“Listen… nobody’s got a f***ing clue.”

These words were whispered to me at this posh little member’s only club in London’s Notting Hill area (perhaps just an “ok hotel bar” to the posh people populating this neighbourhood, but to me the place was rad). The whisperer was a well known agency CEO at an equally known global agency. According to him, these winged words about advertising in general were once spoken by one of the famous Saatchi brothers. I know very little about them I must admit (apart from the agencies and that awkward strangling pic with the TV chef) but the quote stuck.

I find there’s a very liberating touch to these sorts of Uber-universal truths when told by a leader in your industry. And having just talked myself that day at London’s Saatchi Gallery in front of a crowd of creativity and technology enthusiasts — I certainly felt like I could relate. It wasn’t really that I doubted my marketing ideas and insights about (in this case) social media. It was more the notion of what brought me there in the first place. Me? Speak at a fancy tech conference in London? Are you high? Clearly nobody’s got a clue. I’m in!

EMBRACING YOUR AREA OF INCOMPETENCE

Innovation is a word that’s being thrown around a lot in advertising right now. The same way “big idea”, “halo effect” or “game changer” was just a while back. We’re hopelessly addicted to trendy naming in our industry. We thrive on whatever’s the new way of saying the same old thing. You’d think we’d be the only ones immune to it but instead we just keep getting high on our own supply.

It’s ok. It’s fun. And there’s nothing wrong with having a little fun. But behind the buzz — we’re still in the business of making and make believe. And what was once the art of making campaign products driven by lifestyle photography in the 1980’s — is now called making interactive tools and applications driven by social storytelling in the 2010’s. But the art of making is still a creative process based on the same basic brain wiring: Think. Try. Repeat.

I’ve found it to be a lot about daring to explore the unknown. Almost like a sports psychology strategy, and in my case one that works for both personal development and running creative projects at an ad agency. Simply, embracing this notion of initially not fully understanding how to solve something and keeping at it instead of finding ways of killing it (out of fear). To boldly step into your area of incompetence. Here you’ll find new inspiration and with it — opportunity to innovate at the true meaning of the word.

It’s not really about the latest technology either. It’s how you use that technology in the context of an already programmed human social behaviour.

It’s that moment when you look at a new phone, application, social channel, piece of software or even a plain bus stop down the street and go “Hey you guys, wouldn’t it be awesome if you could actually _____ simply by _____ this thing here? I bet people would love that. I know I would.”

Now, the importance of having nice people around you when you start embracing your area of incompetence cannot be understated. Whether it’s an open minded and sharing creative team, curious producers, excited developers or one of those freakishly smart planners. It has to be “no dicks allowed”. Any agency today with a somewhat healthy creative culture is perfectly able to figure out how to assemble the right minds to make innovation come to life — whether it’s by including the people with the right answers to begin with or by quickly delegating things to the most suitable individual in the room. Just. No. Dicks.

The other trick is to always move forward. When I was working for Alex Bogusky — and this was at a time when he was still very much involved in things at CP+B, we had this rule saying we were never allowed to say “No”. Just to figure it out or find the alternatives and move forward. It was called “to keep the momentum” and to be “delusionally optimistic” about things. And it went for everyone. Creatives, account people, producers and business affairs (especially business affairs, actually).

I still think that’s brilliant in all its naïve simplicity. There’s literally a hundred ways an idea can get killed before it sees the light of day. Whether it’s budget, timing, testing, client, competitors, natural disasters or politics. Why try so hard to kill it ourselves before it even gets there? (Unless of course the idea sucks to begin with. But that’s another chapter.)

Just try it. Put a bunch of assertive, smart individuals in a room to explore their area of incompetence with the simple rule not to kill. You’ll be amazed what they will come up with. And how far any group of people can push something if they really put their minds to it. If nothing else, they will love their job that day.

DIRECTOR OF INNOVATION. QUE?

In 2010 I moved to San Francisco and started working for Rich Silverstein and Jeff Goodby.

I was used to running the Scandinavian Airlines account (as the name implies — a big account by Scandinavian standards) and had successfully helped in building an amazing team in Europe producing literally hundreds of print ads, banners, interactive experiments, radio and TV spots every year. We reached awareness goals and won awards. Good times. The move to the US shouldn’t be that difficult, right? Wrong. North America truly is “a whole ‘nother beast”. Skipping the most basic things here like the difference in size and the unavoidable politics that comes with it, just the overwhelming dominance of TV is fascinating.

“Ok. Cool. Where’s the script?”

I quickly realised I needed to make a choice. To join the 101 super talented young writers wanting nothing else but to write the next funny TV spot… or to focus on whatever’s not TV. On whatever’s different.

Enter the Director of Innovation.

It made perfect sense. Find the opportunities to do something that’s not TV across all clients. Don’t get me wrong here. I’m extremely proud of the TV work I’ve done in the US and going on production is always a lot of fun. You stay at nice hotels, meet nice people and get to hang out with celebrities. (Some of them nice.) But my passion was still trying to make things people had never seen before.

I know what you’re thinking… shouldn’t the Creative Director be in charge of the innovation? Isn’t innovation sort of our job/whole purpose to begin with? Of course it is! But every agency is different and everyone has to figure out what works best for them. Big agencies still need specialists. And while Special Teams might not represent the most desirable positions in the NFL — you’re not gonna make the playoffs without a good kicker. Besides, everyone is always looking for a timeless solution, but you know what — when navigating a company there is no timeless. Only now. Agencies and the people who populate them have to live in the now and act from that. Try new things. Explore. At the end of the day, what title goes on your business card is irrelevant anyway. At least to people I know. Thank God.

