Posts tagged creativity
facts and creation
Jan 23rd
“Without the hard little bits of marble which are called ‘facts’ or ‘data’ one cannot compose a mosaic; what matters, however, are not so much the individual bits, but the successive patterns into which you arrange them, then break them up and rearrange them.” - The Act of Creation
I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic and uninspired in the workplace.
Yes. Tragic. Because it is such a waste of not only mindpower but, well, will power. And it is also tragic to the work company because lethargy does not lead to ideas/ideation/creative thinking.
To me? The real problem lies with the older folk (in manager positions) who seem to lack a comprehensive relevant view of learning. Or maybe better said … they have an archaic way of viewing the way it should be done.
There are a lot of leaders (management whatever you want to call them) who appear to be guilty of classifying learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience.
This is in combination with the fact they also tend to have odd views on ‘how to make it fun.’ Oh. And to complete that thought … they have a belief that they have to ‘make it fun’ because learning is difficult/frustrating. Therefore it is a flawed belief system.
Look.
Creative thinking and innovation does not arise out of a vacuum but must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment. To experiment with facts, with ideas and products. With the hard little bits of marble as it were.
Original thinking and new ideas has to be nurtured and rearranged in successive patterns … not destroyed and scattered.
We can all encourage creativity by helping young people learn to assess the bits of marble and take intellectual risks in their work & ideation. Does this have to be “made” fun? Nope. And it is, frankly, silly to think it has to be.
Instead this is like providing a spark to combustible matter. I am not suggesting it should be painful but rather fun is slightly less relevant than providing the inspiration to learn and become engaged.
Ultimately I don’t believe management should teach people how to create ideas.
The goal should be to prepare young people to be competent and original in their thinking.
Do that and they will create mosaics like you have never seen before.
Oh.
And in successive patterns.
(by the way … that is a good thing)
one hundred monkeys
Oct 3rd
Ok. Everyone knows I love trying to understand why people do the things that they do (attitudes, behaviors, etc.). therefore I am hoping no one is surprised that I find the 100 monkey theory fascinating.
It is almost like a different version of crowd clout. But with a twist.
As some of you may be scratching your head at the moment – here is the 100 monkey theory:
In 1952, on the Japanese island of Koshima, a monkey named Imo washed a sweet potato before she ate it. She and her fellow, Macaca Fuscata monkeys were given sweet potatoes by the scientists who studied them. The monkeys like the taste of the potatoes, yet did not like the dirt. Imo taught her mother and the other monkeys she came into contact with and over time more and more monkeys were washing their potatoes.
Imo’s practice catches on.
Well, the interesting observation is that after a significant minority (let’s say 100 monkeys to use a number) of the monkeys were washing their potatoes, the scientists observed that very quickly after this, all the monkeys were washing their potatoes. Like a critical mass had been reached and now all the monkeys were able to access this knowledge somehow even if they did not come into contact with Imo and her friends. More interesting is that scientists observed that at the same time, on other islands monkeys were also washing their potatoes.
It appears that when 99 monkeys were washing potatoes and one more joined, a critical mass was achieved and this awareness was now available to everyone (please don’t get hung up on the exact 99 or 100 numbers).
This is known as the 100 Monkey Theory.
So. The foundation of the theory is when a certain critical number achieves an awareness of “something” (an attitude or behavior) that this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind. Yup… mind to mind.
I believe the truly stunning aspect of this theory is the ‘island to island’ aspect.
And these monkeys didn’t have internet.
Nor a classroom.
Nor any physical content.
This theory suggests that, although the exact number may vary, that the 100 Monkey Phenomenon suggests when only a limited number of people know a new behavior it may subconsciously reside as the conscious property of the collective people.
And while I really do not want to get hung up on the actual numbers it is fascinating to think that there is a point at which if only one more person absorbs the new attitude and changes its behavior that somehow this awareness is picked up by almost everyone. The implications to this is interesting particularly in a business sense (not just culturally).
This suggests finding a group of influencers, or early adopters if that makes it easier for you to get a handle on, is more important to future success than simply grinding out success building “awareness.”
Anyway. There is a book on this theory, “The Hundredth Monkey,” by Ken Keyes, Jr. I don’t suggest reading it because, well, the concept is pretty simple and you don’t need a book to explain it nor do I believe a lot of ages with graphs and explanations will convince you.
Let me explain why I like it as well as how I rationalize it.
First. Trying to explain behavioral transition from specific tactics is very difficult – and it aggravates me when people try to associate specific expenditures or activity to create behavioral activity. This whole idea with 100 monkeys is about doing things, real behavior, creating enough critical mass so that it gets recognized and absorbed in some subconscious way which inevitably creates the behavioral change desired.
Oh. By the way. The fashion industry should take note of this one.
Anyway. I believe any one even remotely interested in creating cultural change should invest some time thinking about this theory. Instead of needing dollars to create change or wacky ideas to affect attitudes or investing energy trying to create “a wave of change” someone can focus on “the 100.” Creating change by focusing the few. Gosh. Sure would make life a little simpler huh? (some people, like me for an example, call this creating an influencer base to influence mass behavior).
Second.
100 monkeys (or any individuals with brains) is enough critical mass to ensure either extensive collaborative thinking or the presence of a superior individual innovative mind. Either way the group attains the same objective – an innovative idea. Combine this with my overall belief that great minds puzzling over similar situations are quite likely to have the same idea & thought (and inevitably the same innovation) then the 100 monkey theory is not as wacky or cerebral as it may seem at first blush.
You may not buy it.
You may not think people are related to monkeys.
You may think 100 isn’t enough.
But you should think about this (while eating a banana of course).
hope, low prices & marketing (part 1)
Aug 22nd
ok.
