Creative. It's a word that has been used and misused for many years. When you hear someone say… "She's a creative type…" do you think they are being disparaging or complementary? If a client or an agency suit counters with "that's a typical response from a creative" …complimentary or disparaging? Is a 'Creative' someone who is glib, superficial and vulgarly self-obsessed? Or someone who knows how to bring to life the key benefits of a product or service in a persuasive, memorable, intriguing and entertaining fashion?
A good way to judge your next advertising agency is to go into the 'Creative Department' and ask any of the staff..."What do you do?"
If they answer "I'm a creative" you may have a problem.
If, instead, they answer "I'm writer (art director, designer etc) who helps sell my clients products with intriguing, relevant and entertaining arguments", you're on a winner.
Don't get me wrong - Creative advertising is the only advertising... and has built great brands and transformed mediocre ones. It's a mandatory for any business wanting to truly connect with their consumer. The problem is the definition. 'Creative for creatives sake' is blatantly wrong. Creative to get a product's benefits under the skin and into the consumer's brain is patently right!
Agencies and clients make the mistake of writing and approving ads that, more often than not, are missing the one key ingredient: relevance.
Bill Bernbach, the father of modern era advertising, wore a suit and tie to work everyday (just like Madmen) and famously said "if you can't do it between 9 and 5, you can't do it". He was a no nonsense genius who understood that 'creative' describes the argument not the person working on it.
Tomorrow…I want to talk about the Fred and Ginger principle™
Creating talk. Generating commerce™
No comments:
Post a Comment