The point being, whatever measures your agency is taking to inspire innovation in advertising using the latest technology, changing titles or not, just always make sure proper authority is 1.given and 2.clearly communicated internally. I cannot stress this enough. Otherwise you will just waste a lot of precious meeting time having a former Creative Director explaining to account people that she/he is not really “in charge of the banners”. And hope everyone gets it in time for client introductions. Sad face.

ROBOBRO

The other option is of course what we’ve all come to know as the “Hybrid Creative Director”. The interdisciplinary creative.

A ‘Robobro’.

(Some years ago I randomly stumbled upon this picture of Robocop in a pink frat style bro-polo and it just felt like the perfect manifestation of the new Creative Director.)

50% new cool technology. 50% same old human behavior. 100% in sync with pop culture. All in an awesome Paul Verhoeven meets John Hughes kind of way.

Metaphors aside, the real Robobros and Robosistas in advertising will likely manifest themselves in a less colourful and more natural manner. And they will most likely be more successful by not being a one-man-show. Teams are a lot better in general I’ve noticed.

So perhaps instead of searching for that unicorn hybrid, it’s time to pair up the traditionally merited Creative Director AD/Copy with an interactive more tech savvy Creative Director AD/Copy counterpart? This is probably the best (and certainly the quickest) way agencies can kickstart being more successful at innovating across the board in advertising right now.

INNOVATION AS IRRELEVANT ART IN ADVERTISING

It used to be that art directors and designers were accused of confusing their own art with ads. Today the same thing goes for developers and innovation. It’s not their fault really. They probably ended up working for an ad agency for the same simple reason artists once did. The paycheck. (Possibly the people, and most likely the hope of getting your ideas published in some way, shape or form.) And that’s fine. But in advertising we make things that help a message or brand come alive and add value to consumers when solving an existing marketing problem. And whether you’re a Creative Director, Director of Innovation or Master of The F***ing Universe we still have to make sure we’re relevant.

Innovation without a brief is called having a business idea and as much as I love inventing random cool shit — why would I turn it into a crummy commercial? We’re not the next Facebook folks. We’re selling beer, cars and insurances. We’re making people aware of a new apple juice. Making them like an old forgotten body-wash brand again.

You are not Luke Skywalker my friend, you’re Boba Fett. A gun for hire. Suck it up or become a startup.

INNOVATION AS RELEVANT ADVERTISING

When it comes to inventing something never seen before there’s obviously no recipe. But there are different angles from where we can approach the creative process in how to use technology to innovate in advertising. So, in an attempt to get more tangible — I’d say it boils down to a few things that have seemed to repeat themselves a lot over the past decade.

New sexy technology.

Relevant context.

Same* human behaviour.

Here’s the trick: Successful innovation for big brands always finds a way to innovate and still work on broad platforms. It manages to identify and adapt to the human behaviour within that platform. Preferably doing so by demystifying the technology (hence the broad).

“Well, duh!?”

Fair enough, but this has not really been doable up until just recently. Or even worse, even when it’s been doable it’s not been done! Think about it. (And if you’re in advertising, I’m sure you’re more than familiar with the background to all of this.)

For the longest time, interactive advertising was using technology to chase “first downs” instead at looking at human behaviour and relevance on a broader scale. I know, because I was doing it too. The first Facebook photo gallery app idea before even all my (real) friends were on Facebook. The first contextual Spotify idea before Spotify was global. The first… /insert new technology here/ …idea. You get it. And as long as they kept handing us pencils, lions and pens for it, why stop, right?

In our defence, it wasn’t our fault Facebook wasn’t publicly traded or Spotify wasn’t available in the US yet. The relevance was there, the innovation was there, simply not in the sense of the established broad platforms we’ve got today. (Let’s just say back then no broadcast producer was making millions just showing Internet sensations on TV.) Still, we saw it coming and we were not gonna be held back.

But this eagerness to chase first downs and getting rewarded for it is exactly what eventually led to the rhetorical battle in the ad community putting “Storytelling” against “Digital”.

Excuse the short derail here, but if there’s still even a shred of doubt: There is no such thing as “digital” any longer and there’s not been for quite a while. There’s only life. Everything from your telephone, car stereo or airplane ticket, to your TV menu or ATM is already in the timeless shape of digital. What can make it innovative on the other hand — is realising the interactive potential of a specific format and how you allow consumers to interact with it. And storytelling has never been the opposite of interaction, has it?

The thing is: any story can be translated into something interactive. Something a little less expected. Something little bit more innovative. Now, if it should is another question. That still depends on the brief and ultimately, the problem at hand.

Beyond the old “digital” label lies the immense global marketing power of existing and now widely populated platforms. YouTube, Twitter, Google Maps, Yelp, Craigslist, Facebook, Google Hangouts, Shazam and Pandora/Spotify are not what they initially were. They’re all grown up. And interactive advertising has been forced to grow up alongside them.

It means that relevance in innovation can now operate within huge, populated channels and with the speed of early adaptors — since the threshold for audiences to enter newer digital platforms has been severely lowered. It’s finally true mass communication.

No more first downs. (Except by the Oakland Raiders. Sadly, they are few and far apart. Go Raiders.)

*A new exciting technology like instant messaging or social media can definitely change human behaviour — but the behaviour within that platform will then find its target, its “norm” and stay that way. Like the way we use texting compared to emailing, or how we communicate on FB compared to Skype. This becomes the context. The framework for how you come up with relevant advertising ideas, if you will. The tech innovation might present a whole new set of rules, but technology can’t tame our human behaviour. It’s like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Us humans will always do what feels most natural and what makes the most sense. With or without logic. Just look at what happened with Google+.