Working in the marketing business I often find myself in some heated debates about whether advertising & marketing is “selling” (or it is often stated “oh, so you are in sales”).
Here is the answer.
It’s not sales. It may not even be selling (in the traditional sense).
Sure.
Ultimately marketing & advertising wants to “sell stuff” but the craft of communications itself is not about selling.
Or convincing.
Or persuading (in some weird and creepy way) someone to do something they don’t want to really do.
Is it about “persuading” in the sense I want someone to “choose me!” to be on their wallet team? Sure.
Is it about persuading someone through some trickery to buy or do something that is bad for them? Nope.
Because in the end It is really about attitudes (creating or aligning to a ‘truth’ – a real truth not a made up one) and behavior (understanding why someone does something they do and inserting a choice into their existing behavior … and sometimes modifying that behavior if you can truly offer something better for them as an alternative).
So marketing & advertising is really about informing so someone can make a choice – whatever is the best choice for them.
Therefore. Marketing & advertising is not in the selling business.
It is in the choice business.
And while choices have dollars & cents attached to them and features & benefits and all that truly functional crap … a person’s final choice preference is never any of those things.
A choice may be made based on them (that truly functional crap) but typically it is only made that way for lack of an alternative.
And that is why communicating “choice” is an art. Because communicating choice is about education and emotion and, well, hope.
Because the bottom line is that people want to make the choice that gives them the most hope.
Now.
That may sound hopelessly lofty but its not. In fact it is what marketing & advertsing & frankly just about any consumer business is all about.
We are in the hope business.
Hope of something (it doesn’t have to be some big audacious hope … sometimes it can just simply be some small glimmer of hope in an otherwise hopeless day).
Yes.
This is truth (and some businesses may cry & weep & gnash their teeth … I just wanted to type gnash).
People don’t really want cheaper prices.
People don’t really want better technology.
People don’t really want faster answers.
People don’t really want more time.
People don’t cooler features or more flashing widgets.
People even don’t really want more money at the end of the month.
None of that really matters to customers.
They want hope.
They want to know that they are going to be ok.
And they want to know that it can get better for themselves.
In a world where natural disasters wipe away lives in a second and leaders make decisions that take billions of dollars from hard working saving & investing people the only thing people can truly hold onto is a belief of something better.
Yet.
In our ROI-driven marketing world we not only seem content to pretend that a “faster, cheaper, better” is what people want but we also relentlessly pursue ineffective marketing communicatiosn initiatives expounding upon a litany of usefless features and functional doo-dads.
And we are wrong. Dead wrong.
People want hope.
In a lot of ways ‘the people’ are no different than you & I (because oddly enough we are people also).
They want to be listened to.
They don’t want to be lied to.
They don’t want you to talk over them.
They want you to validate their concerns.
They want their questions answered.
They don’t want you to ignore them.
They want you to inspire them.
They don’t want a sales pitch.
They don’t want you to be annoying.
They don’t want to hear about you.
They do want a distraction from real life.
They don’t want to be pressured.
They want to know that you have problems too.
They want a consistent partner.
They don’t want you to fake it.
They want truth in answers (the first time & every time).
They don’t want you to tell them what they want to hear.
They want to feel like you care.
They want you to hear what they aren’t saying.
And most importantly …
They want more than what they have (not materialistically but “happinesswise”)
They want more than what they expect (not just functionally but in life)
They want something better (not just functionally but in life)
They want optimism (based on truth not blarney).
So.
Enough of that.
People want hope.
(that is the common denominator in all the things I just typed)
And if you aren’t providing that in your marketing you … will …. not … be … successful.
Sure.
You can buy some sales and a “consumer relationship” with lowest prices & coupons and cool features and some functional widgetry but those people aren’t buying “you” they are buying the ‘feature of the day.”
In my words? You have bought a date not a relationship.
And you have missed an opportunity to be a hero. Instead you are a salesman.
You have missed an opportunity to have offered,and given, hope.
C’mon. be honest with yourself as you read this.
Think of all the times that were hoping that someone really cared about how bad you hurt inside. Or recognized the pain.
So ii guess if you really feel like you have to ‘sell’ … then sell hope.
Because as Hugh Macleod drew in his cartoon at the beginning of this post … if you can sell hope you can get someone to buy anything.
hope & marketing (part 2)
Aug 22nd
Ok. I had so much to write about in “hope, low process and selling” that I took this part and thinking and put it in its own lil post.
Here we go.
Fact.
Communicating choices with the intent to persuade someone to “choose me” is an inexact science.
In fact.
It is not a science at all (despite what ROI driven purchasing people suggest and desire).
Yes.
There is a discipline to crafting communications (c’mon … given the amount of time people have done things there is certainly a list of ‘trial & error’ learnings to use as benchmarks).
But.
Advertising iconic hero Bill Bernbach said: “I warn you against believing that advertising is a science. Artistry is what counts. The business is filled with great technicians, and unfortunately they talk the best game … but there’s one little problem. Advertising happens to be an art, not a science.”
And this dude, and his agency DDB, created some good shit (and still does).
So.
So, because being in the choice communication business (and selling hope) isn’t a science, the truth is (another fact) the more research conducted to “strengthen” choice communications (i.e., marketing & advertising) the more functional the communication has to be judged on … because that is the only thing research can quantitatively measure.
Emotion, or something you just feel in your gut, cannot be measured.
(note: there are some wacky research tools out there that attempt to do so but regardless of their best efforts no one I know can use ‘brain wave’ or ‘twitch muscle’ research to truly tell you what your gut tells you)
And (as noted in the previous ‘hope’ post) functional doesn’t win in the long run. Emotion or some higher order value wins.
