Kneejerk negativity is ruining this creative industry’s big thinking
In a guest post inspired by yesterday’s Battle of Big Thinking, Cathie McGinn argues that the industry needs to find ways of making criticism more constructive and less destructive.
Sitting in the audience at yesterday’s Battle of Big Thinking, one of the most extraordinary things was the accompanying conversation on Twitter. It was free from the usual slights, snarky remarks and bitching – people responded to new ideas with enthusiasm, and a desire to share them. But sadly that’s not how the industry usually is.
A criticism levelled at Australian advertising is that it often lacks creativity. There are, of course, significant exceptions to this, but I think it’s fair to say we produce more than our share of “safe” work.
You could argue that there are complex reasons for this: agencies who don’t challenge a brief, clients who don’t go for bold ideas, or, as Darren Woolley suggests in a recent post, marketers simply don’t value creativity, allocating a mere 5-7% of a total budget to the creation of the “big idea”
My small idea, inspired by the day, is that the industry should make a conscious commitment to become an environment that cherishes ideas and responds positively to creativity. Perhaps the reason for the lack of courage in creative is that the Australian industry is so hostile, quicker to tear down than build up.
How often do you see a piece of work that made you look twice, tell your friends, remember the product and, just maybe actually buy it?
And how many times have you seen a new campaign ridiculed and savaged in the comment threads of publications like this one.
Constructive criticism and debate are hallmarks of a robust and healthy industry; kneejerk negativity, criticism without rationale and personal vilification are not.
I’m all for good-natured ribbing: satire is an effective and much-needed puncture to the over-inflated egos one can encounter in this business, but the endless comments that offer only the view that “it sucks” and “this is shit” are frankly pathetic.
I don’t have any issue with the idea that we’re a highly critical lot. It goes with the territory. Understanding how the device works means we’re less sympathetic to a poor use of a medium. And that’s a great opportunity to drive the standard of execution up. Challenging bad ideas and lazy execution is a good way to encourage people to lift their game, but the counterpoint has to be a generous celebration of the good and the brave.
I don’t see that happening. Of course I’m not suggesting that the only reason Australia isn’t a global creative leader is because people bitch too much in the trade press, but I am saying that it – we – don’t work to create an atmosphere that encourages and rewards creativity.
It is our industry and we are responsible for the way we communicate within it, whether we treat our peers with respect, whether we give praise where it’s merited – regardless of whether or not the work comes from our rivals.
I know for a fact that there are plenty of people who don’t like talking about their work because they know they’re just opening themselves up a kicking from the trolls.
What that means in practice is that no one learns. The standard response to a campaign launch seems to be something like “New campaign, eh? I expect I won’t like it. Nah, it’s crap. Better leave an anonymous comment saying so.”
What a waste of everyone’s time.
Imagine a scenario in which on the day a campaign launches, industry social networks and platforms were abuzz with questions and opinions about the execution, where an insight came from, what might have worked better, the strategic decisions that lay behind it, perhaps a response from the team responsible. That’s a community I want to be a part of.
After a day at the Circus festival of commercial creativity listening to ideas being shared in an open and progressive space, I left full of optimism. I think we can make it work.
If you need me, I’ll be being ripped to pieces in this comment thread.
- Cathie McGinn is a principal at Reading Room Australia
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
This is shit.
Seriously though, this: I know for a fact that there are plenty of people who don’t like talking about their work because they know they’re just opening themselves up a kicking from the trolls
…rang very true for me, and it’s something I’ve been a bit underwhelmed by since entering into this industry. I like to be able to talk about what I do, I like being able to be proud of my work – even when it’s not perfect.
I’ve been along to a few industry events, and while select company may have been good, often the general atmosphere was not to my liking, and I’ve often felt it boils down to the negativity of attitudes in this space.
Now I ain’t no tree huggin’ flower givin’ positive energy emanatin’ hippie or nothin’, but subscribing to a philosophy of being constructive instead of destructive doesn’t seem too hard. So, uh, we should do that. It would promote engagement, and growth, and stuff.
User ID not verified.
Ah Ms McGinn. How I hear and feel your pain. Alas, I think it will require an act of Buddha to revert the current situation.
I think the inherent competitiveness of this business acts to work against any form of supportive commentary between rival agencies, brands and the humans which make it go ’round. It is human nature to first look at negatives and announce them and where that came from I have no idea.
I do take heart from a lesson learned while studying fine arts at COFA many years ago. A lecturer once told me, “They don’t build monuments to critics.”
User ID not verified.
*insert snarky reply here*
I just totally ruined everyone’s creativity with that comment.
User ID not verified.
Great article Cathie. I 100% agree with you.