INNOVATION IN CREATIVE TEAMS

As a Creative Director you can’t just give feedback — you need to properly structure and lead the creative process. Map things out. Inspire. The same goes for innovation in the creative process.

Keeping it tangible here, I use what I call “buckets”. (You know, paper notes on a wall. Or in your head.)

These are basically a handful of relevant territories where we can start exploring new ideas in tech innovation together. Each bucket can hold 5, 10 or 100 ideas. A bucket can be called “mobile”, “in-store”, “social” or “OOH”. Or perhaps it can be called “video content ideas”, “packaging”, “stunt/event” or even “product development”.

The product, brief and the problem at hand naturally set the number and type of buckets. Usually a working handle or existing tagline affect what goes on the wall. Then, what’s most relevant/effective usually determines what stays. The buckets worth keeping are what eventually make it into the deck — and the best ideas in each bucket get presented to the client. Easy, right?

In this process a lot usually get structured by the traditional creative flow/team. The lines and the handles that feel right usually are. (i.e. creative talent at work.) But from my experience there are two other types of knowledge that add tremendous value and should be included throughout this process:

Planners

Developers

(Depending on titles at your agency the planner might be a strategist, or the developer perhaps an interactive producer) — but what you want out of it is really:

Someone sticking with it from a purely strategic standpoint.

Someone coming at it early on from a strict tech standpoint.

Not to mention the value of simply having two more brains with a slightly different perspective. The key is to get everyone onboard early, and more importantly, at the same time. That way you avoid having to do things twice and it’s also the special sauce for the group dynamic. Team structures can be hard to mix up even just a little bit. Trust me I know.

Actually, I know it to the point where it has led me to believe one of the biggest problems of our time is the territorial pissings of spoiled creative teams. The fearful, over-protecting of ideas that slowly kills all the good energy and fun in the room. It’s a disease and one that usually ends up defining the true difference between a creative and a Creative Director. It can divide departments and complicate necessary change.

Every agency is different — but from my experience the best way to deal with chemistry/people/team related problems like this is just to be very inclusive, transparent and available from the start. Make sure the creatives feel comfortable and in charge of things. Make sure the developers feel valuable and listened to. Get stuff on iCal and make sure everyone gets the invitation.

Open doors. Lead the way.

INNOVATION 2014…

I never worry too much about the future. I never try to predict what’s next because trying to be in the now is hard enough. The world is just getting more and more full of things to interact with. Whether it’s new social platforms, games, art blogs, wristbands that measure the calories in your poop, a trending breed of dog, drones that print Metallica’s next concert on the moon in 3D, or simply the fact that three generations are now crossing over on Facebook — there’s enough innovation, tension, truth and plain shit out there to create new stories for any brand already.

A million little things are going to change advertising this year, but I believe that within three specific platforms certain things will change in 2014 based on growth and a normalising human behaviour. Namely: Social, Mobile and Physical.

…IN SOCIAL: “THE DAWN OF THE PARENTS”

In 2013, social media once again proved to us how interactive platforms have become mass communication. (Not talking about the hype or the Facebook IPO, just the width.)

That day at London’s fancy Saatchi Gallery I remember comparing Facebook to the dog hatch scene in “Dawn of the Dead”. (If you’ve for some reason missed the past decade’s crazy zombie trend — I’m talking about the 2004 remake of George Romero’s classic with the same title.) The scene when the survivors on the roof of the mall discover another survivor on a roof across the parking lot. The lot is flooded with zombies so they send a dog over with supplies. When the guy opens the dog hatch to let the dog in he keeps it open a split second too long and the zombies grab ahold of it, quickly swarm the building and eat him.

Just like the summer of 2008, right? The summer we all truly experienced the dead returning back to life. When every high school flirt, college buddy or kindergartener you ever knew added you on Facebook.

And now, just when you’ve figured out the language and social code to successfully maintain that social relationship (perhaps how to keep your distance) — another social attack is imminent: It’s The Dawn of The Parents. I’m not talking about the pictures of newborn babies clogging up your feed. I’m talking about the social Armageddon that is watching your own parents help themselves to your social life online, without a manual. Getting access to every picture ever posted of you holding a beer or singing karaoke. Adding friends from your friends-list that you don’t even remember adding in the first place. And that dreadful feeling when your dear mom is using your nickname from when you were 4 years old to comment on a random pictured you’re tagged in, blissfully oblivious about the fact that this is not a private message to her son, it’s a broadcast message to everyone her son ever knew. Talk about technology demystified. It’s the dog hatch all over again.

Suddenly the balance between tonality and being relevant has never felt more important. Of course, this opens up for innovation in stealth settings, great insights for creative ideas and new truths following the change of social behaviour. But all that aside, the best advice I ever read on social was “Be yourself and don’t do anything stupid.”

…IN MOBILE: “INNOVATION IN LIMITATIONS”

Our mobile behaviour has reached the point where we need help from ourselves. With every 10 new apps celebrating the potential of being 100% available, all the time, there’s suddenly a need for 1 contextually smart app, blocking, rerouting or weeding out that very same possibility. Whether you’re in traffic, on vacation, at the gym or on a flight to Phoenix, mobile sanitation will hopefully help us take back and focus on what’s really important in life. Fear of missing out (FOMO) has become the norm in our lives so fast it’s suddenly an abundant territory where brands can act as relevant remedies.

The digital hoarding extension of FOMO is just so ironic when you think about it. It’s slowly making sure that we are in fact missing out on every single first hand magical moment. From sunsets to weddings, field goals to puppies. Pretty soon we’ve got everything on file and nothing in our heads.

I’m not saying it’s not super awesome that mobile has allowed the interactive extension of any physical thing. The next couple of years we will definitely see every connectable household device get connected to our iPhone. Locks, thermostats, espresso machines, alarm clocks, you name it.

