Be more polymath
New perspectives and the application of thinking from one field of study to another drive innovation, creativity, and progress. These attributes are at the heart of good marketing. But where are our polymaths? Why is there so little movement of people between agencies of different persuasions? Nick Kavanagh explores these questions.
Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize and the first person, man, or woman, to win the award twice. But beyond establishing herself as a leading thinker in a field dominated by men years before female suffrage, those auspicious prizes were in two different areas: physics [1903] and chemistry [1911]. To this day, she’s the only person to have achieved this feat.
Like Leonardo Da Vinci, Copernicus, Benjamin Franklin and Jagdish Chandra Bose, Curie was a Polymath: a person of varied learning, with expertise in various subjects of study.
History shows us that those responsible for some of humanity’s greatest inventions and discoveries didn’t simply focus on one field of expertise. Instead, their intellect and curiosity compelled them to research, experiment, and study a broad area of enquiry. New perspectives and the application of thinking from one field of study to another drive innovation, creativity, and progress. These attributes are at the heart of good marketing. But where are our polymaths? Why is there so little movement of people between agencies of different persuasions?
At the agency level, we’re continually shuffling the people deck. We’re either promoting from within or hiring people from direct competitors to fill vacant positions. But if we’re to stimulate innovation, creativity, and progress, isn’t it time that we started to look toward those working in adjacent agency fields? Beyond the confines of advertising even?
How often, when reading the trade press about an agency’s new hire, do we hear “…we immediately knew [insert new hire] would be a great cultural fit”, or that “…it became apparent through the process that [insert new hire] shared our agency values and philosophy”? To thrive, agencies need new perspectives. New approaches. New attitudes. Yet we tend to recruit the same kind of people, with the same skill set as we had before, from the same type of agency. This is because agencies generally need someone who can hit the ground running [horrible phrase, I know], and it’s undoubtedly a risky approach. Still, the dividends a disruptive perspective can bring are enormous.
But what about at an employee level? I’ll answer this from the strategist’s perspective [for I am one], but I’m pretty sure the point stretches across disciplines. We’re continually looking for the brief that will give us the stretch and stimulation that keeps us sharp and fresh. Yet we tend to stay in our agency lanes. And because we specialise, we tend to answer the same kind of briefs.
I don’t accept that whether you work at OMD or Ogilvy, the strategy work is different. Ultimately, as a strategist, whether you work in advertising, media, PR, or content, we all start with the same perspective: how do I generate brand and business growth? Although the levers at our disposal may differ, our methods and approaches are broadly the same.
Why don’t we see more planners from a PR perspective applying their knowledge of earned and owned storytelling to connections strategy in media agencies? Or are more media strategists using their data-led approach to amplify creative ideas in ad agencies?
Lack of opportunity is one reason, but perhaps there’s also a lack of understanding about what different strategic roles entail. I’m pretty sure people think I plan media as a media agency strategist. I don’t. Media planning is a highly technical job that I don’t have the intellect for. As a communications strategist, I act as the conduit between advertising and media in all its forms. A role that sits at the nexus of commerce, technology, culture, and creativity. It’s excellent, and I wish more types of planners tried their hand at it. I think both agency and individual would benefit significantly from the experience.
The other reason we don’t see more strategic polymaths is that we don’t think our skills are transferable. Or that culturally and philosophically, those other flavours of the agency are just too different. Well, you can, and they’re not. Trust me.
The benefit of greater fluidity is potentially enormous. I appreciate that it is easier to stick with what one knows, but working with the same clients at the same type of agency leads to stagnation and stifles personal fulfilment. Encouraging a more fluid strategic community would elevate the work and make for a much more dynamic industry landscape. As a market, we are small, but we are sophisticated. Australia should be a petri dish that the global advertising community looks to for innovative methods and disruptive thinking.
So, break from the mould, explore new opportunities and be more polymath. Leonardo Da Vinci once said that to develop a complete mind, you need to ‘Study the science of art; Study the art of science. Learn how to see. Realise that everything connects to everything else.’
Nick Kavanagh, chief strategy officer at Havas Media Group
Not sure I follow your line of reasoning, Nick. Only Marie Curie has won the Nobel in two different areas, you tell us – the other 900 winners were specialists. But then you say we need more polymaths.
User ID not verified.