The greatest impediment to creativity was, is and always will be: fear.

Why are client’s so difficult?

Those of us in the creative department have asked the question so many times it has become rote. Clients are difficult. Period. Especially when it comes to buying and approving work. We expect them to demand changes to the concepts, to the script, to the voiceover, to the scene, to the CTA, to the size of the logo and so on.

We have become uncomfortably numb. We expect our work to be criticized. So much so the creation process has “revisions and changes” baked right into it. Furthermore, we are told –indeed, I’ve said it myself- if we were in our client’s shoes we’d do the same thing.

But you know what? That’s bullshit. I am far from perfect but I am usually an accepting and grateful client. When I hire someone to do a creative job –be it a director or an architect or whomever- I never give him or her the kind of scrutiny that is typically given to me or my team. At home a contractor shows me some designs I tell him which one I like, we discuss time and money, and I pay the man. This even when things are late and over budget, which they invariably are. Once in a while I have a question or an honest mistake has been made. We address it. Done. On to the next. Even though it’s my money I am seldom a dick.

Chances are you’re the same way.

So, why are advertising clients so difficult? Why all the concerns, tweaks and rejections? I think the answer is fear based. CMO’s and their get are terrified (sometimes understandably) of losing their jobs. Often their counterparts at the agency feel the same way. Every tree we plant must bear fruit. Or else! With all that pressure it makes me wonder how they (or we) even get up in the morning.

Yet the resulting behavior –hacking at the tree- absolutely guarantees the tree will be barren. Or its yield will be paltry. In the end death by a thousand cuts is no different than doing nothing at all. Either way, the very thing one fears happening… happens. The team is blown up. Another CMO is brought in and in turn another agency. The process begins all over again.

Creating campaigns is thrilling. Yet, their potential is and always will be unknown. Hence the thrill. No one can be sure how an audience will react to an idea until the thing is out there. What makes a client nervous might very well be be what makes the idea truly great. We all know the story behind the world’s greatest advertisement, Apple’s “1984.” When it was screened to dealers everyone except its creators and Steve Jobs hated it. The agency, Chiat Day was asked to fire-sell the media, which happened to be two slots on the Super Bowl. One insertion was not sold. The spot ran. And the rest is history. Granted the follow-up commercial, “Lemmings” was an abject failure. Still, was Apple really hurt by it? No. Being reckless and cavalier has never hurt the brand. Frankly, Apple could stand to be more brave. Again.

Instead of ‘why are we so afraid?’ Let’s ask ‘what’s the worst that could happen?’ If it doesn’t work as planned we try something else.

Were it that simple, right?

Are personalized messages to consumers less authentic when they’re also used to promote the brand?

“We care. We really do.”

Mcdonald’s and Bud Light are both introducing ad campaigns that draw attention to messages on top of their branding icons. With Bud light the messages pertain to their boisterous “Up for Whatever” campaign with so-called “invitations” to go for it when it comes to having a good time. On a more personal level, McDonald’s is using the real estate on their myriad Golden Arches to welcome home soldiers or congratulate a local high school’s football team.

I have no qualm with doing this, as a matter of fact, I kind of like the idea – even if it’s nothing new putting cute and clever notes on packaging or storefronts. Starbucks has done it. Heinz Catsup has done it. Wheaties pioneered the scheme by putting lesser-known athletes on their iconic cereal boxes. All these efforts are attempts to customize the brand experience with consumers. Like I said. No qualms. In the age of social media personalizing brands only makes sense.

My beef is when brands advertise that they’re doing it. It seems to me that drawing attention to such personal messages ruins the surprise. They are Easter eggs not copy points. Pointing them out in national TV commercials totally takes the personalization out of it, in my opinion, ruining the surprise and diffusing the charm.

Moreover, it strikes me as grandiose, maybe even crass behavior. There is an old spiritual axiom that suggests good deeds are truly sincere when they are done without taking credit. And while I’m not suggesting advertising has or should have a spiritual side, I am saying that these sorts of messages are far more effective –sincere if you will- when they are discovered by the consumer. Not pointed out.

