Comments on: The magic number for brainstorming

by: makethelogobigger

Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:44:35 +0000

Man, two is ideal for me. And even then, I’ll sit by myself for an hour ahead of that session just to purge the first ideas that always suck. Worse than the large number of people in a brainstorm though is when nobody comes prepared, and then they start thinking about the project for the first time right then and there. Of course, only after they hear what you came up with first.

by: Gary Bloomer

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:15:10 +0000

Last February, I took part in an all day brainstorming session from which all kinds of ideas were distilled. There were 25 people in the room and one facilitator. From this group and the findings, a smaller group of eight was put together to distill things down into a strategic plan to take us through the next three to five years. I’m part of that smaller group and believe me, Tom, you are bang on the money when you say fewer is better. I’ve formed another group of three for another project and we’d made more progress in less time, so thank you for confirming what I knew to be the right thing to do.

by: Tom Monahan

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:11:48 +0000

HighJive, re too many cooks, I strongly suggest dividing the group into smaller teams of 3 or 4 people, diversified by discipline, length of experience (at company, in category), seniority, even, gender (although sometimes I stick all the senior people together and let them duke it out).

We usually have 20 to 30 people, which gives us 4 to 6 teams. That’s for the large group brainstorming session. Then, like you suggest, we work with a smaller team, often the core group, to “distill and drill,” as we call it. We like to make sure at least one core team member is in each of the BS teams, to insure that all ideas have a parent present to explain or defend all ideas.

I also like to look at the upside of including so many people; because they are involved they are less likely to shoot ideas down. One of my clients once told me what he likes best about our group think sessions is that there are so many ideas, and so much chaos, that everyone buys into the short list because they all think they were the parents of some of the idea. Kinda’ like the reverse of paternity questions a few months after an orgy.

by: HighJive

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:06:50 +0000

Completely agree. But one of the major struggles with this notion is when you work at a big agency. In big agencies, everyone wants to have representatives. So the SAE will insist on bringing an AE and AAE. The planner will show up with at least one assistant. Someone will decide there needs to be representation from media or production. The only people with minimal participants will be the creative department.

Here’s what I do (which initially pisses off the AEs): After the cluster-f@#k brainstorm session—which usually generates a batch of unfocused and awful notions—I organize separate brainstorm sessions with small groups of creatives. The smaller groups cull through the shit and play off and enhance the good stuff. Although the AEs initially react negatively because they think we’re not team players/renegades, they ultimately shut up when they see the new and refined ideas are significantly better.

In short, I think a “brainstorm” session always requires a follow-up session (at very least). Too many places I’ve seen only hold the initial brainstorm, assign an administrative assistant to type up the unfiltered list and then call it a day.