Regret is for Smart People

Rights of Copy

Ideas can be stolen,
but can anyone steal the ability to create new ideas? The worth of our ideas is not just the end product, but our ability to create them. Can't we change copyright law to reward both quantity and quality of suggested innovation? It seems that an innovator who produces many good ideas would be at least as valuable than one who irons out the details of any particular concept.

I've copyrighted the question "Why?" So please ask permission before you use my property, even if it's to ask my why I've done it. The cost will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Thank you.

As of now, the first to suggest a new idea will probably see no fruit to their labor. Meanwhile, the one who takes a concept and perfects its execution is rewarded with copyrights and enterprise. So, doesn't the system reward those who steal ideas? And aren't the best things made by coming up with a good idea and then improving it? Let's find a system to reward suggestion. Perhaps credit should either be perfectly placed, or else completely irrelevant. This middle ground is not working.

 

 

Is the nut the industry, or the innovator?

Speaking of good ideas,
over at Seth Godin's Blog he mentioned that he sent Hugh his manifesto for advertising and communication. Here it is: Unforgivable. Unforgettable, really. More, singularly amazing manifestos can be found at Hugh's Manifesto Archive. Read on and prosper.

So, I got a little inspired. Here's a short story about two young heroes in a giant marketing firm who want to change the decaying policies of old. It's called, "Face the Board and Don't Ask Questions." The original story named the firm, but I deleted it for copyright reasons. Yeah, so sue me.

Download face_the_board_and_dont_ask_questions.doc

 

Paradigm

I am lost in the fog of dreams as I seek the artistic expression of truth.

Fiction

"Fiction uses lies to tell the truth. Politicians use facts to cover it up."

The Purpose of Fiction

What Do Clients Want?

So far, we've been working for clients by delivering what they ask for. We'd assumed that was our job. But isn't it to help them build their brand and business? How much say does a client have in what we should be doing for them? Of course we'll make what's requested. But do clients ever reject the low-budget, effective planning and advertising we claim to be capable of? What if that requires change of the brand for the sake of integrity, or some sacrifice on their part?

For example, one of our clients created a smart new product for the region. As a part of his marketing, he got the chance at low-budget commercials, so he hired us to write them. We did our job all right, but it wasn't until a recent meeting, after we'd gotten comfortable asking probing questions about his planning, that we began suggesting new ways to advertise. Part of it, which we worked out together, would be to brand the product with a core message to express his vision of the product's purpose. Yes, purpose. What purpose? To fill the need for health in people's lives, even if that conflicts with the traditionally perceived want of taste and price.

We can say that our advertising will increase awareness and sales. But what happens when a great campaign isn't enough? What if the client needs to change before we can spread its gospel? How do we sell our real service?

It's easy to kill a great idea.
All you have to say is, "That's not how we do it."

 

This just came in the news:

Food marketers adopt new ad guidelines
Ten major food marketers, among them Coca-Cola, Pepsico, General Mills, Kraft Foods and McDonald's , have unveiled new voluntary industry guidelines for advertising food and beverages to children. The guidelines include: a ban on product placement in games or entertainment aimed at young children; a ban on advertising in schools; and a pledge to devote a certain portion of advertising to advocating healthy lifestyles. Some critics were quick to dismiss the new guidelines, but Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a longtime advocate for rules governing kids marketing, said the initiatives show "that the industry is headed in the right direction."   Advertising Age (free registration) (11/14),   The New York Times (free registration) (11/15),   The Washington Post (free registration) (11/14),   The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) (11/14)

"The industry is headed in the right direction." OK. Riddle me this:

Our assignment for the Coke campaign is to increase sales for the age group of 13-24 by 3%. We've discussed the ethics of it at length, but what about the reality? Can we turn Coke into a good product, i.e. a feel-good drink, by saying it is? If we raise awareness of their cause marketing, won't that backfire by revealing the irony of their unhealthy product? Can we increase sales if the feel-good message collides with bad publicity? Could advertising the client's product actually hurt  sales if the brand is already damaged?

If it's in Coke's best interest to change, as a business, are we obligated to do so? If we don't, will that hurt our credibility as advertisers?


The cover of our branding booklet for the New Venture Championship. It's a new business and invention competition held in Portland every year, like a business science fair. We suggested making it the hub of activity for the community of innovative entrepreneurs and sponsors on the west coast, in addition to the single annual event. NVC liked the idea.