Bottom line?
Two things lead to mediocrity and conformity in communications: research and rational benefits.
Interestingly this thought goes way beyond communications and advertising. It runs true in just about any transaction-based relationship (i.e., shopping).
Another fact.
Shopping isn’t simply a transaction. Shopping is an experience.
And I don’t necessarily mean experience in the “walking around and looking and touching” perspective. One expert said it best:
“We dream of shopping for beauty, truth and perfection, and if we do not shop for a perfect society, at least we shop for a perfect self.”
Yes. Correct. And, yes, again.
We shop and we make choices as an extension of ourselves – of who we are and what we want to be. That, at its most psychological Maslow-like level, is the pursuit for a perfect self.
Sound like a bunch of mumbo jumbo? Maybe sounds like it but it ain’t.
We talk transactions but we behave emotionally.
(how often has your head say “he is all wrong for me” and then you go ahead and let your heart tell you what to do?)
Anyway.
The same expert also suggested that she believes “the noblest aspect of shopping is finding a community, a discovery that usually happens at a place like a farmer’s market or a neighborhood store, where interaction among customers is fostered. Rallying for these public spaces rather than buying things, she argues, should be what we use shopping to achieve.”
Poetic words.
Maybe even sounds a little too lofty.
But its not. Because if you ignore the thought behind the words you simply fall back into the functional/rational zone of sameness (and then, I guess, it does become a science).
If it helps … simplistically she is suggesting creating spaces so that “birds of a feather can flock together” and be happy amongst others.
So why is all this important?
Well. If I want someone to ‘choose me’ I have to understand the challenges.
Understanding motivation for behavior is one thing (and a very very important thing).
Understanding HOW to communicate is another.
Bill Bernbach again: “Eighty-five percent of all ads don’t even get looked at. Think of it! You and I are the most extravagant people in the world. Who else is spending billions of dollars and getting absolutely nothing in return? We were worried about whether or not the American public loves us. They don’t even hate us. They just ignore us.”
So even if I am in the ‘selling hope’ business I have to deliver the message in a memorable, interesting and artful way if I want whatever I am marketing to be chosen.
Notice I used art in there.
Because, once again, it is not a science.
I cannot simply say “hey, look over here, I am selling some hope-on-a-rope.”
I gotta be creative and offer up some communication that stirs someone emotionally and lets them arrive at the benefit all by themselves. That is a powerful communications when that happens.
And there absolutely can be some discipline in the approach but the ultimate output is art.
A maddening art. I often call it the “glorious mistakes when we blunder into an incredible way to say what we want to say.”
Why a ‘glorious mistake’?
Well.
Often the most insightful communication is partly flawed. Likeable. Believable.
And I ended on believable because while communications is art … truth is just that – truth. No grey. Just truth. And that is ultimately what makes things believable.
Bob Levenson (hired by Bill Bernbach) may have said it best when he responded to a Time magazine contest in the 1960′s. Ad agencies were invited to create an advertisement in the public interest. He wrote a manifesto for the ad industry (see below). It conveys the honesty that the advertising/marketing profession is founded upon. And still should uphold as the beacon for everything every marketer (at any level) should do in the communications business.
Bottom line?
Share truth.
Sell hope.
And enjoy, share, and DO THIS OR DIE.
ideas and finding them
Apr 14th
Ok. This is about ideas.
Not my ideas or even my thinking.
This is about other people’s ideas. And the fun associated with rolling around in not only “what could be” but what some people are actually doing and trying.
Hey. We all have ideas.
But I have to tell you that it is a lot more fun exploring other people’s ideas … and ideas as they spring up anywhere globally at any time. Before the internet we often had to wait for some of the big research companies to issue these reports on what they believed were the best of the best ideas. Today? You can track ideas daily. Globally. And assess the best of the best as they happen. As with anything on the web tracking can be overwhelming. So my following tip is a way of watching what is happening globally with little work on your own end (because they do all the work for you).
Springwise (http://www.springwise.com) is where you can find a wide variety of new business ideas (new ideas … not new business ideas) which are a smaller selection of ideas pulled from Springspotter Network (http://www.springspotters.com).
It is a great site for ideas where new topics are posted daily and are searchable by category:
• Automotive (http://www.springwise.com/automotive)
• Eco & Sustainability (http://www.springwise.com/eco_sustainability)
• Education (http://www.springwise.com/education)
• Entertainment (http://www.springwise.com/entertainment)
• Fashion & Beauty (http://www.springwise.com/fashion_beauty)
• Financial Services (http://www.springwise.com/financial_services)
• Food & Beverage (http://www.springwise.com/food_beverage)
• Gaming (http://www.springwise.com/gaming)
• Government (http://www.springwise.com/government)
• Homes & Housing (http://www.springwise.com/homes_housing)
• Life Hacks (http://www.springwise.com/life_hacks)
• Lifestyle & Leisure (http://www.springwise.com/lifestyle_leisure)
• Marketing & Advertising (http://www.springwise.com/marketing_advertising)
• Media & Publishing (http://www.springwise.com/media_publishing)
• Non-profit, Social cause (http://www.springwise.com/nonprofit_social_cause)
• Retail (http://www.springwise.com/retail)
• Style & Design (http://www.springwise.com/style_design)
• Telecom & Mobile (http://www.springwise.com/telecom_mobile)
• Transportation (http://www.springwise.com/transportation)
I firmly believe you can never have enough ideas. And springwise is an awesome place to see the newest (and sometimes oddest) ideas from around the world.
Enjoy.
testing creative: how it sharpens and how it dulls the idea
Jan 10th
part of being in an advertising agency is the infamous discussion about testing creative before it is produced. Testing the actual creative concepts in other words.