But in 2014, more than before, the challenge for agencies will be to limit our desire to make brands even more mobile. Is this really relevant? Is this really useful? Is this really, truly adding value? These are the questions we will have to ask each other a lot more often. The brands that can keep doing things just to show off innovation will still exist, but the risk of simply becoming the new irrelevant art is getting higher with every new app in the store.

…IN PHYSICAL: “SOMETHING TO LEAN ON”

Our increasing need for nostalgic security blankets should not be underestimated. I’m sure there’s a flood of essays already out there, or currently being researched, just on the topic of books, vinyl records and how they relate to our basic emotional need for “things”. I would simply argue it’s finally gotten to the point where it’s a broad consumer truth and not just a hipster trend.

What fascinates me is the gap between logic and love in the matter. I know I’ve got access to every Iron Maiden album ever recorded 24/7 through the music cloud service of my choice but still I really, really want to buy “Somewhere in Time” on vinyl again. Why is that? It makes no sense whatsoever! (Buying it on vinyl again I mean, not buying this specific album, it will always be my all time favourite Maiden album.)

From a strict marketing standpoint it means that we are possibly going to see a lot more stories supporting cognitive dissonance — creating and adding arguments to justify buying things that innovations in technology supposedly have replaced already.

In the case of my Iron Maiden album collection it manifests itself in me saying things like “Taking back the ritual that was once how I used to enjoy music” or “Hearing the album the way it was intended”. (For audiophiles I’m sure there’s a whole separate range of amazing arguments, leading up to things like Neil Young developing that Pono player and all — but I never cared much for differences in quality impossible to detect with the limited sophistication of the human ear.)

Past nostalgia, in terms of pure product innovation, we’re likely to see more new physical objects as part of not only the marketing message and creating a social object for the sake of PR — but also because of the real demand for these “things”. Something to touch, smell and put on a desk.

Moby Dick on my iPad is obviously no different from the original hard copy — but a reproduction in the shape of a big, thick saltwater stained beast of a book presented on an oak table in front of an open fireplace just messes with my whole perception of what a true reading experience can, and probably should, be. It becomes something else. Time well spent. A memory. A social bragging right.

And that bragging right could be what drives the whole idea of, in this case, innovation in product design. The human behaviour, not the technology itself.

Oh yeah, and big budget TV has finally found it’s way to YouTube. There’s no denying the power of sharing great video content any longer. It’s forcing producers to think outside of .30/.60/Super Bowl and it’s putting the pressure back on creatives, directors and ultimately clients to tell better stories.

A SIDE NOTE

Through Creative Social I’ve been introduced to some of the most interesting people, artists, buildings, foods, minds and experiences in my life, at some truly unique locations all over the planet. I feel blessed. Not because of the network of somewhat “important peeps” in advertising or the opportunities it has created for me on different levels. I feel blessed simply because of how these people have made me a less ignorant person and more pleasant guy to be around.

I wanted to contribute to this book to feel like I’m giving something back. Hopefully my contribution sparked some new ideas. Or perhaps even inspired you in some way. Maybe it just made you feel better about yourself (whether it’s because we think the same way or simply because you’ve realised you’re much smarter than I am). If nothing else, maybe you got a laugh out of it.

And there’s nothing wrong with having a little fun.

This essay was written by Anders Gustafsson, Creative Director at ARGONAUT Inc., and first appeared in the Innovation section in our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which you can still buy from Amazon here.

All Balls. Some Brains. Keeping Innovation From Becoming the New Irrelevant Art in Advertising. was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In recent years, it’s become a rule that at least one Cannes Lion statue gets to travel to the Balkans. Make your pick: Romania, Macedonia, Serbia, Krakozia … (ok, maybe not the last one. That’s where “The Terminal” was set).

The campaigns that get to take the Lion home are bold, charming, and just a little bit exotic. Just like a wonderful safari ride. You never know when the monkey’s going to make a cameo and steal your lunch.

The sceptics may attribute this democratisation of creativity to a whim of judges or to the ever-growing political correctness of advertising. Something along the lines of the gender-equal juries (ha), fair competition and “one world, one heart” policy.

Here’s another thought: maybe the best and the brightest in advertising have grown tired, predictable and rigid. Some would even say that the soul, that indescribable thing, is missing.

All the while, it seems that there’s a ton of soul brewing in the Balkans, among those god-forgotten, second-world, no-one-thinks-about-them-ever and no-one-mentions-them countries. It just happens that exactly there, in between Ceaușescu boulevards, cobblestone streets of Sarajevo and the provincial air of Ljubljana, is where the action is. Just because they have so little to lose, both in terms of reputation and next year’s marketing budgets, creatives from the Balkans have become the bold and the beautiful of advertising.

This isn’t a matter of global economic crisis, budget downsizing and never-ceasing questioning of the agencies’ strategic and creative outputs. It’s a matter of risk management.

High risk and great uncertainty sometime leads to great and groundbreaking innovations (think military strategy). Often, it leads to paralysis and a “let’s not rock the boat” attitude. It leads to the culture of fear, conformism and aversion to doing anything new and different. It’s the culture of change-phobia.

Fear, risk aversion, and conformism breed complacency and mediocrity. Complacency and mediocrity are the ultimate enemies of creativity (along with those gnarly account managers).

Big, global clients, with big, global markets don’t help here. They are under this same economic pressure, and they seek solutions that will help them stay in the same excel spreadsheet column as the last year. Status quo is more desirable than doing worse.

We are witnessing a big money shift in advertising. It’s very unlikely that the budgets would go back to the level of the legendary Pepsi commercials with Britney and Michael Jackson before her. The industry will just need to adapt.