It'd be fun to see the panel's reaction at the ad competition if we suggested changing the company so that we could have something better to advertise. We'd get "kicked in the teeth," as our adviser said. And I'm sure we would. So the question becomes, why are we advertising? For the client's needs, or their wants? When it comes down to our purpose as a service industry, where does our expertise and authority end? What should we stand for?

I'd like to think that it's for the consumers. I'd like to believe that we unite people with the things  they want and need in life, to better the world by capitalism, to fuel healthy business, and that our purpose is to offer, rather than to force. I thought that was the reason we built brands.

But then, I've only been in the industry a few months.

- jkl

New Agency Blog

Check it out! Allen Hall Advertising: The Blog.

That took up all my time tonight. Or, this morning. Yikes, it's 3:30 and I have class in 5 hours.

Future of Agency Structure

A blank canvas.

This week, Allen Hall Advertising members who were most involved with the agency gathered to offer their opinions, insights, and suggestions as to how we can improve AHA and our process. This was in addition to the last two weeks of listening to advertising professionals such as Russell Davies, Lisa Christy from W+K, Hugh MacLeod's Manifesto, Sam's secret to W+K, Deb Morrison, and great conversations with friends, peers, and pros. Time for the solution.

I'm pulling the alarm.

Let's make it organic, dynamic, flexible, and smart. I have a way to gather evidence that the current system is flawed, which we need in addition to experience and gut instinct; those aren't enough to change everyone's perception, especially those who rely on textbooks. Here is a scientifically conducted, tangible expression of why the current model is broken, and how it all hinges on ending heirarchy and redefining the creative brief. If you need a narrative, it's "Look how it's not working here, how it should be working if we followed the traditional system, that one's problem, and how W+K do it. Let's do it that way."

The Misconception of "Advertising"

Download the_misconception_of_advertising_aha.pdf

I'm writing up the New Allen Hall Advertising Manifesto, which could be the blueprint for ad agencies across the nation once they catch on (in my dreams). Radical and innovative agencies have been working this new way, as Creative Generalists, for a relatively long time. They get it. The rest seem slow to update policy, and our student agency was first modeled after the monolithic, heirarchal corporate agencies.

Change hurts so good.

- jkl

Science of Creativity

"Unless your advertising contains a big idea, it will pass like a ship in the night."

More Quotes by David Ogilvy

Before you can think outside the box, 
you must first define it.

Ogilvy's observations are a must-read because they are timeless truths that will remain relevant, even as agencies struggle to evolve. I've compiled a few practical resources for creative brainstorming, to bridge the gap between planning, research, and solutions. Time for a Squidoo lens! Thanks to Sam for the best of these.

How to Be Creative   

- By Hugh MacLeod

Quantity of ideas, quality of execution.

There's more to coming up with ideas than inspiration and perspiration. The solo quest for ideas is the best way to come up with raw content, but conversation and feedback stimulate new directions and potential. So, let's find the specific pieces of inspiration--how to work smarter and harder--and explore the limits of solitary thinking. Please add comments to address what I can add or edit for these tools.

Elements of Creative Power

Because everyone needs to refill their brain juice.

Perspiration
The bread and butter of creativity.
Thinking and thinking, cranking out ideas.

Inspiration
Great ads and design. 
Look at others' ideas and past work, close your jaw, and get back to work.

Focus
Russell's Account Planning School of the Web. 
Remember purpose, message, audience, medium, budget, relevance, originality.
Keep in mind who you're talking to. 

Conversation
Become a Creative Generalist.
 Share ideas, talk, get feedback, be open-minded, ask questions. 

Randomness
Explore something new.
 Feed creativity, seek content, change perspective, ask "what if?"

Experience
The Secrets of Wieden + Kennedy.
Practice. Do the process over and over again, until it's second nature.

"There’s a growing tendency among copywriters to create clever little slogans as substitutes for branding."

  - John Kuraoka

 

Inspiration can come from anywhere, sure, but how can we make the process more efficient? I hate to call it predictable, but it's reassuring to know that there is more to use than our own blank page of a brain. There are concrete tools to jumpstart our idea process. The main one is simply asking a lot of questions, then questioning those answers. The "What If" possibilities are always a crowd-pleaser.  Review Osborn's Checklist for brainstorming. In Creative Advertising, they adapt the Checklist to thinking about products or media executions:

• How can the size or proportions be altered?
• How can the shape or function be altered?
• Can the surface be changed?
• How many ways are there to construct it?
• Can it be made more effective?
• How can the performance be improved?
• Can the user do something different with it?
• What materials can be used?
• How can the information be put across better?
• What style could be used?
• What character should it have?
• What about color?
• What sounds or noises can be used?