Let me begin with two thoughts:
- “The way in which advertising influences customer choice is not a tidy, mechanistic process. It is an extremely untidy, often irrational, human process.” (Jeremy Elliott, JWT)
- Ongoing creative testing has a habit of dulling sharp ideas which can be developed in concise upfront testing
Look. We are in business to create great work. But. “We don’t want to be known as the people who create brilliantly crafted failures.” Great work builds client’s brands and sells client’s stuff. Great work makes consumers sit up and go “WOW.” Great work makes clients money through greater ‘full revenue’ volume and it makes us proud to say, “Yeah, we did that.” (both at the same time).
And with all that said … talking about testing creative ideas drives me crazy.
No. The consumer should never be neglected. But. Nor should they be empowered to tell us how to say something.
I believe in using research to inform decisions, not to make them.
We should use consumer research at the beginning of the whole advertising process to find out what to say, not how to say it. period. Stop.
Is that extreme? Yup.
Does that mean I don’t believe in quantitative research on creative? Nope. I just tend to believe valuable quantitative creative research is the exception. The majority of time creative testing dulls great sharp creative ideas. It smooths them out to be less extreme. And in today’s world being gray may make you feel better but it won’t generate the interest and results needed to break through a challenging fragmented world.
Now. I don’t want to confuse creative testing with positioning research.
Depending on the scope of the project strategic development research or positioning research done in innovative sometimes non-traditional thinking ways can uncover the best way to truly find out what the potential customer thinks.
A research plan of action should do something very simple very well. Talk to the inner brand and customers and consumers. The information received at this stage forms the objectives of the work, the key idea to be communicated, and to maybe set some guidelines on just the right brand personality. But you also have to mix what you learn from these conversations with what we know about the client’s marketing problems, and the dynamics of their business (that is a subjective component).
Using all this observation, all this hard and soft research, as well as our own personal experiences, we then should turn it into creative insightful thinking. We should be synthesizing some core truths about the brand into relevant consumer insights.
These research-guided truths become the foundation for our creative solutions.
Oh.
We can also use research to find out if we are saying what we intended to say.
You can call this “creative development research.” Yes, this is evaluative research but our purpose here is only to develop and nurture work, not to kill it. Not to “ask permission” of customers or clients to go with the work.
Although i do not in principle object to using research to inform our creative decisions in the end I struggle with some research because i do not believe in using research alone to judge the validity or effectiveness of the work.
Why? because we, not just me, know that the critical deconstruction that takes place within research just doesn’t happen with exposure in real life.
I guess I get frustrated sometimes because if we’re not careful the research will test the quality of stimulus rather than the quality of the ideas. It will test the quality of the presenter, or the quality of the drawings on the storyboards, or any number of irrelevant details. We always want to protect the ideas (big or not) and give them the best chance of survival, to keep the work from being” pecked to death by ducks.” Allow the ideas to keep the ‘sharp edges’ that make them interesting and stand out.
The simple fact is that bad research kills good ideas.
The more complex fact is that too much research can also kill good ideas.
Ok.
(said calmly) Here are some things to remember:
+ Storyboards don’t have the magic of finished commercials.
+ Commercials that have a familiar feel often “score” better than commercials that are unique, strange, odd or new.
+ Disagreement in groups can be a good thing, because great ideas are often polarizing.
+ Individual opinions will often differ radically from opinions offered by groups. And one group often says one thing and the next group, another.
+ We should not take what consumers say literally.
+ Remember, we use research to inform our decisions, not to make them.
+ We do not let the group become Copywriters and Art Directors.
+ Clinical research settings often produce different responses than research done out in the field, in the bars, the malls, on the street.
What would I do if pushed into a corner and said research had to happen with creative?
1. Use qualitative (I do lean toward online focus groups these days) to inform on wording and ideas and claims and stuff like that. No storyboards or creative concepts involved. Use this to gain nuggets of knowledge with which to use as the creative ideas are developed.
2. Use quantitative (if necessary at all) to isolate which executions are most effective in communicating awareness/likeability/intent to act/specific understanding (of some specific element). I lean toward some interest scan or MillwardBrown Link testing simply because it can inform you of some possible specific communication obstacles’ within an execution which if you are open to ‘fixing’ can improve an overall score. The most expensive way to do this is with finished executions (which some clients are open to) and the least expensive way is story board format (rips in the middle).
There you go. A lot of people will disagree with this. but an agency gets judged by the quality of their effective work. Yes. quality of work and effectiveness. Combined. Research tends to make the creative more mediocre. That is bad. Which then tends to soften possible sales/purchase spikes (you miss out on the higher highs). That is bad.
This is about physics (in a way). 
The sharper the idea the easier it cuts through clutter and the less money it takes to make the idea noticed. The duller the idea the more effort it takes to cut through the rest of the stuff out there (and into a consumer’s mind). I don’t know if that is a postulate but I do know i can prove this in my own kitchen with a dull knife.
Bottom line?
In today’s business environment it seem like we should be seeking less opportunities to play it safe and more opportunities to smartly stand out.
Let me say this another way.
Take more smart chances.
Go and do.
distinctive creative innovation messaging
Oct 8th
Well.
Intel continues to be the prime poster child for how to market and position a product that …. well … is dependent on another product to even have an existence.
Some people would call it branding.
Let’s just call it creating a positive meaningful imprint in people’s minds enough that people care whether they have it or not (despite the fact 99% of the non-nerd population has no clue what it actually does .. but has to have it).
The television stuff they have been doing lately is awesome.
All of it.