But what happens to the long tail of this industry, which never had the budget for Britney Spears? This long tail has been for years working in markets so tiny that they needed to be bundled under the name of ‘Eastern Europe’ in order to make sense, profit-wise. The advertising professionals in this long tail know that their audience is so poor that only every fifth person will be able to afford the products they are advertising, shrinking their market even further.

Yet, they don’t give up. They push and stretch their minuscule budgets, keep their brands on life support but alive, endlessly translate global brands into local copy, they are fast and nimble and stubbornly persistent. In recent years, they’ve done more than that.

They started winning. Constraints are the best friend of creativity. The can-do attitude is alive and well in the Balkans.

So, what’s there to learn from the creatives working in Romania, Serbia, Croatia?

Think of a small budget as a blessing and an opportunity to stretch your creative muscle. If you have a big budget, ask: what would I do with the budget half this size? Then reduce it to half again, and see what you come up with. For example, McCann Belgrade promoted the Suicide Prevention Center’s SOS line by projecting the message “You are not alone” onto the shimmering surface of the river Sava, which runs through Belgrade. This is an ultimate “moment of truth” advertising: the SOS number ended up right in front of the eyes of those who needed it. The campaign won a Bronze Lion in 2011.

Think of your team as a small, guerrilla force in the big jungle. Find your team’s unique creative voice (a warrior chant) and start fighting against complacency. But never head-on. That’s why you are guerrilla. Guerrilla’s are sneaky: they find the holes, the hide behind the bushes, and they jump out to surprise everyone. Be a positive surprise factor in your agency, even if you often feel discouraged. For example, Y&R in Skopje organised a joint prayer of Muslims and Christians in the same room to promote tolerance amongst nations in Macedonia, a country where national and religious issues are of such high importance that this seemed almost impossible. Until it was made possible, in modest production value, by Y&R Skopje and awarded with Titanium Lion in 2013.

Always dare. Dare yourself first, then dare others. What’s the worst thing that can happen? The client can decide that it’s too risky. Find another client. You won’t starve, daring work never goes unnoticed. But daring is best tested on smaller clients. Try that first. For example, think of a prank that McCann Romania won a Grand Prix for in 2012, where they put an American flag on the most popular chocolate bar in Romania. “Americanising” the iconic national brand for a short period of time was made possible with a limited budget, unlimited trust between an agency and a client and the creative urge to make something extraordinary out of an ordinary tactical brief.

If this sounds too optimistic, that’s because it is. If there’s one thing to learn from us creatives in the Balkans, it’s our relentless optimism. If we can bet against all odds, so can you.

We are also hungry. Unlike global well-awarded and well-known creatives, their Balkan colleagues are hungry for attention, for recognition, for being seen and heard. That’s why we work harder (just like Avis). Maybe because we appeared so late on the global scene, we still have this great desire to prove ourselves to the world, and the entrepreneurial spirit to match. Just like any creative, we are mesmerized by the very act of creation. We strive to tell good stories, come up with great ideas to drive positive change, and yes, to win some more awards.

The difference between you and us is that we’re desperate to be heard and seen. And you know what they say of desperate men and women … they’d perform miracles for a handful of change.

This essay was written by Jana Savic Rastovac, Creative Director at McCann Belgrade, and first appeared in the Advertising section in our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which you can still buy from Amazon here.

For a Handful of Change was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“Creativity” is a term thrown about so loosely these days that to begin this article without defining it would be like taking two steps backwards in a hopscotch death match. The Oxford English Dictionary describes creativity as “relating to or involving the use of imagination or original ideas in order to create something”. In other words, they don’t know either.

But who could blame them?

Creativity can be anything from the fancy footwork of a football player outsmarting his opponent, to a mother cunningly persuading her child to eat that last Brussels sprout. Never mind Jackson Pollock splattering paint all over huge canvases and creating the question of “…but is it art?”.

The definition of creativity will remain a long-standing debate. Our context in this discussion is advertising and this is where we will focus.

In our industry “creativity” refers to problem solving. It’s the art of finding a lateral solution to a linear problem. The only time that anyone will pay somebody else to do a job is when they can’t do it themselves, generally through a lack of know-how. They have a linear problem and, as linear people have no solution, this is where our skills add value. When poor quality cars were flooding the market back in the day, you can bet that it wasn’t a Volkswagen engineer that titled a beetle ad ‘Lemon’.

In an industry that’s been around for over a century, it’s understandable that the interpretation of creativity and our understanding of it has changed. That said, the last 20 years or so have been somewhat radical. Society as a whole, whether young or old, acquired a comprehension for the advertising message. People began to ask “why?” instead of “where can I get it?”, and they didn’t just start showing interest in the products, but the corporations that made them. “What are the ethics of the company?”, “Do they contribute to the community?”, “Is their manufacturing process green?” these are some of the questions being asked today that strongly influence purchase decisions.

Communication that was good looking was no longer good enough. The consumer expected a value offering. And so we began to see the transition from “art” to “intelligence”. The point where creatives had to start selling more and “making pretty” less. We had to include a new approach to messaging where transparency was key. We could no longer pull the wool over people’s eyes, a sound, intelligent argument would be required if people were to take interest in our message, and with the internet at everybody’s fingertips the public are quick to call out any claims that aren’t accurate.

Think back.

Think back to before J. Walter Thompson merged a media house with a graphic design studio to create what we now call an advertising agency.

In fact, think back to before there was such a thing as a graphic design studio or even a media house.

Our industry began through competition, when a fishmonger put up a sign to suggest that his fish was better than that of the guy opposite him.

