier - she didn't understand why we couldn't just hire an account manager and have the technology people do their job and the creative people do their job. She asked: "Why would the account manager need to do all of that? It sounds like you're looking for someone that doesn't exist."
Thing is, we can't move the industry forward without teams of people who all think cross-functionally. But, as I was discussing with our ownership group this week, what on earth do we call these new leaders in our creative departments? I just don't think copywriter, art director, or even ACD do the job.
Posted by: Jacquelyn
Booooo. I agree that "creative" in one's title is not necessary to do "creative" work, but without that aspect of advertising, we're merely stuck with generic products and goods.
It's the "creativity" that distinguishes brands. We don't drive cars and live in homes. We drive BMWs and live in condos by the beach. Well, at least some do.
And, I'm surprised you didn't plug you books more in those posts — very unlike you.
Posted by: Edward
Edward, which book specifically? Life after the 30-second spot (www.lifeafter30.com) or Join the Conversation (www.jointheconversation.us)?
Posted by: Joseph Jaffe
As per 604 Grant's comment, the entire blame does not rest with agencies. Clients who are not set up to make marketing a priority have only themselves to blame.
This explains it all more fully:
http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2007/11/defeating_the_armies_of_no.html
Posted by: Toad
@davidogilvy: Absolutely true. But often advertising becomes so focused on selling that it forgets to entertain. And I maintain that if your sole purpose is to boost your sales then, sorry to say, but advertising is a horribly inefficient means to that end. You're better off hiring a top-notch sales force and paying them well, and if you can't do that then invest in DM, and leave advertising to the marketers who want their brands to have a voice in our culture.
Posted by: 604grant
Wow. What a rallying post. Wonderful stuff, and whilst it's tempting to go even further we all know 'trad' creatives who are great and get it - even though most of them don't... even... get... close... On the subject of SPEED though, isn't it true to say that most of the creative firmament have nothing to gain but a lot to lose by changing things radically in order to work rapidly... I think they're aware of this but don't know how to stop what they're doing. the answer is to be is to launch against yourself. Put a bet on both horses.
Posted by: Tim Malbon
I don't think creativity will ever be phased out. There are a lot of good responses here, but I can't help but feel like people may have missed the boat in some aspects. The traditional creative process is no doubt failing and changing, but to assume that some day failing to have some sort of creative department simply won't matter is a tad bit of lunacy.
The use of creativity to gain peoples attention, engage them, and to start a conversation is more valuable now than it ever has been. Sure creative departments that turn out countless boring 30 second spots might need to be phased out, but the function of creativity needs to be relied on more than ever.
Posted by: FireStarter
When I was at Chemistri (now ARC) we used a similar model where we paired "Solution Engineers" with quote unquote creative team members. It helped us get to amazing for the Army and Adidas.
The problem today is 3 things:
1. A lack of respect and understanding for technology
2. A lack of respect and understanding for sound "strategy"
3. An unwillingness to let anyone not in the quote unquote creative department help with concepting, ideation, design, or development
If people embraced what they didn't know and stopped believing that only they had the answer we'd all be in a better place.
Posted by: Adam Kmiec
I think it is pretty odd that today in marketing we entrust an art director and a writer -- trained through art school to write catchy headlines, compelling imagery and tell short stories in ads -- to develop ideas that will build brands, create services, sell product, change behavior and create new experiences.
That said, a great creative director is conceptual, business minded and tapped into what strategies and insights can be used to develop appropriate communications and marketing today. They are not art for art sakes, they use artistry as one among many tools.
A world of bland utilitarianism is kinda boring, likewise a world of metaphors, jokes and entertainment with no usefulness or purpose or relevancy is wasteful and lazy.
Its a balance.
New thinkers are changing these definitions and the leading agencies, marketers and companies have a variety of types of people involved. Even if its only a few places out there.
But it sure is controversial, gets attention and sound provocative to say creatives are useless.
Lets talk about real practical things we can do to be better, not just talk about the death of [insert person or group].
Posted by: Hashem Bajwa
True, but nothing too new, I fear. I've been following this debate from within DM companies for years. We've been debating the issue for ever. Yet, there is still a market and an audience and a solid business case for "old-fashioned" advertising creativity. But it is shrinking every day. And there is an implosion waiting on the horizon.
The problem lies not so much with the creatives who are about to become obsolete unless they take on new, less inward-looking roles. They are simply perfecting a role that has been crucial to advertising and on which the nature of agencies have been centred. But advertising is a dying breed - and advertising agencies are too. Creativity as a value has never been more valuable. Yet traditional agency creatives are soon disappearing up their own navels and they'll never know what hit them. Dinosaurs die suddenly and with a lot of noise, but they can't do anything about it.
But simply saying "everybody must be creative" doesn't cut it, in my view. Ideas can erupt from everywhere, but most people are myopic and risk-averse by nature. They'll never do anything new. Their role is to facilitate the new, to help make it happen, to move the barriers to execution. Not to create. And creativity simply doesn't thrive in plenum. A small team of two, three, max four is ideal. Anything more, to my mind, is dead weight.
So we need new organizations, new attitudes and people who want to make good things happen.
Posted by: Sebastian Franck, DM copywriter
"Creative" has become a sales term for agencies and marketers. Until it becomes a real role again, you may have to look outside your industry to find people and ideas that define creativity.
Posted by: grant lyons
As a creative director--or "director" in your model, I think I may have arrived at your conclusion but in an inverse manner.
Rather than remove the word creative in every title. Why not add it?
I expect the media folks to come up with creative way to help our communications hit home.
I expect the acct. group to be creative in how they prepare the clients to accept our most aggressive ideas.
I expect the receptionist to be creative in delaying a client at the front door in the midst of a printer meltdown.
I "direct" every dept to be the creative dept.
Bellina
Posted by: Bellina