Let me begin with the one they call “generations.” Two guys over decades of time growing up together discussing technology innovations in a way only geeks could (but we get it). c’mon. Whoever wrote “they call it ‘E’ … lectronic mail” isn’t getting paid enough. It’s awesome. Here is the TV commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqMTWrlF-8
What makes this brilliant is that they want to tell you how Intel has been at the forefront of technology innovations over time … and the reality is most of us could give a rat’s ass about what you have done in the past only what you do in the future for us (but marketers get sucked into “we need to become more credible in people’ minds so let’s tell them all the good shit we have done in the past” … whatever …).
But you know what?
I cared after this commercial.
Because I laughed.
Because I stepped back a little in time through the eyes of Intel and I appreciated it.
Ok.
And then.
At the exact same time they are running a commercial that has nothing to do with the past but it’s all about young nerds working in the lab and the future.
And it is brilliant also.
Innovations are so inbred into culture they don’t even notice them (so the implication is that they just aren’t that big a deal to Intel …. They just happen because they are supposed to).
This is what they call “Intel media lab” or “hey Walter”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30dnLv5VclI&feature=channel
Awesome.
They just told us they were innovators unimpressed by their own innovations.
Good stuff.
Finally.
An ability to laugh at themselves (but people benefit from the joke).
The challenge (I am guessing simply because I know how business owners think and the crap they make agencies figure out how to solve):
“How do I tell everyone I am smarter than they are and have an incredible attention to detail and am different in a way that makes me think I won’t get screwed buying their product and they aren’t just pounding their chests on how brilliant they are?”
Well. Let’s maybe share a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FULHGwPkw&feature=channel
Awesome stuff again.
Even us non-geeks shake our heads and laugh and yet have a twinge of respect.
Ok.
About the only thing I dislike (and this is kind of nitpicky) is how they end all their ads with the infamous Intel sound mnemonic but instead they have people (I assume their employees) singing the little note signoff.
Yeah yeah yeah.
I get that they want everyone to know that Intel isn’t just a ‘chip’ but people.
Let’s call this the infamous “humanizing a technological innovation.”
Well. It’s kind of silly and unnecessary. The chip is king. I know. Its nitpicky. But it seems like one of those things that some client said and thought about and put their foot down and said “show people! … we aren’t just a bunch of robots making stuff up but we are a likeable group of people (albeit nerds).”
Sure.
So end the commercials with people making noises. That will do it.
Regardless.
A lot of business people and advertising people and marketers who take themselves too seriously oughta be checking out Intel. They get it.
And they are doing a whizbang job in my book.
original ideas
Aug 26th
Ok. The whole concept of “original” idea seems to bring out the worst in people.
And maybe because I get to teach and talk with high school kids on occasion (and, boy, do they have ideas … lots and lots and lots of ideas … all original) I get to talk about the “truth” about original ideas.
For example.
I get to say.
There are no original ideas.
Okay.
That was black & white.
Let’s say they are truly truly rare.
Look. I have been lucky (in the whole ‘seeing awesome ideas’ category).
I have seen some of the world’s best innovations groups.
I have seen some of the most successful entrepreneurial business people in the world present their ideas.
I have seen some of the most creative people in the world show ideas.
And?
I think I can count on one hand truly original ideas.
Okay.
Derivatives and nuances? Sure.
Original? One hand.
So.
Let’s break original ideas down into two aspects.
1. The thought. 2. The implementation.
The thought is a “what if” or “could this be” type scenario.
Forget it.
Here is the truth.
Someone somewhere has had the same thought.
Some people have figured out a way to share it.
And if those some people have figured out a way of articulating it well (or well enough that people understand it).
Oh.
By the way. All these are diminishing numbers.
Ok.
And then there are the ones who articulate it well enough to be understood and have an audience who (a) gives a shit and (b) wants to do something with it.
By this time you can be found somewhere dancing on the head of pin with the few others who fit there with you.
And.
“Wants to do something with it.”
Yup.
(b) is important because truly original ideas scare the crap out of most people.
“Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If it’s original, you will have to ram it down their throats.”
- Howard Aiken
Now that quote is dead on right.
Go ahead and visit most management teams and talk about scared.
Now you run into the infamous “what people say versus what people do.”
What do I mean?
People say: “show me ideas that scare me.” And then “if it scares us it must be a good idea.”
And then.
People do: <nothing>
They may say … “they (it’s never ‘me’ it is always ‘they’) were too scared to do it. They just didn’t see the risk return on it.”
Well.
I will make one point here and then move on …
ORIGINAL MEANS IT HASN’T BEEN SEEN OR DONE BEFORE SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!!
(yes. I shouted that AND used exclamation points)
Anyway.
Maybe because it is new (and therefore untried or unseen) people get nervous.
Anyway.
Original ideas are every rare.
Okay.
Moving on to the protecting the relatively rare original ideas.
(which is where I really started when thinking about writing this)
People spend lots (and lots and lots and … well … you get the point) of time worrying about protecting proprietary ideas and proprietary process and ‘original ideas.’
(even if they don’t have one they invest lots of energy discussing and worrying about them)
Okay. Look.
If I am a drug company, maybe a software company or technology company with some engineering widgetology or maybe P&G which has some skin lotion formulation that some whiz bang ingredient then, yeah, you get protective.
Oh. Just for humor at the end of this post I have included a “proposed confidentiality process” we sent to a maniacally protective prospective client (yes. We did send an actual one but they were fun people as well as maniacal and wanted to have a little laugh over their obsessive behavior with regard to confidentiality)
Anyway.
But.
For some reason it seem my last several jobs I have encountered company owners who were obsessed with ‘protecting our original ideas.’ I kept on trying to point out to them that unless you’re a new products innovation group (and we were marketing and strategy driven companies) the odds of you truly having an original idea is lower than USA winning the World Cup.
