I’m working on an interesting project that is trying to answer the following question: “What are the ideal conditions for breakthrough creative to happen?”
I would take your play idea a click higher, Rob. I think we need to literally play more and I mean as in a bunch of 10 year olds. Its like in The Polar Express. We grow up, we dont hear the bells anymore. I've been kicking around the idea of launching a creative summer camp that's purposely designed to reignite our imaginations. Good post.
Agree entirely and know you'll crack the code, so to speak. You referenced "best practices" and I've come to believe that they are the culmination of the shit everyone else is doing. It's hard to separate yourself when you're following what everyone else is doing.
Distinctiveness still rules. Standing out is a simple concept, but it has given way to complexity and sameness.
This is possibly a fine point arguing semantics, but anyway . . . I've long objected to the word "play" when referring to trying out new ideas, and thinking about direction. I think it diminishes what we do. And honestly, it's not play, it is better referred to as "trying some shit". I prefer the word "ponder" or "explore", as it sounds more serious.
I also object when a client tells me to "make it pretty" or "work your magic". Yeah, 'cos I have a degree in both "pretty" and "magic". But, I digress on that.
Indeed. “Play with it” gets a lot of pushback and eye rolls when CDs use that phrase. I see “play” as “experiment.” Even “prototype.” It may sound insulting, but it certainly is not intended that way at all.
Oh, of course, I understand that you (and really, people that say it) do not intend it to be insulting. For me, it just always strikes me as diminishing. If someone says "play with it" to me, I always respond "I will explore directions, and create something that may work with our parameters". No one tells an accountant to "play" with your taxes...or a dentist to "play with it".
A perfect article for our times. The ditch is a manifestation of extreme fealty to cost effectiveness over the value ( a longer term measure) of experimentation. We have long known we learn more from our experiments/failures.
I think so much of the current lack of creative greatness in advertising... is driven by fear. simple as that.
the ad business where those great lasting ideas emerged, had a future everyone believed in - you could come up with "Hello Tomorrow" and the next day confidently buy a house.
but now, nobody knows if there's going to be a tomorrow to say hello to. now everyone around the creatives, who might or might not still have the belief and training that doing great work requires taking a risk, don't believe in risk because it's not risking one thing, it's risking everything. not just their own job, which of course is first priority, but everyone's job. strike out big one time these days, and entire agencies go under, entire teams are laid off.
I see it all the time. nobody's gonna get fired for grinding out a few base hits - they do what they have to do to keep the status quo. if the product doesn't land or the algorithm doesn't serve or the economy hits a little turbulence, if the creative isn't inspiring... nobody's fault. a big risk creates a big target. until we fix tomorrow, we're not gonna get past that.
there are signs of life. specifically, the shift from subscription-only to ad-supported streaming (aka Basic Cable 2.0) means the TV spot is suddenly in high demand, and it can't all be cleverly explained lists of pharmaceutical side effects.
but we also saw over the past 10 years, the gutting of the creative leadership layer, who were largely forced out of the big agencies due to economics and moved on to client side work, consulting or retirement. if a next generation is to emerge, we need to bring back the great creative leaders and empower them to lead teams to do great work.
Where does serendipity happen? You need to build an environment (and I don’t mean structurally) that honors freedom of thought and expression and one where creativity can flourish. You can’t be afraid to think differently.
I would take your play idea a click higher, Rob. I think we need to literally play more and I mean as in a bunch of 10 year olds. Its like in The Polar Express. We grow up, we dont hear the bells anymore. I've been kicking around the idea of launching a creative summer camp that's purposely designed to reignite our imaginations. Good post.
Thanks, brotha. Cool camp idea.
Agree entirely and know you'll crack the code, so to speak. You referenced "best practices" and I've come to believe that they are the culmination of the shit everyone else is doing. It's hard to separate yourself when you're following what everyone else is doing.
Distinctiveness still rules. Standing out is a simple concept, but it has given way to complexity and sameness.
New is hard. :) I appreciate your thoughts.
This is possibly a fine point arguing semantics, but anyway . . . I've long objected to the word "play" when referring to trying out new ideas, and thinking about direction. I think it diminishes what we do. And honestly, it's not play, it is better referred to as "trying some shit". I prefer the word "ponder" or "explore", as it sounds more serious.
I also object when a client tells me to "make it pretty" or "work your magic". Yeah, 'cos I have a degree in both "pretty" and "magic". But, I digress on that.
Indeed. “Play with it” gets a lot of pushback and eye rolls when CDs use that phrase. I see “play” as “experiment.” Even “prototype.” It may sound insulting, but it certainly is not intended that way at all.
Oh, of course, I understand that you (and really, people that say it) do not intend it to be insulting. For me, it just always strikes me as diminishing. If someone says "play with it" to me, I always respond "I will explore directions, and create something that may work with our parameters". No one tells an accountant to "play" with your taxes...or a dentist to "play with it".
Noted.
Totally agree with you we’re in a rut, Rob.
You know what I do? I try to constantly spin ideas that come in second because they scare the fuck out of clients.
I know that sounds odd but it’s true.
I pride myself on staying within brief but doing stuff that makes me nervous and I’m lucky enough to continue to get paid to do it.
I welcome being beaten by safe shit but try never to be attached to it or to dumb down my thinking to beat or compete with bland.
If bland wins, I accept that as long as it’s not mine.
That may not be super productive, but it keeps me engaged, laughing, and enjoying creation.
Swing for the scary, or emotionally powerful stuff and fuck it if it comes in second.
It beats the shit out doing shit.
I’d rather come in second with better stuff.
Not just outlandish, mind you.
I do things I wish cli
I like that. Sometimes second comes in first.
A perfect article for our times. The ditch is a manifestation of extreme fealty to cost effectiveness over the value ( a longer term measure) of experimentation. We have long known we learn more from our experiments/failures.
I think so much of the current lack of creative greatness in advertising... is driven by fear. simple as that.
the ad business where those great lasting ideas emerged, had a future everyone believed in - you could come up with "Hello Tomorrow" and the next day confidently buy a house.
but now, nobody knows if there's going to be a tomorrow to say hello to. now everyone around the creatives, who might or might not still have the belief and training that doing great work requires taking a risk, don't believe in risk because it's not risking one thing, it's risking everything. not just their own job, which of course is first priority, but everyone's job. strike out big one time these days, and entire agencies go under, entire teams are laid off.
I see it all the time. nobody's gonna get fired for grinding out a few base hits - they do what they have to do to keep the status quo. if the product doesn't land or the algorithm doesn't serve or the economy hits a little turbulence, if the creative isn't inspiring... nobody's fault. a big risk creates a big target. until we fix tomorrow, we're not gonna get past that.
there are signs of life. specifically, the shift from subscription-only to ad-supported streaming (aka Basic Cable 2.0) means the TV spot is suddenly in high demand, and it can't all be cleverly explained lists of pharmaceutical side effects.
but we also saw over the past 10 years, the gutting of the creative leadership layer, who were largely forced out of the big agencies due to economics and moved on to client side work, consulting or retirement. if a next generation is to emerge, we need to bring back the great creative leaders and empower them to lead teams to do great work.
help us Obi-Rob... you're our only hope!
Ha…Thoughtful. Thanks got this, brotha.
for
Where does serendipity happen? You need to build an environment (and I don’t mean structurally) that honors freedom of thought and expression and one where creativity can flourish. You can’t be afraid to think differently.