A Visual Solution: The Graphic Grid
For logos and creative art direction

1. Write a list of brand or product attributes.
2. For each attribute, draw a dozen small, simple icons (to the right).
3. Look for visual combinations that create something new and unexpected.

For example: Potenza Caffeinated Water

Water (wave, drop, waterfall) 
Caffeine (lightning bolt, vibrations, bloodshot eyes) 
Health (gym, running shoes, ) 
Busy (clock, memos, Rabbit from Wonderland)
Elitist (business suit, Mercedes, hair gel)

Combinations:
drop of lightning,
bloodshot clock,
business suit in gym,
Rabbit from Wonderland reading memos.

The goal for inspiration is
relevant randomness. 

So, was this relevant? Post up some random comments.

Thanks,

jkl

 

Work Smarter, Not Harder?

"We're paid by the hour, so we work as slow as possible. If we work efficiently, then in two weeks we'll be out of a job."

- My roommate, about his job on the Alaskan slopes working for BP.
He finishes summer-long projects by July with his team.
In that case, working slowly is the smartest way to go.

Somewhere in Alaska.

There's always a better or faster way to do our job. But how much time would it take to learn to do it better? Would it really save you any trouble, if you're already doing what's expected? What will exceptional work get you? Who will notice?

In high school, most kids do just enough to get an A, or whatever grade they feel is worth it. They also recognize the easier classes, and are smart about how they plan their grades. Our only motivation as students is the fear of being a loser when we fail to get into a great college after graduation. Have you seen Office Space? It's amazing. The guys work just enough to not get fired, because they always get the same, crappy, percentage-based raise every oh-so-many years. But given the chance at hundreds of thousands of dollars, they create cutting-edge hacking software that rips off their entire company. How do you harness that kind of passionate energy?

New York cityscape, some August night.

We have a nation and world that runs on mediocre work. Drones are a staple of business. It's efficient on a macro scale, the way an ant colony can accomplish fantastic things, given time and resources. Of course humans have the capacity for enormous cooperative accomplishment, such as the Great Pyramids or the North Korean Mass Games. But that's not  working together. That's following orders. It is the architects and directors of such incredible feats who are the true visionaries. (Note that I refer to project artists, not political heads of state who manipulate communist slavery, or equivalent, for the sake of vanity. More on those jerks below.) 

Within that system of worker bees, skill is determined by memorized activity, isn't it? Those who remember more or can do the same thing faster are rewarded, though it takes a total commitment to improve before any reward. Doing just enough to get by is the smartest way to work, if it's for hourly pay or for fear of reprisal.  Machiavelli had a point. The stick works. But, what society and businesses have failed to use is the power of the carrot. We need to empower our peers and colleagues with more than a paycheck.


OK, how?

 

The power of the carrot.

This week, I learned that the term "delegate" includes giving responsibility. I thought it meant telling others to do your work for you! The difference is huge. I realized that in order to give someone responsibility, I have to trust in their work, because if I reach in and do it for them at the last minute, I simply steal back that power. Then they're no longer accountable. So how can I control quality if I ask others to get something done? How can anyone meet my expectations? How do I communicate the quality I'm looking for without doing it for them? It seems to be a combination of trust, explanation, examples, leading by action, and keeping pressure on to get results, on top of choosing who to work with. That sounds like every learning process. Or training.

Great! Let's make everyone smarter workers.

Brain drones of the future.

What if everyone was critical and dynamic at their job? Wouldn't we get everything done right, and faster? But then the conflict becomes a struggle to decide the best right way. If everyone was a free-thinking, critical, rebel against the inefficient system cowboy, we'd have chaos.

There needs to be a hierarchy of decision making. But that hierarchy is not a military machine, with the top giving orders and the bottom shining shoes. It's a hierarchy of responsibility. A leader decides the goals, and sets tasks to make it happen. But tasks aren't "do this." Tasks are "you're responsible for getting this done; we need you." And that narrows down to more specific goal-setting and decision-making for the next tier.

Genghis Khan took over half the world by establishing hierarchy. Chairman Mao ruined the most populous country in the world by abusing that power. The difference is in which assignments each ruler gave his staff. Khan told his military leaders, in their units of 10,000, 1,000, 100, and 10, to make decisions that would lead to victory. Mao made decisions on his own, for his own gain, and told his officers to execute specific tasks that he thought up himself, without the ground-level knowledge or experience of the people his decisions affected. He didn't listen; he had political opponents and critics exiled.

