Change the world?

The 'advertising' world perhaps? The old theories and the agency flab definitely. Get doing it absofriggingloutley! This is well worth watching if you can make the time. It has a nice mix of hatred for 'BDAs' (George Parker of Adscam), idealistic thinking about marketers being the saviour of the world (Steve Stainaker of Hub Culture), a perspective from an agency that really does do things differently (Johnny Vulkan of Anomaly) and a touch of 'cut through the crap' realism (Russell Davies of OIA).



First of all I don't believe that marketers could or should be contemplating changing the world. By all means go and work for a charity or a pressure group. Use your skills for something different with a higher purpose, but don't forget what clients pay us for if you work in an agency. I do believe every business should be socially responsible, but unless it's relevant and a central part of the brand, then we shouldn't be doing it just because it's fashionable, or because it allows us to feel better at dinner parties. I'd hate to see every agency and brand from soap to cars being cause related and purpose driven. As Russell says: 'leave changing the world up to revolutionaries and governments'.

Unless it's authentic, which is easier said than done, just concentrate on doing things better. I've said it before, it's not about 'BDAs' vs digital agencies it is just about tearing up the rule book and doing the right things, not just 'differently'. And despite the often gloomy outlook there are a lot of cracking agencies and people doing just that.

The second point from this is about cutting out the rubbish and deconstructing what it is we actually do. There isn't a Holy Grail that will make our lives simpler as much as we would like one. It will vary from agency to agency and discipline to discipline. We shouldn't be so hell bent on pigeon holing the industry. Terms such as advertising, marketing and brands have become meaningless. They are just used to generalise what we do so we don't really have to explain it, or god forbid go into more detail and risk being exposed as money grabbing charlatans. If you want to read a great book on how strange concepts and beliefs supplant rational thinking over time, then this is a great place to start.

I personally really love Anomaly's ethos. I can't for the life of me work out how they get clients to work within their fee structure, but they do, so fair play to them. But being in the business business just makes sense. It sums it up perfectly to me. Anomaly feels like independent, fluid, problem solvers that actually create stuff that's useful for businesses. I know it sounds quite vague, but that is the point, it is free to do what is right. I think it's the clearest way of describing the kind of agency that clients will find more and more attractive.

Planners as the new creatives?

Oooh errrr missus here’s a long one…

This was a great debate at PSFK and whilst I appreciate this is purposefully controversial, I'm not sure whether the argument is really about planners being the new creatives. Perhaps it's more about challenging egos in order to find the best way for agencies to come up with new ideas? In another PSFK presentation Iain Tait spoke about why digital is better than advertising. Iain made some great points about the industrious nature of the discipline, the ability to fail small etc, but again it seemed to be more about the mindset of the modern agency versus the traditional advertising agency structure. I just think that if you were given a blank cheque to start your own agency tomorrow, irrespective of whether or not it's in digital, you wouldn't use the 'traditional advertising' structure. It's not that it doesn't work, but it doesn't work as well as it could.

I was lucky enough to get my first job in planning when the discipline was introduced to the agency only three years ago. At the time I was an account manager (that in my opinion tried to do a bit of planning) and I constantly hassled the Director to let me have one of the jobs going in the new team. Thankfully he eventually gave in. But being partly responsible for introducing planning to an agency that has done without it for 25 years was the single most difficult thing I have ever been involved in professionally. The benefit of introducing planning meant we had the opportunity to collectively review and implement a new structure. To be part of this is an invaluable experience!

Now I'm talking from an ‘integrated’ and purely personal perspective here, but my main observation was that the old agency model didn't just hinder the strategy and ideas we came up with, it was massively inefficient and actually cost the agency more money. Something that isn't actually debated much. And in the words of Pierre Reverdy: “Creativity is to think more efficiently”. So forget who owns ideas, just come up with the best ones and do it as quickly as possible. And to be honest, the working environment and culture isn’t anywhere near as good as it is now.

So we started from scratch and changed the whole approach, which is still being improved. It's frustrating, but it's hard to change this overnight. We’re lucky because we are independent and a bit leaner. But for a huge agency the thought of changing things must be like trying to turn a huge tanker round with a chubby little steering wheel the size of a 50 pence piece. It’s probably easier just to start again in some respects than to try and change an established beast of an agency. I can’t begin to imagine how hard that would be.

These are my own personal observations from where we were to where we are now and maybe I'm just being naive and stating the obvious, but here I go any way. First of all in terms of the ideas produced, very rarely was media approached creatively. It wasn't even part of the process and was simply the vehicle to carry the copy and the visuals. I think the reason why planners are being seen as more creative is because they are becoming very good generalists in terms of the media that is out there. In my opinion media is one of, if not the most important discipline at the moment and should be treated as a creative skill in the same way copy and visuals are.

I also think the relationship between brands, people and communications is the most complicated it has ever been and the old model is too restrictive when it comes to solving problems. Some people in the industry believe that clients should pay for ideas as the strategies end up transcending the entire business and changing its direction and often its fortunes? Some people also feel that agencies need to be much more involved with clients at a more strategic, business level rather than engaging with them just on image or on a transactional basis. Isn't this then about being better at solving business problems rather than ad problems? So again solving business problems should surely be treated as a creative discipline like copy and visuals?

In the same way I don't believe creatives own the ideas, I don't believe that planners should own the strategy. However, if I asked you to tell me who the most creative people in the advertising industry were you would name numerous creatives and deservedly so. But if I asked you who the most creative people in business were today I personally think they would be more like a planner than they would a creative. My point is perhaps as an industry we often define what creative means based on our own reality rather than our clients needs. And perhaps this is why ‘planners as the new creatives’ makes sense? Perhaps clients want business ideas rather than ad ideas? Maybe imaginative strategies and media are exciting them more than the copy and the visuals? Or maybe clients can relate to a planner’s take on an idea better than they can a creatives? People talk a lot about planners being the voice of the consumer, which I agree with, but to me a planner is also a bit like being the client, but without the pressure and much more time and freedom to ask questions, be objective and be brave?

And breath….