Respect for creatives has dissolved, leaving us with crap creative we’ve become desensitised enough to like
Matt Batten asked 63 senior peers to unpack why we've become desensitised to good ideas. These days, he argues, an idea is only 'creative' once it's won an award. And executive creative directors are being disrespected and undervalued because of it.
There’s been much talk in recent years, especially among advertising creatives, about how much harder it has become to sell great ideas. Not just to clients, but also internally.
So, I recently gathered the opinions of 63 peers around the world to understand how they felt about the value and respect for creativity, creatives, and creative leadership.
While several still felt that creativity was valued (or at least “perceived as valuable” as some described it in a careful mincing of words), the experiences and anecdotes of many reflected a state in which creative directors of all levels felt disenfranchised and disempowered. Even in their own agencies.
We’ve become desensitised to good ideas, and respect for creatives has eroded as a result
Not so long ago, the entire agency relished the creative department’s unconventional imaginings as a cohesive team, and clients were mesmerised by the inventive concepts roughly sketched on A3 bleed-proof paper. Many of my survey respondents feel they are under-appreciated, their wealth of experience ignored or questioned, and their creative ability democratised.
My test subjects compared the way in which they themselves treated their own creative leaders and mentors as they went up through the ranks to the way in which staff and clients now treat them. Respect seems to have dissolved or diluted over the past 10 years.
Where, once upon a time, the agency’s ECD would single-handedly determine the one idea that goes forth and teams would dutifully ensure that vision came to life, now those same teams gather around a boardroom table debating the flaws of every concept and espousing their personal opinions – ignoring the experience of their leaders.
When my respondents were juniors, mids or even senior creatives, never would they have had the temerity to question or disagree with their ECD, nor did they witness account managers, planners, producers, designers, receptionists or the courier hotly debate their own personal views against the ECD’s creative recommendations. But now they find themselves questioned at every turn.
With my subject pool being broad enough, large enough and successful enough, it’s highly unlikely they are all terrible creative leaders who witnessed a generation of unquestionably incredible creative leaders. So what is the cause?
Today’s briefs are more complex, media more fragmented, Gen-Y attitudes have disrupted, financial crises scared clients into questioning everything, data over-ran human insights and gut instinct, consumer susceptibility diminished and cynicism grew, digital technology exploded, society got woke and myriad other things have made the advertising industry a brave new world.
But all of that should add to the exciting challenge of selling the right product to the right person at the right time, not make creative ideas less acceptable straight off the bat.
It reminds me of French theatregoers in 1896 who shrieked with panic as August and Louis Lumière’s sepia-toned locomotive trundled toward them on the silver screen. They had never before seen a moving picture. The only trains that had ever hurtled toward them before that day were real. And dangerous. In 1896, it would have been a natural response to panic.
But such a reaction seems absurd to us today. This step change progresses with every sensory experience. We become desensitised until the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan are merely a bunch of actors stumbling over splatters of ketchup. And while we understand desensitisation – and broader behavioural psychology – because we work in this industry and know its wily ways, we aren’t immune to it.
In the same way theatregoers once yelled at a locomotive and later applauded a gorilla clinging to the Empire State Building, screamed when a rubber shark attacked Amity Beach but barely batted an eyelid when Smaug desolated, perhaps we have become desensitised to creativity and ideas.
Jaws used to make us jump
Social media, and streaming platforms, feed millions of ideas and thoughts and images and films directly to our pockets. We are absorbing more information and experiences than ever before.
Surely this level of exposure affects our response to the stimuli. Behavioural psychology says it must.
So when a creative idea is put forward to our internal teams, and our clients, their baseline of reference is now a thousand times more cluttered. This over-exposure to entertaining and innovative ideas makes the concept before them seem less interesting, less inspiring. More ‘meh’. We’ve lost our ability to be inspired by the new.
While my survey respondents agree that the industry still says it values creativity, and clients still ask to be ‘challenged’, the benchmark for what is a creative idea has morphed and shifted until it has become impossible to know. Now, something isn’t creative until it’s won an award. Too many people review new ideas while armed with swords to cut them down, rather than shields to defend them.
And there are many people. Of those 63 creative leaders, about two-thirds mentioned creative reviews take the form of a committee before it’s even left the agency.
It would be nice to think we could dial back our exposure, and take a technology detox. But, as marketers, we also need to stay abreast of cultural trends and be inspired by them. It also seems apropos that our own baseline of creativity be akin to the consumer’s.
Numerous studies in the fields of exposure therapy, stereotypes, prejudice, brand preference and aesthetics have identified a phenomenon named mere exposure effect – the repeated exposure to an initially neutral stimulus increases the liking of that stimulus.
Basically, see a lot of crap content or bad creative and you’ll start to like it.
To avoid that, we can embrace the results of today’s mere exposure effect. If we acknowledge the tsunami of inspiration presented to consumers every day, we can be bolder in our concepts, step out of the on-brand/ off-brand debate, stop playing it safe, release the handcuffs of old and appreciate a goddam good idea when it smacks us in the face.
We need to put away our swords and grab our shields.
Matt Batten is the executive creative director at Edge
topics
Advertising
behavioural psychology
creative ideas
creatives
desensitisation
Edge
executive creative directors
Matt Batten
mere exposure effect
opinion
There’s a broader challenge here — the democratisation of the workplace and the breakdowns of hierarchy. It works well in some areas, poorly in others. Given creativity is often about conviction of the sell as there’s not much else to go on… it may be an area where it creates some difficulties.
User ID not verified.
There is always a bunch of seriously good reasons not to do any particular thing— not to go with a certain creative idea, for instance. Not listening to reason is practically unbearable for people lacking the courage it takes to be in advertising.