"Half of China may well have to die."

- Mao

The Government-Suppressed Story.

"Chang is writing to honor the millions of Chinese who fell victim to Mao's drive for absolute power in his 50-plus-year struggle to dominate China and the 20th-century political landscape."

 

-Silvana Tropea on Mao: The Untold Story

Mao wasn't a smart man, but he was a workaholic.
He simply decided to work for himself.

We need visionaries, sure. But we really need to know who's responsibile for which job, give everyone the power they need to do their job well, and hold them accountable by removing the safety net of absolute hierarchy. Can we avoid conflict by segmenting jobs, such that no responsibilities overlap? Or would it be better to have each person work through all positions together in a dynamic, self-correcting environment of critical thinkers? Is that even possible?

Either way, we should strive to work smarter and to inspire others to want to do the same. But that doesn't take the place of working hard. I'd rather work smarter and harder.

We have a long way to go.

Need inspiration?

Watch this Power of One short film. It combines the beautiful music from the movie and striking images of individual heroism on a global scale. It is the most inspiring piece I have ever seen.

jkl

Committing to Ideas

Well, what do you think?

So we want ideas:
How to communicate with people, examine problems, solve them, discover new things, make ad concepts, place them, execute them, and so on. Since the process of deciding on right the idea is not an exact science, how do we do it? What are the guidelines? How do we learn critical thinking?  Sometimes it's obvious, or common sense.

Maybe it's simply experience. Is there more than one way to do something right, and if so, which? How much of the decision is opinion versus informed? Or is it solely based on a statistic, without the common-sense check? 

• Take a fact, add an opinion, then apply common sense liberally.

Though the answer is not straightforward, the quest for it is. Talk about it. Ask questions, have conversation, keep an open mind, be confident that if an idea isn't right, that you're flexible enough to incorporate new information. Then, somewhere between the two extremes of a decision (i.e. total democracy v dictatorship) lies the answer.
 

• Apply the Greek philosophical Golden Mean.

Remember Icarus.

Socrates teaches that a man "must know how to choose the mean
and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible."

• It is not the exact middle of a sliding scale between two opposite attributes:

 

form opinion --------- depend on statistic

accept everything ---------- deny everything
appease everyone --------- reject input

There's no exact formula for finding the right compromise. Imagine the mathematical center between each of these options. How effective is that? For transparency of an agency executive's meeting (or a Photoshop layer), what works? What doesn't? What would the golden mean for each of the above options be? In order, I'd guess insight, open-mindedness, and proposition.

More on irrelevance below.

For leadership, a sort of half what-do-you-think, half maybe-this-is-what-we-should-do can create anxiety, frustration, and doubt for those who need coherent direction. And that's most of us. I sure as hell need direction to set me straight. Where is that option's compromise between micromanagement and indecision? I'd like to call it engaging leadership, but that's not in the flat middle. That means making decisions. But how do you make the right ones? How will people respond? How should you respond to them?

"The opposite of love is not hate. It is fear."
- Lisa Christy


Are you afraid of failure? Why?

The worst thing we can do as problem-solvers, decision-makers, and as creative people is to be afraid to share an idea. If we are afraid to step up and take a swing, if we try to appease everyone, then our ideas and their executions become conservative. That is, unoriginal. And that's not a true idea; that's indifference, born of insecurity. Our ideas must be engaging, whether they are loved or hated, wanted or needed.

If your ideas are loved and hated by different people at the same time, then you're on to something. You know you're in trouble when nobody has an opinion.

The process as I've heard explained by Russell, Deb, Sam, and others, is to first observe with a critical eye and have an idea. Then, talk about it. Toss it around with people, have conversation, take in more information and perspective. Then make a plan. You don't need anyone else to actually decide on a good idea, right? The key is that once you have the plan and set it in motion, we should be flexible enough to alter it, after feedback (observation and others' opinions) and depending on how well it works or doesn't.

"I believe the same thing on Wednesday as I did on Monday,
no matter what happened Tuesday."

- Steven Colbert roast of the Republican Administration
(Viewed and loved by millions.
Give your thanks to Steven.)

My plan is not to regret mistakes, but to learn from them. I don't want the pressure of needing to know all the answers; I want the liberty of having confidence to ask all the questions. So let's have a conversation.

jkl

Leave No Answer Unquestioned

We went to a lunch in Portland today with Russell Davies
and some of the cutting-edge ad gurus of the west coast.
It was a large dose of brain-food.