I sometimes believe people spend so much time thinking they have an original idea and investing so much energy trying to keep it a secret they forget the energy it takes to actually get it to happen.
In fact.
To be honest.
I believe I have been in several situations where we actually had a fairly original idea however in presenting the idea I probably went overboard trying to draw links to things people have done in non related industries. It’s a little crazy but original ideas have an easier time being implemented if it feels ‘fresh’ to the industry it is going to happen in but ‘used’ by someone else first.
So you end up making original ideas look ‘not so original’ so that they can be implemented.
Crazy.
In the end.
I would worry less about whether it is “original” or not. I would worry more about whether it was a good idea.
And idea that will work.
In fact … it is true (take this one to the bank) if you stop thinking ‘original’ and start looking for “similar to” it becomes easier to implement and easier to sell (or have someone implement).
Sound wacky? Yup. But it’s true.
Just face it.
Originality (as with many things in life) is a shade of grey.
Or maybe an aspect of something that already exists.
Just worry about his:
“Until you can create something that captivates people, I’d invite you to just shut up. It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.” Chuck Palahniuk
Worry less about original.
Worry more about the idea.
And worry more about making it actually happen versus protecting it.
So. That said.
Here are some thoughts if you want to protect your “original” ideas:
(yes. We really shared this with a client.)
< maniacal company>: Additional Confidentiality Steps
- Cyanide pills
The pills are embedded in team member teeth caps with a tracking chip set to identify and explode upon the presence of a <competitive company> employee.
(note: this is covered in our dental plan)
- Enigma coding machines
We have identified the two last working Enigma coding machines. We can place one in your offices and the other will remain in <the managing director’s> office (which is better than card protected room because his executive assistant is better than a pit bull protecting that office).
- Etch-a-Sketch communications
All communications will take place via etch-a-sketch. Twice a day all team members will shake their etch-a-sketch.
- Invisible Ink
All written communications will be conducted in invisible ink. (but still under lock and key guidelines).
- Fort Knox
Quick research has uncovered that the majority of the gold has been removed from Fort Knox and space is available. We may have to tweak the compensation agreement, but we would be willing to consider setting up a field office in the Fort Knox vault to service your business.
- Cosa Nostra
Through some relationships <our managing director> has we may be able to make some arrangements to completely eliminate the <competitive company’s> conflict once and for all (if you know what we mean). Once again, we may have to tweak the compensation arrangement to accommodate this service.
These are just some initial ideas which we would be willing to discuss in the interest of collaboration.
innovations, collaboration and discovery
Aug 12th
So. There was a fascinating article in a late 2009 Science Magazine (“innovation is more critical than ever”).
Oh.
No. I don’t make it a habit to read Science magazine. So don’t anyone worry I have completely lost it.
But.
I came across this article about maintaining innovations through collaboration and partnerships in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries (and having seen the P&G Innovations group in action I am always interested in innovations process and thinking).
I thought it was a nice article talking about collaboration in a highly intelligent employee based organization (I will get back to that).
Next.
There was a small article in the Economist 8/7 issue on innovation prizes.
Now. I am not a cash reward believer (tends to not create ongoing ideation as well as discourages emotional based behavior patterns) but in this case the Economist showcased a couple of thoughts that I believe are perfect with regard to the proper use of collaboration (and dollar reward mechanism).
The concept is outsourcing collaborative ideation opening up competition to non-industry knowledgeable individuals (I will get back to that).
Next (and lastly so I can get to the point of this post).
A book called “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.”
Now. I am not recommending this book. It is not for the faint of heart and it makes a Michener book read like People magazine. But. It does a nice job of addressing how innovations (lets call them biological, cultural & economic forces) can be aligned to enhance overall human progress.
Ok.
The bottom line is that innovations are the lifeblood of not only corporate success (or let’s say business/industry success) but also human success. Not just ‘comfort’ innovations but dwarf grain, penicillin, combustible engine type innovations.
Stuff that enhances true progress.
That is what innovation is all about.
Okay.
Let’s talk about innovation and collaboration (with the intent of discovery).
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … why did I add that last part?
Well. Collaboration when used improperly impedes discovery, it doesn’t enable discovery.
I have already written about this but I would suggest most companies today misuse collaboration to the extent that it wastes employee energy and resources and actually negatively affects morale (so basically they are killing their organizations thru an idea with the best intentions … yikes.).
Anyway.
Genentech.
Suffice it to say smart (if not frickin’ brilliant) employee base almost top to bottom.
Oh. And their top to bottom is pretty shallow in that they have a flat organization (makes sense … why do you need a huge hierarchy with brilliant people running around?).
Oops. Ok. And before any businesses owner starts looking at this and thinks “that’s it. Flatten the organization!” (gosh. When I typed that I thought of the old Thomas Dolby ‘she blinded me with science’ video … “Science!” … anyway) they need to understand Genentech is not, say, a Cisco or even a P&G. Those organizations thrive on multi levels (multiple levels of expertise and brain power working together … think of it as drones & stars).
Genentech does not and would not thrive in a hierarchal structure (they don’t have many drones). Plus. The majority are entrepreneurial ideators themselves as thinkers.
So. What does a brilliant employee base organization do to collaborate and come up with innovations? Well. They don’t put a group of these Einstein like people in a small padded brain storming room and have them play ideation games.
They go outside the organization and collaborate with partners or maybe even access collaboration opportunities through mergers or acquisitions.
In my words … they seek to not put two magnets side by side but rather take a magnet and start throwing some different outside objects at it to see what sticks.
To make another point. While the word “collaboration” is being used, at its core, ideas is an “individual” thing (meaning individuals tend to come up with innovative ideas all by their lonesome) and biotech companies empower individuals to ideate (simply create as much stimulus as possible through collaborative efforts so that the individual can ideate).
