Being direct... AdVantage Oct 2004
Should he who pays the Piper, always call the tune?
Who should be in the driving seat right now? The client; the consumer; new technology; or the great award-winning idea?
Following on from last month, and bearing in mind that this issue features the 2004 Loerie Awards, I thought that we could focus on creativity as well as the perception amongst some that there is a straight-line relationship between ad-exposure, persuasion, and commercial benefit.
So, as I normally do when faced with such a challenge, I start by doing a little desk research. The definition of creativity, according to RJ Sternberg's paper 'The Nature of Creativity' (1988) is '…the application of past experience or ideas in novel ways…' - NEW IDEAS!
Then, according to Group Chairman and Creative Director of London-based ad-agency Hall & Partners, Mike Hall: 'the purpose of all marketing and advertising activity is to build brand relationships'. He goes on: 'since the currency of advertising is ideas, those in the ad-world make their contribution by developing ideas that affect the fortunes of brands'.
So, creativity per se, and advertising as example thereof, should both have 'novel' ideas at their core. The interesting thing about any idea however, is that it can be considered either a 'good' idea or a 'bad' idea, depending on who's making the observation.
Whether or not an ad makes a (good or bad) impression in the marketplace for which it is intended is of far greater importance in assessing its potential commercial success - than is whether or not it may be considered 'creative' by other 'idea'-peers. But, of course, both 'idea-recognition' and 'economic success' have an important role to play in the real world, and the acknowledgement of peers is next only to the adoration of fans. Finding any direct relationship between winning awards and measurable commercial success has always been the big problem.
My wife made a very interesting observation the other evening while we were sitting consuming our usual evening dollop of DStv. I had previously mentioned that the public service announcements created in the name of the Vuka! Awards initiative, really spawned some very good work indeed. Creative newcomers and the professionals who mentor them create PSA campaigns 'pro bono', and enter these Awards. The Vuka! winners are then designated Public Service Announcements and flighted 'free' by DStv as a service to the causes they serve.
In all innocence, my wife says: 'why are so many of these ads actually so good?' My knee-jerk was to answer back: '…because they all won awards, silly!' But, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that these ads were not only just creative or award-winning ideas, they were most likely also unsullied by the prejudices, opinions and influences - of any client. When you get something 'for free' it is highly unlikely that you start to tell the unpaid heroes creating it, to change the pack shot, or tweak the copy!
I just wonder how many great advertising ideas actually get 'sanitised' by the process of obtaining client 'approval' for their flighting? Is it not quite strange that the people who have the greatest influence of all on what finally appears in the media (merely by virtue of the fact that they pay), are not those responsible for creating or executing such communication ideas! What's more, these are the same clients who change agencies when these campaigns are deemed not to have worked! Weird!!
There is another factor relating to the client's direct influence on the execution of great marketing communication ideas. Peter Wells, in his 2002 paper with Tim Hollins 'Time to Let Go' notes the following: '…the aspect of marketing over which we have least control is communications, yet this is also the area that we want to have control, because of the cost. Advertising is the classic example of this, and there is still a great belief in the importance of persuasion - something Andrew Ehrenberg describes as 'a romantic ideal'.
'It's our money…so let's assert our control and fiddle with the idea - to make sure that there is no 'risk' to the brand!' In the mistaken belief that consumers will be better persuaded by minor nuances in the copy or size of the pack-shot, for example - many a great idea can be ruined by viewing the advertisement creation process a little too literally.
I believe that it is this notion of being in control of a linear 'cause and effect' process of persuasion, that is holding back South Africa's broader adoption of some of the available newer media by some agencies and clients. Nobody likes to give up his or her control. But, the interesting thing about ALL communication channels is: in order for everyone to gain greatest benefit from them, one party has to give up complete control and indeed TRUST the other party in the brand relationship - with at least some of it!
We live in very interesting times indeed…