Furthermore, there’s no need for it. Chinese restaurants don’t advertise fortune cookies they just bring them out after the meal is served. People love getting them. When Bud Light spends a shit ton of money marketing silly messages on their bottles it suggests to me that the brand has nothing better to talk about; which, in their case is probably true.

“You will get drunk and stupid then throw up in a cab.”

The McDonald’s case is less egregious in that the Golden Arches have always been used to brag about “Billions served.” The personal notes are welcome respite from grandstanding. The commercial is sweet. Still, the Hallmark-like TVC is trying too hard for our heartstrings. The loving notes jive with their “lovin’ it” campaign but when broadcast as reasons to believe in said love it diminishes the gesture.

Wouldn’t it be a lot cooler and more effective if these messages were seen in “real time” and not promoted in prime time?

The ultimate irony: Why is the fear of actual creativity so rampant in Adland?

Why are client’s so difficult?

Those of us in the creative department have asked the question so many times it has become rote. Clients are difficult. Period. Especially when it comes to buying and approving work. We expect them to demand changes to the concepts, to the script, to the voiceover, to the scene, to the CTA, to the size of the logo and so on.

We have become uncomfortably numb. We expect our work to be criticized. So much so the creation process has “revisions and changes” baked right into it. Furthermore, we are told –indeed, I’ve said it myself- if we were in our client’s shoes we’d do the same thing. To use the ultimate cliché “it is what it is.”

But you know what? That’s bullshit. I am far from perfect but I am usually an accepting and grateful client. When I hire someone to do a creative job –be it a director or an architect or whomever- I never give him or her the kind of scrutiny that is typically given to me and/or my team. At home an interior designer shows me some designs I tell him which one I like, we discuss time and money, and I pay the man. This even when things are late and over budget, which they invariably are. Once in a while I have a question or an honest mistake has been made. We address it. Done. On to the next. Even though it’s my money I am seldom a dick.

Chances are you’re the same way.

So, why are advertising clients so difficult? Why all the concerns, tweaks and rejections? I think the answer is fear based. CMO’s and their get are terrified (sometimes understandably) of losing their jobs. Often their counterparts at the agency feel the same way. Every tree we plant better bear fruit. Or else! With all that pressure (much of it self-imposed) it makes me wonder how they (or we) even get up in the morning.

Yet the resulting behavior –hacking at the tree- absolutely guarantees the tree will be barren. Or its yield will be paltry. In the end death by a thousand cuts is no different than doing nothing at all. Either way, the very thing one fears happening… happens. The team is blown up. Another CMO is brought in and in turn another agency. The process begins all over again.

Creating campaigns is thrilling. Yet, their potential is and always will be unknown. Hence the thrill. No one can be sure how an audience will react to a thing until the thing is out there. What makes a client nervous might be what makes the thing truly great. We all know the story behind the world’s greatest advertisement, Apple’s “1984.” When it was screened to dealers everyone except its creators and Steve Jobs hated it. The agency, Chiat Day was asked to fire-sell the media, which happened to be two slots on the Super Bowl. One insertion was not sold. The spot ran. And the rest is history. Granted the follow-up commercial, “Lemmings” was an abject failure. Still, was Apple really hurt by it? No. Being reckless and cavalier has never hurt the brand. Frankly, Apple could stand to be more brave. Again.

So put it out there. Instead of ‘why are we so afraid?’ let’s ask ‘what’s the worst that could happen?’ If it doesn’t work as planned we try something else.

Were it that simple, right?

Creativity and bad behavior: Two of my favorite subjects!

Genius/Douchebag

Apple’s founder, Steve Jobs died three year ago in October. And so I found myself re-reading passages from the best-selling biography, by Walter Isaacson. Among the book’s many surprises, none are as jolting (to me) as the endless examples depicting Steve Jobs as an egomaniacal tyrant. Since so much has already been said regarding these controversial passages, I won’t go into them here. Among other things, he publicly berated his staff, stole ideas, took credit inappropriately and was unpardonably cruel to his family.