Oh.
And while I am not describing a creative (or advertising agency) the realities in these environments is exactly the same. Empower individuals to ideate. Multiple minds soften the sharp edges of an innovation.
Okay.
Moving on.
The innovation “prize” idea.
Let me start with the end on this idea as described by The Economist. The 7 winners of this $1mlllion prize (to be awarded to someone who designed an algorithm system to enhance online recommendations based on prior purchases) never met physically until they picked up the prize. They had collaborated online.
Let me repeat. They never met until they showed up to receive the prize.
So. Once again the collaboration was outside the “using” (or manufacturing/implementing) organization as well as it was a specific “here is the challenge” situation.
A one-off if I may use that term.
Now. I want to be careful here (as the Economist also cautioned). Innovations scenarios to me that work here are specific product enhancement innovations. Policy or “soft” innovations (if I may use that term) would seem to be a less attractive intent for this prize/reward system. This collaboration/prize concept is perfect for “solving oil spills” or “a car that gets 100mpg” or a “reusable space ship” or things that may seem slightly impossible and attract innovative thinkers outside the industry “box” who may approach the widget issue from a completely different point of view.
Lastly.
I threw in the book because it makes the point that innovations propel progress. Without innovations we (the people) kind of just chug along. Progressing but ambling down the progress road. Innovations (like some I have mentioned above) propel us forward. Like think leaps instead of steps. It would behoove us to have someone smarter than I and someone in a power position to be thinking about solving some of our progress issues (stumbling blocks) in this way.
Okay.
Hey. I know ongoing innovation is difficult. Mainly because great organizations exist on two levels. Continuity and discontinuity (and I believe people do also).
But only one is constant. Continuity. You need ongoing efficient coordinated alignment to bring all resources to bear in competitive environments. And yet you need steady (but interspersed) infusion of innovation (or discontinuity) to be successful.
One keeps you on the road. One keeps you from being stagnant.
Simply think OFF = ON. What do I mean?
When something previously deemed ‘emerging’ starts to invade the mainstream, or even better, is actually mimicked by it, new innovation opportunities abound. Case in point: the near-total triumph of the online revolution, which has the offline world more often than not playing second fiddle in everything from commerce to entertainment to politics.
So.
The idea of outsourcing collaboration is brilliant. Especially for one off specific challenges. And prizes insure innovative thinking toward solutions. And forward thinking innovative solutions propel progress.
(everyone should like that short paragraph)
One last point on innovations and collaboration (and why this outsourcing idea is a big idea).
Typically the most effective ideation focuses on the needs of “Lead End User” to Drive the innovation system at all phases of ideation. This principle is based on more than just the tired “the consumer is king” mantra. It is a ruthless pursuit of Lead End Users, the consumers or customers who have legitimate change-agent DNA working in every aspect of their lives. These change agents can truly help you morph and accelerate new ideas by maximizing lead end user input through early exposure to end benefit (or prototype) visual stimulus. This seeing-is-selling visual stimulus is empowering to change agents, who often solve their unmet needs by developing their own product or service solutions.
The problem? (two of them)
1. internal organization collaboration will kill Lead End User ideas. Kill them so dead they will never come back.The ideas seem so impossible that within a group of collaborators there will be enough “unimaginative” people to clearly define it as a waste of time (as impossible). Collaboration kills here.
2. The process discussed above is often challenging and even scary to a company, because lead end users rarely reflect the current masses’ desires. After all, lead end users are early adopters and reflect trendspotter characteristics. And, as with any trendspotter, the ideas uncovered can be unattractive at first glance because the market doesn’t yet exist. But that is the first step towards uncovering the big win new product innovation.
So. In the end real progress is maintained by innovative innovations (not all innovations are truly “spur on progress” innovative ideas.).
I do like the privatization of ideation (on some things). I caveat because (and it may sound like I am backpedaling) because I believe companies should be thoughtful and selective on any collaboration efforts. And then even more selective of what is solved in house versus the outhouse (ok, externally).
If managed correctly there are many ideas that can be generated internally within an organization. (Although not with a prize reward mechanism).
But.
Everyone should remember that great innovation progress is driven by (1) individuals with ideas and (2) reliance of outside resources to envision the impossible as possible.
Oh. And companies are not built for anything I have described in the immediate above as well as the process I described (or at least if they are they are the exception to the rule).
Why? Not only is it scary but the approach to capital budgeting and resource allocation at traditional companies is completely counter to nurturing and facilitating new ideas. Multiple levels of in-grown management seek to protect the existing business model and ‘stay the course.’ In addition, new ideas are often forced to be synergistic to the current business. Radical new ideas face a bureaucratic march of death up multiple organizational levels where a “no” at any point can kill the idea. The key financial goal of this death march is to minimize the number of projects falling below a minimally acceptable rate of return.
In contrast, a typical VC incubator system is focused on insuring the big winner. Resources are attracted to (not allocated against) the best ideas without any regard to protecting the status quo or forcing synergy.
Now that sounds a lot like what I have been writing about.
Outside collaboration.
Rewards to winning best ideas.
Set the specific challenges to have the “collaborative contests” over.
Start thinking this way and, by golly by gee, we are gonna have some progress my friends.
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 2 the so-called proprietary process
Jul 25th
A noted in part 1 I believe the core of any advertising agency differentiation is “it’s about the work.”
But.
Often the agency that is not instantly ‘knowable’ by its work immediately drops down into “our proprietary process” mode (which suggests .. “We can do as good a shit as those Crispin/JWT
/GSDM/whomever folk because we have a nifty whizbang process).