User ID not verified.
thank you
knee jerk negativity is driving politic etc what about a ‘nice’ revolution? WHere community debate & discussion about anything including Carbon Pricing & Mandatory Detention can be had civilly.
we get put on detention at school when we behave like our politicians in parliment. It divides and redicules us invididually and as a community.
User ID not verified.
Cathie, it is just incredibly unfortunate that, as an industry, a small number of bitter and twisted individuals have been given a voice, while they hide behind the anonymity provided by sites like Campaign Brief and Mumbrella.
You will find that the vast majority of people on the industry are actually incredibly supportive and encouraging of creative work. Look at the support the industry shows for recognising and rewarding creativity and effectiveness through the various award shows.
But why would anyone stand up and champion the industry and the effort when they can be ridiculed, belittled and abused by the pathetic few, enable by even fewer with a very personal commercial agenda. The people to provide the soap box for these true bottom dwellers of the industry cannot possibly believe they are doing the industry a service.
Yeah but…
One of the real issues with creative debate in this country is that it’s totally one way.
if you’re not wow, fab, different, breakthrough, cutting edge, brave, new, your work is rubbish. End of story.
The debate has been hijacked by politically-ad-correct, young, inexperienced creatives whose only benchmark of greatness is the next award show judging.
User ID not verified.
The industry has always been competitive but it was never as hostile until the advent of industry blogs and the dreaded comments columns. One obvious solution would be for Mumbrella and Campaign Brief to only allow comments which are accompanied by a real name and that would include a surname.
User ID not verified.
This is such a passion of mine too and LOVE that you’ve raised this, Cathie.
I liken this effect to the ‘Road Rage’ principle of psychology where the ability to be anonymous and filtered from your real self allows a hidden part of you to come out that, frankly, just shouldn’t. The protection of the computer and the anonymous naming is the parallel to the protection of the car frame.
It is fostering an effect called ‘Social Proof’ raised by Dr Cialdini who talks about others automatically falling into line with what others do in certain circumstances. I feel the pattern of negativity has been breading and become the ‘norm’ in some environments because others simply follow what the crowd does as an automatic, instinctive process. Being able to step out of the ‘norm’ like you have is actually a very brave thing to do and against natural human behaviour – thank goodness you have because you can lead others to rethink what they’re doing too.
This negativity and bitchiness is not just in these forums, it is behind the back of the client, behind the back of the team, and often straight to the face of each other. It is commonplace to hear this negativity every day in the office. The mistake is that people use this complaining and bitchiness as a way to bond with each other in the office and don’t see other alternatives because it has become so common.
Individually this industry is full of amazing and wonderful people, who when they get together enmasse behave completely inappropriately (take every single awards dinner that is ever held – everyone talks over the top of the presentations for a start!).
I agree that the forum facilitates the negativity by allowing it to happen – and I commend Mumbrella for having a policy to edit. I also agree that having our real names printed is essential too.
Thanks so much for raising this. We can all be accountable for our individual behaviour regardless what the crowd is doing.
Anne
User ID not verified.
Cathie, your plea for constructive criticism is certainly well founded, while Graham’s request that blog comments only be published if the individual is identified, is long overdue. In a peverse way, I consistently find a high volume of harshly negative blog comments by anonymous industry people to be a great indicator of future success, as they naively over-estimate the more visible elements of building successful brands and under-estimate the considerable impact of the less visible ones.
User ID not verified.
Seriously, creativity in advertising in this country is being destroyed by negative comments – or the potential for negative comments – on two websites? Okay, wow..
User ID not verified.
Well said and couldn’t agree more.
User ID not verified.
@MikeLittle: With all due respect ‘Okay, wow…’ is heading up there in bitchy too, to be straight with you. I’m trained in communication, linguistics and know what behaviour attracts what result – and I can be sure of this; it is not a subjective comment.
it is not just on two websites in my observation and professional opinion. So now it is top of mind, and now you know that your tone is bitchy too then perhaps you’ll see things differently out there and notice it yourself.
This negativity directly affects the ability for others to work collaboratively, for honest and fair feedback, for an idea to be taken to the highest level without being shut down, for clients to be open to something they might not ordinarily, for people to support each other when it really matters. If anyone is closed to this then they are likely to be attracting this limitation in their work and completely unaware. The best way to prove this theory is to try a different tack and be less negative and bitchy and see if things improve for the better.
I coach teams in the industry on this issue (amongst many others) and I can vouch for the improved results, improved relationships, better work – and a happier life in the process. These people didn’t know that they were being negative at first either and now have praised the process for how they feel, how others are more engaged with them, clients are easier to handle and the work is improving. So, ‘Okay Wow’ now has a tone of possibility for better creative, I feel.