Later on, a car was reliable. “It got you from A to B”, a soap was presumably going to make you clean, a cereal would fill you up in the morning and a shoe would protect your feet as you went about your daily business.

From the beginning to this day, when you read this piece, and into tomorrow when you wake up, there has been a consistent equation:

There’s a client • who has a product • that needs to be pushed into a certain environment • so an ad agency is employed • to come up with an approach • that through specific channels • will yield results.

So, not so long ago it was pretty simple. If there were two enterprises offering the same product, the one that won was the one that better seduced the people. Since the products were pretty much the same it came down to art.

This is the art of attraction: visually stimulating and verbally convincing.

Imagine standing on the pavement opposite two restaurants and trying to decide which one to go to. You would go to the one that looked like it had the most ambiance. In advertising we know it as “visual appeal”.

Back then, if you could just get the attention of the consumers they were sold.

Clients appreciated that while they could make “shoes” for example, other people, creative people, could make ads. Everyone had a field of expertise and the lines were never crossed.

For decades the formula remained the same.

The agencies would convince the public that they needed certain things, new things, things that they had never heard of. The public would lap up the communication and follow the “Instruction to Purchase”, and the clients would blindly put their trust and money in the hands of the agencies.

Briefs were simple, products had one offering, consumers had one requirement and if the two fitted together there was profit.

At this point creativity was defined by prettiness and believability.

So if that’s “art” then what’s this “intelligence” theory?

After all, agencies and the creative minds within them are still applying themselves to the moving of product…

Remember the “lateral solution to a linear problem”? Well, that’s where things have changed. These days it’s very much about “Less art. More business”.

Contemporary advertising dictates that what on Friday was the top side of a coin is on Monday the bottom, and if you weren’t paying attention over the weekend you missed the edge. Think about it. While you sleep and dream up the next “big idea”, someone somewhere else may be beating you to the punch. It only takes one time zone for someone else to do it first.

For example, consider cars. In the current car market “A” is irrelevant. All cars will get to “B”. Today, it is a matter of how safely and comfortably and what features one car has versus another.

Soaps are about skin rejuvenation on a molecular level, breakfast cereals don’t just fill you up but infuse you with every vitamin under the sun and “for a limited time only” come with a smile. Shoes tell you if you’re fat and your friends are all over your Facebook page telling you what to do about it.

At the end of the day, the first rule of brand building is “consistency”.

The consumer thinks, “I’m intrigued by the new one but I trust the old one.”

Pretty much all advertising before the late 80s / early 90s had been a steady evolution of communication structures that were born out of the industrial revolution.

Then the media consumption bucket began to overflow. An overwhelmed public switched-off to advertising messages and an underwhelmed client began paying closer attention to the bang that they were getting from their agency buck.

Never before had an individual been bombarded with so many sales pitches, with such high frequency.

We’re talking about people who during the 15-minute walk from the bus stop to the office would normally greet 15 familiar faces. They didn’t know the faces but they were familiar, and since everyone was going through the same daily motions, there was a sense of familiarity.

Suddenly the distraction of, “New, New, New! Buy me now! If you don’t have one of these you’re a…” infiltrated their lives. It built up and up and then, as a psychological defence, they all turned off.

Today’s creatives were born out of this renaissance.

Where the modern consumer’s question is not “is it new?” or “is it beautiful?” but “does it work?” and more to the point “how does it work for me?”.

Our clients are educated marketers who judge us on the returns on their investments. The products are competitive on a scientific level. The once accepting environment is sceptical at best and morphs daily, based on popular opinion. The ad agency seeks to perfect time travel in an attempt to stay ahead of the environment. The approach is often more about innovation and its potential than the message, and with that the channels blur, creating an ever-shrinking soapbox from which to make our plea.

More and more the “media department” is breathing new ideas into old briefs. Good creative work is not about the clever headline anymore but about how the overarching idea is applied. Innovation. It stems from technological advances and is generally introduced into any advertising agency through the media department.

With constant advances in our communication devices and the platforms that we use on them it seems like there’s a new way to get a message out every week. It’s a race between the current and the next best thing and as marketers it’s up to us to stay in front.

The good news is that one thing remains the same — the results.

If we aren’t getting them, we won’t exist.

Welcome the “Strategy department”. They’ve always been there but only recently been given permission to participate in the “Creative Process”. Who’s kidding who? If there was ever to be a hybrid it would be these two areas of expertise.

As egos are forced aside, the most efficient processes and the most successful results have been generated through this union.

Where once advertising creatives would sell their work based on beauty and poetry, we are now measured by our business acumen and strategic prowess. We can no longer sit in the corner daydreaming, while media schedules and demographics are discussed only to stand up with a good-looking layout.

We need to answer questions. Not about colours but about population consumption, emotions and spend. We need to know what’s being said about our brand on Facebook and ensure that the tweets are positive.

Remember the “lateral”?

Everything that we do as creative people is still art. The difference is the measure.

It’s about that ability to walk into a boardroom filled with very serious people wearing very serious suits and say, “have you ever thought of this…?”

“This” won’t be a layout. It won’t be a radio script. And it won’t be a web page.

It will be a business solution, an intelligent creative solution, a solution that nobody who can comprehend a pie chart would have come up with. And for just one second all your tattoos will be ignored.

We physically produce things of beauty, but when we’re around the boardroom table, or being reviewed on some global Excel spread sheet, it always comes down to ticking boxes. And getting that right is intelligent artistry.

Albert Einstein said, “Creativity is intelligence having fun”. You’d be pretty stupid to argue with him.

This essay was written by Pierre Odendaal & Steve Clayton, CCO and CD at McCann Johannesburg respectively, and first appeared in our highly acclaimed latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which you can still buy from Amazon here.