I believe in the Economist.
It's for smart people, so let's take it at face value and trust it all.

After hearing Russell Davies speak at Allen Hall Advertising and up in Portland, all I want to do is question everything. It turns out all the stuff I thought I knew was wrong, or was only the surface understanding of much deeper concepts. For example:

 

• Don't tell people what to do. Engage them with the responsibility of doing something well, and the power to do so.
• Don't have the answers. Ask the questions.
• Meetings are mostly wasted time. Decide what to do, do it, and be done with it.
• Titles and names are meaningless. Actions are what count.
• Democracy will kill most good ideas.
• Solo projects need the perspective of others' feedback.
• Ideas flourish in conversation because talking builds trust.
• Face-to-face contact and conversation are crucial.
• Adding more people, time, or money to an assignment will get worse, slower results.
• Higher pressure creates higher productivity.
• More production creates higher quality.

The stair poster I made with Josef for Russell's week in the spotlight.
In order; Sam the think-tank, McKenna, President of AHA, and Kelsey, director of Ad Team.
This was after Monday's lunch with Russell. We were kind of pumped.

I didn't know any of this before about 48 hours ago; for most examples, I'd assumed the exact opposite. There were inklings of these notions running through my head, but I didn't know what to look for, or how to critically examine whatever felt wrong. I thought I needed to explain it away, rather than really ask why. Since nobody told me that I could do better, I didn't try to do better. Now that I've seen what it is to demand answers, then question them, I can try to do this for myself and those around me, and get them to do the same. Hopefully. Will that work? Or should I just keep the questioning business to a reasonably tact level? Should I put it in everyone's face like Russell did, to get results? Where is the line between wisdom of critical analysis, and patronization by acting like a know-it-all? How much does personal communication affect the products of skill and time?

"Advertising is easy. It's people who are difficult."

The journalism school foots the pizza bill for AHA,
while Russell plays with his Blackberry (off-screen).

I had to turn down an applicant yesterday. He seemed much more talented and intelligent than me, but was arrogant enough to make me want to gag. But the things he said were true, that our way of running the agency was inefficient, made him feel slighted, and that we'd have to change if we were to succeed in anything at all. I thanked him for the insight, which lined up exactly with Russell's critical questioning, and told him we couldn't hire him because of his attitude--despite his obvious talent.

And we're in need of talent. Should I hire him, even if I don't like his attitude, won't be able to work with him easily, and nobody likes him, if it's good for the work? What if it's in the best long-term interest of the agency?  Talent seems to be more than skill sets. Or, the talent we need is this burgeoning critical thinking, a skill which few are aware is needed. It's creativity. It's the toolkit to solve problems by thinking and acting, no matter the obstacle. What job title is that? The get-it-done-whatever-it-takes and do-it-on-time-and-on-budget planner/director/executive? That's everyone's job.  But we've been trained otherwise. We've been trained to know the answer to a prepared set of questions, rather than to anticipate not knowing the answer. We've been trained to expect to know skill sets, or once having learned them through efficient training, to do them over and over again, like the Ford assembly line. So, can we make an assembly line of innovative thinking and execution?

Coca Cola target audience mindmap by the whole account.
Our faculty advisor was stuck in Portland, so we went ahead and
revised our survey by poking lots of productive holes in it.

The Advertising/Journalism curriculum at UO includes only specific skill classes, where you learn writing, research, layout, reporting, editing, and so on. The "general education" requirements would be a part of the Creative Generalist scheme, except that the individual classes are specific teachings in their respective majors. There's no "Critical Thinking" or "Learning to Learn" class. The faculty are trying to change, but the system is dead slow. Thanks, Feds. That's a whole other can of FDA-stamped worms.

But get this! Advertising and news/editorial students can't take a photography class. They'd have to add photojournalism as a major and buy their own pro-sumer camera for $400, with a $600 lens if you want to do it right. We also can't take the Digital Arts classes for tools like Adobe, film editing, or animation, unless we add an Arts minor. That would mean a dozen classes, including drawing, art history, basic architecture, intense studio work--all before you can take the digital stuff.  What's wrong here? Why not a la carte? Whose door do we knock on to change it?   Where do we find the resources we need to instigate change?

Downtown Anchorage pic from this summer, when I visited my roommate.

If you've accidentally found any answers in this post, please question them: jleary@uoregon.edu, or add a comment.

jkl