Everyone says they want creative ideas to propel their business.  But if you’re the one coming up with these massive ideas you’ve probably noticed that the bigger they are, often the harder they are to sell.

On April 16th Before & After’s founder and head creativity coach, Tom Monahan is conducting a webinar on Selling Big ideas. Checkout this preview.

You can read some of Tom’s other thoughts on selling big ideas, directed at the special challenges ad agencies face, exclusively at Thought Legion’s blog.

Let’s talk about the Dodge Ram “farmers” spot that ran on the Super Bowl yesterday.  Good spot? Yes.  Wonderful execution? Yes.  Original? No.

The lack of originality doesn’t come from using the Paul Harvey speech, that’s no different than using someone else’s song in the track, it comes from the complete conceptual lift from the above farm.com video.

I don’t care if, execution wise, it was mega levels better than the original.  I don’t care if they had the blessing of the liftee, or if it benefits the organization.  That doesn’t make the core idea creative.

I’ve heard some creative directors I respect cutting the creative team and agency some slack because it’s such a good spot.  I agree it’s a good spot.  One of my favorites from the big game.  If I were the client and my agency presented me this concept, I’d like it.  If they told me the concept’s genesis, I’d still probably buy it.

But I’m not a client.  I come from the agency side.  Creativity is what we sell.  Or, so I thought.  I believe it’s dangerous to just passively accept this much lack of creativity no matter how lovely the spot is.

I understand that something doesn’t have to be original to be great.  Take Hendrix’s version of Dylan’s “All along the watch tower.”  Brilliant. But Jimi didn’t create the song.  Dylan did.  If Hendrix never wrote a song and only did other people’s material he’d be nothing more than a great guitar playing cover artist.  Are we now going to glamorize advertising cover artists?

That’s the danger I see from being too accepting of the “creative” team or the agency on this commercial.

The same with the Taco Bell swinging seniors spot.  The only debate there is whether it was a rip off of the Lady Danville “Better Side” video (which was actually much more conceptual, as you’ll see if you watch the entire thing) or the Pepsi “Shady Acres” spot from a few years back?  Take your pick.  Either way.  There’s little originality there.

For the advertising business, an industry that bills itself as an idea business, to quietly accept this lack of originality, on it’s biggest stage, and even applaud it… that, to me, is a very scary precedent.

Let’s put this issue to the ultimate test.  If you were a creative director and you were reviewing a portfolio of a prospective writer or art director, where everything was a lift, would you hire that person?

I rest my case.

I’ve often looked at Miles Davis as the grand daddy of creative growth.

Not so much because of his creative accomplishment (which were certainly grand), but because of the way he surrounded himself with youth.  And the older he got, the younger were his side men.

I don’t care if you never heard this master trumpet player, if you listen to most any samplings of his work; from his early career to middle years to his swan songs, so to speak, you’d have to be totally tone deaf not to hear his creative growth.

He probably had many secrets to his continuous development.  (Let’s hope it wasn’t the heroine.)  But the one thing that always impressed me was the way he continually recruited youth to assist him in his creative exploration.  His steady stream of pianists alone included some of jazz’ biggest names, usually before they reached their prime.  Herbie Hancock, Joe Zawinul, Kieth Jarrett, Chick Corea and others.

Who do you surround yourself with in your creative pursuits?  The same old gang?  Hey, I don’t want to break up your bowling group, but maybe you need to consider tapping into the creative energy of a younger generation.  (That is, unless you are the kids.  In which case you’ve got your own creative issues to deal with.)

I’m not saying hanging with the kids is the only way to maintain a creative vigor.  But if you ever need a shot…

With experience comes the danger to use it too much.  Creative challenges, often by definition, mean the ready answer doesn’t apply.  The youth connection is one way to keep the creative energy high.

Look at Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Edison, and their constant flow of apprentices.  Don’t be so quick to assume who  the teacher was.We  addressing this a lot in this blog.  In a comment on an earlier post about NBA coaching legend, Red Auerbach, Fan of the Green tells of how this creative genius used to elicit his players advice in key game situations.  In the post about Beatles producer George Martin we talked about his youthfulness, but we didn’t stress his collaborators; from the Fab Four to his son, Giles, as Sir George grew older, his “side men” always seemed to be in their 20’s, maybe 30’s.  Hmm.

I spent many years in the advertising business.  Isn’t it funny how the great agencies so often had a creative kingpin at the top surrounded by an ever-changing array of fresh young talent.

In most of the fast track companies I serve as a creative thinking coach the youth movement is so very apparent.  Conversely, about 10 years ago I recall a Polaroid executive telling me how after a wave of layoffs the average age of the company went from 42 to 46.  Ouch.  And where is Polaroid today?