Creativity: From Art to Intelligence was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“You will never win fame and fortune unless you invent big ideas. It takes a big idea to attract the attention of consumers and get them to buy your product. Unless your advertising contains a big idea, it will pass like a ship in the night. I doubt if more than one campaign in a hundred contains a big idea.” David Ogilvy

From the scotch soaked, cigarette smoke perfumed days of the 50’s to the Mac Book littered millennial offices of today, creatives have always chased the fabled big idea. Its pursuit has made careers and destroyed them, won pitches and lost them, forged international allegiances and inspired the fiercest interagency rivalries.

In this chapter, I’ll be exploring the way in which coming up with a big idea has changed, what they look like today and where they could take us tomorrow.

Lets start with the traditional creative team. It was Bill Bernbach who first put Art Directors and Copywriters together to form a creative team. He believed two heads were better than one when it came to advertising. Back then big ideas lived as either TV, print or outdoor advertising. Their aim was to literally interrupt, to stop people in their tracks. Bernbach felt that blurring the lines between words and pictures, gave more depth to the creative concept. It was an idea that soon caught on and teams of 2 fast became the standard practice.

Fast-forward to 2014 and successful teams are made up of more than 2 people. Most likely it’s a dynamic group of experts embracing all aspects of ideation, creative technology, experience design, art direction, story telling and production.

The Google re:brief project dramatises this organisational shift perfectly. They asked how the iconic TV spot “Hilltop” for Coke would live and play out in today’s media landscape.

The original Hilltop Art Director, Harvey Gabor, worked with a multidisciplinary team to reimagine what the big idea would look like today. The team turned the sweet metaphor (and melody) ‘I’d like to buy the world a Coke’ into a reality.

The 2012 interpretation of Hilltop resulted in display banner ads that could connect people to Coke machines on the other side of the world. By clicking on the banner ad, the person could literally buy (someone in) the world a Coke.

This highlights the first fundamental difference in how we execute ideas today compared with 1971: we used to simply say a message, now we do the message. The big idea remains the same, however it’s no longer something that a conceptual team simply hands off for execution. Execution and ideation are interdependent.

I believe the second shift we are seeing is that we are no longer limited to metaphors. We can do more than just fake it with impressive CGI or incredible storytelling. Mercedes invisible car is a great example of our ability to actually create the magic of advertising, for real. Some smart technology, a whole lot of LEDs and some clever camera work made it possible to really make the car invisible to the public. Invisibility was the metaphor to support the claim that this car had zero impact on the environment. The stunt was filmed and went on to become one of the most successful viral ads we’ve seen. It also can be held responsible for the flurry of stunts that have swamped YouTube since then.

This upfront role of technology in the creative process provides us with some of the biggest creative opportunities today. Sir John Hegarty sums it up well “Creativity challenges technology; technology inspires creativity”.

It’s no surprise that this new role for technology dramatically challenges the definition of what the creative team is and does.

I’d argue that digital creatives have evolved in a collaborative creative process and work environment because they have always had to hack solutions. (You’re only as good as your programmer.)

The very nature of digital has always meant that the execution is not an afterthought but instead it’s the process. Hacking solutions has become second nature with the incredible explosion of platforms, devices, social networks and technologies that influence our creative playground. Ideas need to be shared, built upon, stretched, challenged, supported and made better through collaboration. It’s why this chapter is called ‘Ideas are gifts, not possessions’. It was something that my old friend and mentor, Mark Beeching, taught me a long time ago and, I feel, it only keeps getting more and more relevant.

Collaboration and co-creation is the new source of creativity. It requires confidence (not ego) to give your idea away to someone else — whether that’s another agency, partner or even your consumers. Interestingly, strategic planners have always had to give ideas away to creative. It appears that we must now do the same. It’s no longer about controlling or policing the idea in a matching luggage approach. It’s about giving it away and enjoying the ways in which it’ll come back and, delight and surprise you.

When trying to understand successful collaborative models it’s interesting to look at the Film industry for inspiration. It’s perhaps the most dominant creative industry in the 21st century. It’s always been a collaborative industry. It’s hard to say who or what is responsible for (or the owner) of a great film: Director? Scriptwriter? Actors? Producer? Photographic Director? The great story, which was based on a great novel?

None of these roles or factors is single-handedly responsible for the success of the final product. It’s a cumulative effect. Although what’s interesting to highlight is that everyone can win an Oscar for their particular contribution. So it’s no surprise, that the Oscar for best film is always the one with the most individual Oscars.

The Cannes Lions Festival is the equivalent of the advertising industry’s Oscars. And in line with evolution of creativity, its awards are also evolving. In 2005, in recognition of the new integrated approach emerging in advertising, the festival first introduced the Titanium category. This rewarded campaigns that excelled across a range of media channels. Subsequently, this grew into Titanium & Integrated in 2007. Then, last year, both Jury Presidents felt a need to clarify (and maybe justify) what each of these categories meant.

Today’s Cannes Lions recipients are winning big, across categories. Dumb ways to Die makes this point well, cleaned up in 2013 with 5 Grand Prix, 18 Gold Lions, 3 Silver Lions, and 2 Bronze Lions across pretty much every category — making it the most awarded advertising campaign in history to date.

Dumb Ways to Die beat serious competition in each category too. It won not because it was a big idea that had been adapted to different channels giving a coherent and consistent campaign. But because it was a simple, powerful idea that lived in different ways, creating value and earning attention across different touch points.

The flip side of the new post-digital playground bringing a world of opportunity is the new challenge it also presents. Things are only getting more and more complex. We have never asked so much from an idea as we do today.

