What is creativity and more importantly creative process? It’s something we all talk about in agency land – but it’s a difficult thing to get right. Creativity is something we hold on a pedestal – not everyone has it, but most people want it. It gives off a sense of being free in thought and unrestrained by the worries of the masses. A creative person is an engineer of dreams, taking things to a point of perceived heightened brilliance, driven by a multitude of instincts. However, how do you take creativity, reign it in to fit a brief and still have a creative idea that the entire agency and more importantly the client is happy with.
Objective VS Subjective
It was a recent heated agency discussion that got me thinking about the way we approach creative ideas and how whilst the process of creativity is so admired, it’s also one that is purely subjective. It’s true that art is many things to many people – but even in someone’s distaste of the art in question, we found ourselves asking ‘can it still be good?’. As we battled back and forth over our views of the recent Cobra advert, it came to my attention that whilst we started battling out our very personal likes and dislikes, we ended up assessing whether the ad alone was a good or bad creative idea –personal differences aside.
Our outcome – as Krish wrote – was that although us girls (aka not the target demographic) found the overall idea to be a little confusing in its message, we softened our hardened believes to see that ‘bras and beers’ (as it came to be known) was a brilliant answer to the perceived brief, but perhaps not executed in a way we liked. Therein lies the key for this musing – a creative idea might be amazing, not because I like it but because it perfectly answers the brief; just as it may fall down due to its inability to make sense to a brief thus.
Measure of success lies in metrics, not opinion
The success of an ad and its ability to answer a brief hinges on whether it can deliver what the brand is searching for – it’s a case of rational metrics versus emotional marketing. It’s all well and good having a fantastic idea but if it doesn’t deliver in a measurable way for the brand, then what’s the point?
Perhaps too perfect an example – but when looking at a beautifully produced ad like the Sapeurs by Guinness you have to ask yourself (though I hate to to do so with a brand like this), what did the ad actually achieve? What brief did it answer? Did it make the ‘average Joe Guinness drinker’ more culturally aware? Did it increase Guinness sales exponentially? Likely not, but it was a beautiful creative idea nonetheless.
It’s important that in a quest for creative brilliance, agencies do not lose sight of reading the fine print of the brief – yes the client wants something well executed and impactful, but the impact must be measured in more than just opinion stirring. It must either raise awareness for and therefore impact brand engagement or it must deliver on sales, it’s as simple as that.
I realised, as we discussed, that an agency is a lot like a group of friends vehemently discussing something with opposing viewpoints. You like to think you’re right in your belief and that everyone else is wrong, you like to argue your point in the hope of changing the other person’s mind, but you don’t actually want to tarnish your relationship by coming over too gung-ho.
In most cases it will become an ‘agree to disagree’ scenario but in an agency the difference lies in the fact that there’s something greater than friendship at stake and when you’re on the side whereby it’s your inner creative idea that’s coming under scrutiny, the ‘agree to disagree’ angle doesn’t work. Egos are definitely at stake and creativity can feel stamped out, so ensuring you have a productive creative process is key. This starts with all parties having a thorough understanding of the brief at stake and this is key when it comes to assessing a creative idea – it’s the difference between attacking an idea because you personally don’t like it and offending someone without due cause and pro-actively suggesting a different route based on it failing to answer the brief. To get past a tricky conversation is what ensures that the team as a whole produces a creative idea they are proud of – even if it means mediating a few points along the way.
A recent client taught us the lesson that a creative idea can be edgy and fantastic in the mind of the agency and yet can still be ‘tweaked’ beyond recognition by the client. Whilst it’s frustrating when that happens, we still maintain that it was an important process to go through, to exercise our creative juices, trust in the instinct of the Creative Director and run with a slightly daring idea that intrigues everyone from the off-set.
A balancing act
However, there’s a fine line between daring and stepping over the creative veil – between controversial and down-right wrong. Perhaps naively some parties have developed creative executions that left a bad taste in people’s mouths, despite the fact that they did ‘make sense’ to the brief in at least some way. There have been many adverts good and bad that have played with this delicate balance – Red Bull’s Titanic certainly dabbled with the latter sentiment.
Sometimes, this line between edgy and polarising can be far too thin, and even a good creative idea can shatter when you push it too far. I recently saw an ad which up until the final few frames I had no idea it would be for this brand. Watch this and you’ll understand why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Unlike their previous executions – I suddenly became intrigued by the route they’d taken with the Aussie builders. The ‘you’re not you when you’re hungry’ line had never been funny to me before, and whilst this didn’t make me fall about laughing, it did make me suddenly respect what they’d been trying to do all along. It was daring enough to hold my attention and make me think about it on a deeper level, not in a ‘is this right or wrong’ but ‘is this good and did it make sense’ kind of a way. My answer, subjectively so, is that it’s awesome and the execution is spot on. Move aside feminists who are waging a war against it, there is no space for your moral argument here. Assess it creatively and I’m sure you’ll agree (though it is not my intention to make you do so), this is a fantastically funny advert, beautifully cast and with a sting in its tail delivered to perfection when the branding finally rears its head at the end. Bravo.
What ads out there walk the fine line between edgy and down-right silly? Even if you were slightly offended, is it a good creative idea? Share your views with us – we’re all friends here right?
Check these for reference – I laughed at more than I want to admit to: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/save-children-advert-10-most-3184308