Your point is valid and so is your opinion and you have a right to that – simply remove the ‘Okay Wow’ and state your point with less negative tone and it would be neutral. The word ‘Seriously’ and the question mark specifically have turned an otherwise fair comment into a negative comment. I’m sure you realise that or you wouldn’t have chosen it, but to be clear that’s specifically where you slipped from fair and neutral to negative and bitchy (perhaps for the benefit of others reading this and learning for the first time).
Good for you for at least having your name there where others are weak for hiding behind a pseudonym .
User ID not verified.
well done Cathie!
User ID not verified.
Cathie, I suspect you’ve been hanging around in the wrong places – Campaign Brief and Mumbrella are a couple of the only places you’ll find deep and instinctive negativity, most of it anonymous. On the other hand, there are a wide range of blogs and bloggers who provide far more considered feedback of work – on sites like Bannerblog, most of the critique (and some is negative) is intelligent, well thought through and backed up. There are also showcases and discussion forums (i’m involved in one centering around digital work called Creative Showcase where creatives share all the insights behind the campaigns on a bi-monthly basis), awards and events where people show case studies, audiences critique and engage in a meaningful and positive way.
So whilst i agree that there are some deeply negative spaces out there, i’d suggest that if that’s your view of the whole industry, you need to widen your reading list to include a few other sites.
In terms of this anonymous peer negativity killing creativity, from my experience, being concerned about what peers will say on a blog is the smallest hurdle a “big idea” will need to jump in it’s progress from a creative’s desk to going live. There’s a lot more influential voices that will kill off something big and exciting well before that little inner voice of “will the trolls on Creative Brief bag it” even gets a hearing.
So whilst i think you’ve got a point, and i too really enjoyed the positive vibe of The Battle, i don’t think that type of positivity is as unusual as you think it is. But maybe i’m just hanging out with nice people…
User ID not verified.
I am not in the ‘industry’. . . regrettably.
Perhaps advertisers should do a series of adverts that tutor the audience on how to enjoy and respect a creative campaign. Your always going to get a better response from an educated mob who understand the subtley referenced reiteration or alternative humour.
I am also speculating agencies may lack persons who have their headspaces working in the future, who admire diversity and perhaps most importantly understand the conditions that need to be in place for ‘creativity’ to nurture and blossom. . Eheu.
However sometimes I really enjoy a well thought out sarcastic comment. Perhaps these could be defined by a different font?
User ID not verified.
I think that the big issue here is that a destructively competitive working style is the prevailing culture within many agencies, and then amplified between agencies and other external stakeholders.
Ironically, many people in the industry are not in fact collaborative – but rather combative. In my opinion, true collaboration has three key ingredients: (1) lack of possessiveness about the solution (2) obligatory contribution and (3) focus on the outcome. Many agencies seem to celebrate a kind of abrasive Darwinism designed to make sure “only the strong” survive – pitting individuals and ideas against each other, rather than actually working together creatively and strategically to build something better that includes elements of various contributions and possible solutions. So the outcome is often the result of a political rather creative process, and an expression of the capability of the team that is less than the sum of the parts, not more.
Does require one to check one’s ego at the door though, and to take both risk and responsibility as a team…
User ID not verified.
@Tim Riches – love the intent behind your comment. If everyone focused on the purpose then the ego leaves.
User ID not verified.
Cathie, do you think “marketers simply don’t value creativity” or is that they just don’t understand how their particular expertise married with great design brings an idea to life and can drive the results they are more and more held accountable for.
Often business owners say they want creativity, yet they are the very ones that suppress it. Great creative comes from a very clear brief but then time allowed for the creative person to spend researching and bringing the creative idea to life. Delivering a 10 minute brief over the phone and expecting top class results the next day at the cheapest possible price is not the way we know that. Like anything, the result directly correlates with the time and effort put in.
What fuels great creative is the process of exploring multiple possibilities and approaches instead of dogmatically pursuing a single line of thought to reach a solution. To effectively do this, we have to brainstorm with the creative team and involve others from outside. Sometimes it is not until the stage of visual exploration, of an idea coming to life in pictures, that one can see if it fully meets a brief, if it really does generate the emotional reaction you want it to.
The holy grail is the perfect fusion of the visual expression with the written word, which again takes a deep understanding of what the goal of the communication really is and then working creatively with multiple ideas to express a core theme. But will business owners give up their drive for ‘the fastest and cheapest solution’ long enough to allow them to trust in the creative process? and will we as creatives give up the ego long enough to allow the collaborative process to really work?
User ID not verified.