User ID not verified.
Another thing I would observe is the rise of the ‘expert’.
When people watch the Gruen Transfer, there is no representation from highly regarded ECD’s or CCO’s. There are ex creatives who are media personalities, but none of them have ranked in the top ten for Australian Creative Directors in at least the last ten years, if at all.
So Australia’s only show about advertising reinforces the notion that the ‘experts’ consist of a comedian (and a very cynical one at that), a planner (Todd) and a suit (Russell). Clients watch on as they dissect an idea, sometimes with the help of a feminist media personality / ‘creative’ and rubbish almost everything we do.
And when an accounting firm hire a suit as their Chief Creative Officer… well you know the whole industry is broken.
Time to move overseas.
Suddenly, everyone’s an expert on the creative.
Move overseas and you aren’t treated like this.
User ID not verified.
It be great to know who the “63 creative leaders” are. How many of them work in top agencies?
In my experience the best work comes from everyone working together. Good agencies don’t have people reviewing new ideas ‘while armed with swords to cut them down’. If your agency operates that way then question the agency you work in not the industry as a whole.
This isn’t about an ECD losing power or respect. They absolutely should have the final say on the creative work but should never be arrogant. It’s an ECD’s job to take everyone on the journey and be open minded about improving the work.
Sorry, but this write up comes across a little defensive. ‘Swords & shields’? Really? Such a negative post to finish the year. No excuses, work well together and do good work.
Happy 2020 everyone!
User ID not verified.
This is absurd and disrespectful. Creatives deserve no more respect than anyone else in the business. There was a time when you did have it and you abused it with arrogance and disdain for your own colleagues and clients.
Temerity? Are you serious. Why should the ECD be feared? Why do you need to be respected to sell your work? Can you not use reason, insight and articulation to compel and inspire?
User ID not verified.
One fundamental obstacle is that ‘creative’ has traditionally been about open thinking, gut shots and intuition and has (rightfully so in many scenarios) been replaced by data-led design.
Results are on average, better, but you do miss out on the leapfrog cases.
User ID not verified.
Good or bad creative content and the process to get to it doesn’t start or finish in a vacuum.
Clients want results. Sometimes that happens with good creative, sometimes it doesn’t.
The best creative is one that meet the brief.
User ID not verified.
Any mug can get behind the lens, create something, and share it with the world immediately. Often with much success.
The need for long form, over polished ideas has unfortunately dwindled. They are too hard and too risky to execute for most.
User ID not verified.
Typical hand wringing from a group who regularly fail to deliver, but love to take credit wherever possible.
Good creative is important, but Harvey Norman showed that availability, credit and simple reach were more effective.
The long list of IPA effectiveness studies utilise outliers in the analysis to claim effectiveness.
Creatives ability to deliver anything tangible is like quantum computing, you know it does work, but getting the conditions right is so uncertain you’re better off doing something else.
User ID not verified.
F#$% me, Harvey Norman and good creative in the same sentence?! Get off TicTok bro.
User ID not verified.
“creatives” have been over valued for far too long. I see this more as a necessary correction. The ECD is not a God. He’s just a bloke (usually) whose position has been elevated by decades of ego massaging. It was always a false reality, obvious to anyone outside of the industry.
User ID not verified.
Yes any ‘mug’ can do it. But please show me their success. The idea that any Tom, Dick or Harry can do it is absurd.
How many people do you think are trying to make a video that goes viral vs how many people actually get a video that goes viral. it would be in the .00%.
And to think that you can do the same with a brand is just laughable.
User ID not verified.
Planners are now the most important people in the room.
User ID not verified.
Well observed, ‘Good Points’, could not agree more!
User ID not verified.
An article that assumes respect should be a given and not something that is earned. In my times working with agencies, “creatives” were the most entitled people I ever had to deal with. I had to bite my trongue constantly – even as a client – so not to say “guys, you’e selling toothpaste/beer/tampons, not painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling.”
User ID not verified.
With all due respect. This is utter utter b*ll*cks.
It’s based on a fundamentally incorrect assumption that australia at some point had a golden age of advertising creativity.
It hasn’t.
The creative output of Australia even compared to near neighbours NZ is and has been turgid and yet this conflicted “we are so creative but we just aren’t allowed to show it” bullsh*t…. it’s just fingernails on a chalkboard stuff.
It’s the clients…. it’s the internal process…. it’s media fragmentation…. it’s his fault… it’s her fault… it’s b*ll*cks is what it is…
I’ve run marketing for 3 major brands in australia with annual budgets from $20m to $100m annually…. and what clients want more than anything is astounding creative… and work that works…
But I can tell you that the people talking about it are the ones who cabt create it.
User ID not verified.
I, and the majority of my survey respondents, agree with you Henry. The instances of committee creative reviews and “forums” as one highly awarded ECD put it, is a symptom of democratisation and dismantling of hierarchy. That ECD cited instances in which they, with their 20 years experience, proven and awarded track record, job description of being responsible for the creative product, and KPIs set against creativity had to constantly “debate at length with suits and planners (and sometimes creatives) with less than 5 years experience” on which idea he believed was the best for solving the client’s problem.
User ID not verified.
Best in mind that Gruen is not about “creativity”. It is about advertising and how brands and marketers leverage techniques to cause a consumer response. As such, it makes perfect sense to have a Russell and a Todd. It could do with a permanent creative leader to complete the triumvirate that reflects agency structure and decision making.
User ID not verified.
You are entitled to think it is bollocks. But I assume you also resort to data-led insights in your marketing. Listening to people and what they feel.
This is the result of a survey. Data. Human insights. If data shows a pattern, then there must be an underlying causation.
Who are we to discount their experiences as bollocks?
User ID not verified.