I don’t bring all of this up to suggest the more senior business people need to think about less creatively demanding careers.  I say it to offer encouragement to align yourself with youth, literally or figuratively, to stay vital yourself.

I gave my age-defying wife a birthday card last year.  It said, “How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you are?”  In return I got a kiss reminiscent of old days in the back of the VW bug.

Again, what are you doing to stay fresh?  I also ask, dear blog reader, do you have any examples of other creative giants you want to add to the discussions; people, or companies for that matter, who believed in the youthful energy and benefited from it?

What makes some ad agencies better than others, creatively? (Not too big an issue, right?) Are the agencies that are perennially represented in the advertising annuals different from other agencies? If so, how? When an agency regularly does great work, what accounts for that? When an agency consistently comes up short, why is that?

Is it as simple as this: The agencies with the most creative talent achieve the most? I’d like to think that’s all there is to it, but I don’t think it’s that simple. The proof is in the performance of many of those people before and after their stints with said agency.

Is it as simple as the fact that some advertisers allow their agencies to do better work? Well, yes and no. There are some clients who do allow, encourage, or even demand it. But, that’s rare. And it’s rarely within their control. Too often after account switches we see the work get dramatically better or dramatically worse. So it’s usually not the client.

Is it that some agencies simply have a better handle on what it takes to do great work and get it through the system? Well, you know, I think it is that simple. And that complex. Because, although that might be the closest thing to a true common denominator, it just ain’t that easy to pull off.

Think about the modern era of great creative agencies. Heck, throw in the agencies that aren’t Hall-of-Fame great, but consistently do admirable work. And the key word here is consistently. Flashes in the pan usually fall into the “exceptional individual,” “great client” or “awards for pretend clients” categories, and are hardly an indication of overall agency strength.

We all have our own list of favorite agencies. A handful show up on most lists.

Now think about what made these fine institutions of creative achievement so good. The people usually came and went. The clients definitely came and went.

So, what stayed?

(I can feel creative directors across the industry causing a low pressure area like the prelude to a late-season hurricane, as they hold their collective breaths.)

I’ll tell you what stayed. The culture.

“Yeah, great.” I can hear a chorus of CDs bellow, in a sound pretty close to hurricane volume. “That’s a lot of help, culture. Could you make it a bit more vague, Monahan?”

Actually, I’ll make it a lot less vague. Or better yet, I’ll let you clarify it for yourself.

You see, as I’ve made the study of creativity a serious vocation over the years, I’ve begun to see more clearly what accounts for creative potency in the best organizations. Believe it or not, there are some common characteristics to high-achieving companies that, if better understood, could be a blueprint for those who are looking to strengthen their games in this area.

Oh, it’s not a science. Never will be. But there’s more order to this chaotic universe than most realize. So I have created a little device to help those in positions of responsibility figure out what works in their culture to promote greater creativity, as well as what’s broke or missing.

I call it a Creativity Force Field Analysis. Fancy term, huh? Actually, I adapted it from a tool used by organizational development people, the plain old-fashioned Force Field Analysis.

This little analytic device is very simple. Just identify what forces propel an organization toward its goals. And identify what forces work against the accomplishment of those goals. The theory being if you clearly recognize the “forces of good” and “forces of evil” you’re in a better position to plus the pluses, minus the minuses, and help the good forces of the Empire overpower the Darth Vader forces, to make your organization better.

In my version of this analytic tool, the goal is simply greater creativity.

Continue reading →

Friday, July 27th was not a good day for the advertising business. It was not a good day for Apple either. It was the day the new Apple TV campaign premiered on the Olympics. And the spots were awful.

Please take note: I used the words Apple and awful in the same breath. Perhaps other people have used those words in the same breath before. You know those lost souls who have never used Apple products and think they’re awful. But for me, a life-long Apple enthusiast (well, since 1984, a lifetime in computer years) and an advertising guy, it was a real downer.

The commercials weren’t horrible by, say, Dell standards. Which means no standards at all. But as a fellow advertising vet mentioned to me, “Current Walmart spots are better.” Wal-freakin’-mart!  Roll over Steve Jobs.

Apple is a company that I, and oh, I don’t know, maybe a few million other real close friends have had almost nothing but respect for for years and years. Apple computers: Porsches. Apple iPods, iPhones, iPads: Rolex watches, filet mignons, dusty bottles of Château Lafite Rothschild.

Yes, I and my few million pals, all part of the Apple brotherhood, have had this unwavering respect for the brand, its products, its service and its marketing, seemingly forever. We aren’t used to being disappointed. Apple rarely disappoints. But the unwavering respect just started wavering.

Is this the beginning of the end of insane awesomeness? Should I sell my stock? Am I over reacting? I hope so. But I don’t know. Continue reading →