Good point @Jane Toohey. I’ll add to that by saying that a lot of creative people don’t know how to show the client the value in what they do and there is no good telling the client simply to value you. It’s like telling a bully to simply ‘stop it!’ – They wont listen. Something different has to be done.
Clients need to be shown HOW to value the work, what is valuable about it, what results are achieved from what executions, what credentials and successes do you have to prove the work is going to work for them. They need new information if they are expected to think in a way that is not automatic to them.
Secondly if we have a community of snotty, bitchy, whingeing creatives then it will close off any voice anyway and the industry will be less heard.
User ID not verified.
Tim.
How about a test for a month that encourages participants (via registration) to use their real names?
Cheers… Tom
User ID not verified.
Thanks for all the comments- some thought provoking stuff.
I wanted to address a few of them – I’ve explicitly stated that I am not suggesting a lack of creativity is to be laid solely at the door of negative comments on industry websites.
That would be silly.
I am saying it’s symptomatic of a malaise that affects the entire industry, and the net result is that we are less bold and our ideas less beautiful.
@MikeZed – I agree, there are places where interesting and respectful debate flourishes, but the weight of numbers tells a different story. If two of our industry’s largest publications are not like that, surely you have to view that as significant? Some of my best friends are nice people, for the record.
I’ve been to a Creative Showcase, by the way & loved it -more of it please!
I think it’s time to let go of this miserly attitude towards ideas. I believe it’s not what you know but what you share that’s the hallmark of greatness.
Ideas in the noosphere aren’t the property of a single person.
@Anne, Tim, Jane Agreed -ego free collaboration is the ticket…Perhaps the way we reward creatives is counterintuitive? If it’s all about getting your name on an award entry, that can’t possibly foster generosity and openness.
And the entire framework of giving away your best ideas for free at pitch seems a flawed way to value creativity… Although perhaps that’s a can of worms to be opened by people more qualified than I…
(Darren, Peter..?)
@Jean – I *love* the idea of educating the muggles about good advertising, but I rather think we might achieve that by making good ads…
I don’t want an end to humour & satire (sarcasm is my whole schtick -I’d be lost without it!), but there’s a difference between snarky trolling and wit.
Interesting aside on the anonymous comment issue -Techcrunch have just introduced Facebook connected comments -early reports are that discussion has died down but the level of positivity has increased.
As they put it, “nausea-inducing kindness is certainly better than rage-inducing assholeishness”.
User ID not verified.
Good advertising starts with consumer insights. I mean that the insights have to come before the pitch, storyboarding, animatics and/or execution. Too often a creative agency will jump in and churn out a series of storyboards or ideas that (excuse the negativity) miss the mark because they are not grounded in a true consumer need, which almost always has to come from research.
I’ve seen a huge amount of multi-million dollar campaigns that have been shoved out the door of an agency with only the most cursory nod to research. E.g. a couple of focus groups to talk through possible ways to ‘tweak’ an already 90% finished execution (hint: if you see a TVC with the brand watermarked on the bottom of the screen it almost always means they did some last minute research which suggested branding could be a problem and decided that slapping the brand’s logo on the corner would fix the issue).
Clients and agencies need to be smarter in the way that they leverage research and engage consumers before they let the ideas men loose. Good advertising should – award winning or not – should always be based on a consumer driven insight, not the most gut feelign of the ‘most creative guy in the room’.
User ID not verified.
@ Anne Miles: Actually, “Okay, wow..” was meant as genuine surprise hearing an industry worker saying they’d put the concern of anonymous commentators on two websites ahead of their paying clients. I wasn’t meaning to be bitchy, but I’ll take your word for it as a linguistics expert that I was. Your need to respond to such a brief comment with a 500 word essay is another “okay, wow..” moment to be honest, but I accept that’s my inherent bitchiness saying that.
User ID not verified.
OK I accept there are plenty of creatives and clever peeps. Of course. Loads. Hello.
But I think advertising/marketing should be about ‘creating desire’, not responding to a perceived functional need . . . .researched or not. Some superb adverts barely show the product being promoted but the brand name gets lodged in the old grey matter nonetheless.
Visionaries who are thinking, nay living in the future are the missing link here . . . methinks. These people are the avant-garde looking well ahead not hobnobbing with Mr and Mrs Average Buyer. Your fashion-forwards are not going to fit easily in existing organisations or society come to that. Lets face it. The massing majority might not even know how to recognise such a person let alone show them some respect. Perhaps even some comment-makers here don’t.
User ID not verified.
@Jean Cave ((Real Name)
“However sometimes I really enjoy a well thought out sarcastic comment. Perhaps these could be defined by a different font?”
Yes, it’s called Sarcastica!
(Courtesy of Arj Barker – http://www.dead-frog.com/comed.....rj_barker/)
User ID not verified.