This by no means diminishes Job’s enormous contribution to Apple and, indeed, the world. Case in point, I’m writing this on one of his inventions. I use his stuff every day, constantly. So do most of you. For all its recent bugaboos, Apple is still, basically, the most impressive brand in the world. And Steve Jobs had a shit ton to do with it.

Should that excuse him for having been an “assoholic” as one of his peers called him?

In a rare bit of self-awareness, Jobs admitted to being overly rough on his people but he remained unapologetic. He claimed the Mac would never have been created if not for his intolerance and meanness. Many people, including some he was ruthless to, concurred. In the end, according to Isaacson, they didn’t mind getting fucked over by a visionary.

Makes me think. In my personal life I’ve been frequently challenged in matters of social discourse. I’m uncomfortable making small talk and listening to it as well. I’ve been an ass. Perhaps my record at work isn’t quite as spotty but it’s hardly immaculate either. I can be… difficult.

I’m not a creative visionary like Steve Jobs was but, on the other hand, I am always trying to improve my behavior. What struck me about Steve Jobs is that he never bothered. When a brave insider called him on his bad behavior Jobs berated the man: “You don’t know what it’s like being me!”

Well, now we do.

Jobs’ claimed he was perpetually hard on Apple employees because otherwise the company would have softened, invariably inviting “B” players and eventually “C” players; which, of course, was unacceptable (to him).

Was also an asshole…

Few of us are “special” like Steve Jobs but then we are not as cruel and unfair as he was either. Does that make us “B” players? Can an “A” player be a nice person?

Precious few creative geniuses grace Adland. Yet, I’m privileged to have known several of these men and women and can say, with a fair degree of certainty, that they were not assholes.

Author’s note: Upon first reading Jobs’ biography I wrote a draft of above story. The is my second look at the topic.

Has social media finally forced big advertisers to prioritize human relevance and building brands… again?

P&G will spend a hundred million dollars for you to push that button…

In the paper version of USA Today, writer Bruce Horowitz gives megabrand, P&G the “early gold medal for social media,” in regard to commercial domination at the winter Olympics in Sochi. Using You Tube views and number of videos made as criteria, so far the Cincinnati based company has garnered just over 27 million views and has “pushed” out 39 videos. Visa and Samsung are tracking a second and third respectively.

Horowitz adds “While each sponsor spends close to $100 million…just to flaunt the Olympic rings, and millions more on TV commercials; it is ultimately the social-media engagement that each sponsor tracks and relishes.” Wrapping up Horowitz’s article, Kevin Burke, the chief marketing officer at Visa is quoted: “Success is measured on how people engage with your content.”

Once again: eyeballs and videos!

Wow. That’s a lot of heavy breathing and big dollars spent chasing after views, likes and followers. Nowhere in Horowitz’s piece does he even mention the impact on these elite sponsors’ businesses. Instead he provides a tip sheet on how to win the sponsorship game, offering advice such as “post early…tell a story…push the tale…and go long (form video).”

Cynicism aside (it’s a tired take anyway), let’s look at the bright side, especially as it pertains to those of us in Adland. Thanks to the overwhelming influence of social media, blue chip advertisers are now salivating and paying out the nose to be merely well liked. Now being humanly relevant and, once again, building brands is considered critical to measuring success.

And that, my friends, is manna from Heaven to the creative department. Wasn’t so long ago ROI was all clients talked about. Generate demand and deliver. Skews, sales and redemptions. Those were the drums that got beaten… over our heads and to a pulp. Trying to do good work on an intuitive level was like jumping through ever-shrinking hoops. Left-brain analytics were killing us.

When was the last time you heard (or said) “ROI” in a conversation about creative? It’s seemingly not about that anymore.

I’m not a fool. Of course it’s still about that.

Yet, it would appear there has been a paradigm shift. So-Me has done what a thousand pleading creative directors could not: convinced advertisers that being well liked is important!