Why does everybody go to process? Easy.
As it is ‘all about the work’ here is how it goes:
Is the work smart, insightful, educational, entertaining and effective? No (drop out. Process won’t save you. You don’t belong here in the discussion) Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you do it consistently? No (you are in trouble. Particularly if you say something like ‘we can but our clients don’t let us.’). Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you have some formula that guarantees that consistent work? No. we don’t have a process. Its sheer luck of the draw. (okay. Here is why you need a process).
The typical answer here ? ‘Well, yes and no. we don’t have a formula but we do have a consistent process we like to work within that increases the likelihood of success. But, no, there are no guarantees. But our process is pretty good. And we are pretty good. And you are gonna fire our ass if we aren’t successful so we are highly motivated to get it right.”
Ok. But if you are consistent why won’t you guarantee it?
(without getting into compensation discussions)
‘Well, a process is simply a means to an end. It helps uncover true insights and ideas but it only informs us to develop the creative thinking it doesn’t develop the actual creative ideas. “(although it can on occasion but you never tell anyone that).
So. That is your argument for having a non proprietary solid process. But hanging your hat on your process to differentiate is nuts. It’s your work.
But.
Day in and day out scan advertising agency websites and sit through dozens of credentials presentations and if you have enough coffee to stay awake (which is actually not that tough because most are pretty entertaining and everyone likes to look at ‘the work’ …. Oh … the work?!? … ok … moving on) you will have to endure everyone talking about their process. Their proprietary magic cube that generates the work.
Here is what you want to show. Okay. And I want to be clear. In this simple process chart there are boundaries but freedom. The lack of detail doesn’t mean that there is not discipline but the freedom is in the simplicity:
A simple “you & I discuss, we take information, we start thinking, we make sure time & costs meet you expectations, we do whatever voodoo we do on that particular assignment that generates work, we show you work.”
But. Simplicity seems too chaotic. So we decide to show detail:
And then we invest ¾ of a meeting talking about process in the presentation because we either:
(a) feel like we have to discuss each detail point or (b) the audience is so confused they have to ask a zillion questions to figure out what the hell you are showing.
But.
This is the truth. This is really the process chart that reflects a simple truth:
But telling the truth is not good. Because no one wants to trust chaos.
Unfortunately advertising agencies are part chaos (because that is the characteristic of creative thinking) but we pony up a proprietary process to prove consistency and logic and a sense of comfort. Regardless (and this is where I repeat myself) it all ends up with the work. Process is a means to an end.
Here is the real issue. (I think I am going to say something smart here so pay attention)
People confuse process and disciplined thinking.
You look at that last chart (which IS truly what happens in a creative process) and you think chaos. Well. Not really. Let’s call it organized chaos. Or maybe even better said “disciplined chaos.”
First.
I dare you to talk with any creative thinker. Any creative thinker. It need not be an adverting agency person. It could be a scientist seeking a cure for cancer. A NASA engineer seeking a way to build a space ship to leave our galaxy. A product development person seeking an innovative product to meet an unmet need.
Discovery is messy.
Doesn’t mean they aren’t disciplined and have a “way” to attack it.
It is not a process. Or a strict methodology. Because in the end discovery is often about the unexpected or the unintended.
So. What do I mean?
You can attain an awesome unintended result despite a focused articulate smart objective/strategy “aim.”
So if the result doesn’t match the initial objective do you throw the result away?
Gosh.
That means penicillin never happened.
Email never happened (the military discovered it).
That means the atom is ignored.
That means America was never discovered.
People don’t like to hear it but it is exactly the same in advertising and communications.
Discovery is messy.
(sorry about that)
And having a proprietary process may sound good and make you feel good what matters is if your messy discovery creates good ‘output.’
I guess what I am saying is if you are an ad agency and you are investing a lot of emotional and intellectual energy into outlining and developing a whizbang process than I would suggest you are wasting good energy.
But.
With that said.
Say you have your process and you want to differentiate yourself.
Well.
Get to ‘the work.’
Anyway.
Here is my last thought.
Controlling your destiny and differentiation (or being distinct).
You have a whizbang process that looks an awful like everyone else’s but has a nifty name but you have a limited work portfolio. And you want more clients. Bigger clients. But the new potential clients don’t feel comfortable because you just don’t have the ‘work proof’ to get you over the hump.
If I were an agency owner or business development director and I had a budget I would build a soup to nuts beta case study. High risk. High return.
Pick a company any company. Doesn’t matter (although I would imagine if they are really high on your wish list you may as well put ‘em in there). Run them through your process. Get the insight or idea or whatever your process is supposed to generate. Do the work (yes. That is clearly speculative work.) Test it. Show that it “works.” Go back and rework it of it doesn’t work. Get something that works.
There is your proof.
In fact, your process worked so frickin’ well you didn’t even have to have the client there. And when you talk to a client? “Imagine how much better the work would be if a client were involved to provide us with the ‘x’ factor.”
Bundle enough of these and you have test proofed your process, proven you can do the work. Show work that works.
Do large agencies have to do this? Nope. When I was at J Walter Thompson I had so much shit in my bag I could pull out there weren’t enough minutes in a meeting to be able to show examples.
Do agencies who want to get out of group three have to do things like this? Yup.
That is the price of getting out of group three (if you want to get out … because you can make a fine living in group three if you are comfortable there).
There you go.
My rant on advertising agency differentiation parts one and two.
Interestingly I would imagine that while I focused on the advertising industry this applies to many industries where there are massive amounts of commodity like service providers dwelling in some nondescript morass of non differentiated excellence.
So maybe this can apply to you as well.
Hopefully my rants benefit someone other than just my own conscience.
If not? My conscience is at peace.