Ironically, I believe that as the briefs are become more complex, the ideas need to become simpler. But these are simple, powerful ideas that can live in complex ecosystems, across channels, in real-time, that always create value and earn attention for the consumer.

Another big winner from Cannes in 2013 was The Beauty Inside by Intel and Toshiba. It took home 3 Grand Prix, 2 Gold, 5 Silver, 2 Bronze, and that’s in addition to 9 shortlisted entries. It’s perhaps the most perfect idea I’ve ever come across so far. In my opinion, what makes this brilliant, is that it’s a perfect idea for Intel and only Intel.

A lot of the advertising we see today is category specific. You can swap in and out brand names and it still works as a campaign because you’re selling cars, luxury, chocolate bars or whatever the category may be, but in the end it’s not necessarily brand specific. The Beauty Inside has succeeded where so many agencies and brands have failed: giving the idea away to the consumer. It’s ruined UGC for us all, making other attempts seem cheap and meaningless. A fantastic script and faultless storytelling gave anyone the chance to play the lead character of Alex in this social film. But it was done in a way that made sense for the brand and the user, ultimately resulting in incredible participative storytelling done with great talent and incredible passion.

I find it interesting that what would have once been considered as a ‘web series’ now can take home the coveted Film Grand Prix at Cannes Lions (in addition to Cyber and Branded Content).

The comparison between the advertising industry and film industry is interesting given that The Beauty Inside is perhaps the first ‘ad’ to beat regular programming and take home an Emmy Award for Outstanding New Approach to a daytime series.

Which brings me to my final example. This big idea was the elephant in the room at the Cannes in 2013. Red Bull Stratos is perhaps the biggest idea we have ever seen in advertising and yet it was not entered in any advertising festival. (No doubt it would have radically changed Cannes and any other advertising festival if it had been).

The Stratos team was composed of “world-leading experts in medicine, science and engineering, including a former NASA crew surgeon, record-breaking aviators, and designers of some of the most innovative aircraft ever produced”.

As we look towards the future we’ll no doubt see this type of approach more and more. Successful advertising will be built on powerful organising ideas that live over time (and in real-time), across channels with a programmatic logic. Felix Baumgartner’s infamous space jump clearly demonstrates the shift from saying to doing. It shows us how brands can create magic for real. And most importantly, it’s an interesting example of how this new breed of collaborative creativity can redefine what advertising is, does and inspires.

#givesyouwings

The above piece was written by Bridget Jung, ECD and founder of Jungle and was taken from the “Creativity” section of our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which features chapters from 35 leading creative directors and business owners giving their views on the big topics shaping the future of advertising and brands.

Ideas Are Gifts, Not Possessions was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The 300 year old school of thought of Libertarianism is seeing a renaissance thanks to the internet. If you have read anything about Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, Bitcoin, Uber, AirBNB, PayPal, 3-D printed guns or Silk Road you have probably had some exposure to ideals of libertarianism. These radical libertarian ideals have found some traction in permeating pop culture in the last couple of years thanks to a number of projects facilitated by the internet.

Libertarianism has been around since the 1700s. It is an idea of holding personal liberty above all else. That the government hold too much power and it should be limited, at the very extreme end contends that the government should not even exist.

In America, this has translated into an actual political party, the Libertarian Party. They are classified as fiscally conservative/socially liberal. Fiscally conservative refers to the idea of free markets; they’re looking for less intervention from the government. Socially liberal being that individuals should be able to say and do whatever they like. However, as a political party they have not seen much success, they have received less than 1% of the vote in the last 50 years in America and most people do not understand what they stand for. It was not until the Internet that they were able to start showing the benefits of their ideals.

The earliest trace of applying Libertarianism values to the internet can be traced back to an email mail list in 1992 called the ‘Cypherpunks’. It comprised employees of high-tech companies and well known computer scientist researchers of the day. The group was interested in Cryptography, the study of how to preserve the privacy of online communication from third parties, namely governments and businesses. Founding member Eric Hughes wrote the Cypherpunk Manifesto, “Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. … We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organisations to grant us privacy … We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. … Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and … we’re going to write it.” The Cypherpunks gained popularity when they lobbied the Clinton administration against violations of privacy. Clinton tried to introduce the policy initiative called Clipper Chip, a chipset for secure voice communication, it would give the government the opportunity to read your internet traffic when authorised by law. They went on to create a number of successful programs including off-the-record messaging which allowed for encrypted conversations over MSN, and PGP an open source email encryption service.

Where the early Libertarians were interested in the freedom of individuals in regards to online activity, it was one of the original members Julian Assange who had the realisation to use the cryptography to show a different side of the debate. He realised that there were no safe ways for individuals to be whistleblowers about their governments abuse of power. Cryptography allowed for privacy of messages between individuals but it also allowed an opportunity to keep these individual safe. Julian created the site Wikileaks for whistleblowers around the world.

One of the proponents of Libertarianism is skepticism in the government, that if the government is given the chance they will do the worst that is possible. Creating Wikileaks added wood to the fire in terms of a person’s skepticism towards their own government. Overnight he had started to sow the seed of doubt in people’s minds. This led to a number of whistleblowers coming forward as they felt comfortable that they could get their story out there anonymously, with leaks relating to the abuse of power by the government in regards to Guantanamo Bay; the Afghanistan War; corruption in Kenya; illegal airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq War logs. All examples of the abuse of power by the government.

One of the key whistleblowers that Julian inspired was Edward Snowden. In 2013, Snowden hit at the heart of the social liberties debate when he revealed that the US government were listening to their own people. What the cypherpunks had originally feared had come true and it was impossible to miss this story. Libertarians and the general public saw this as a gross injustice and the skepticism of the government increased.

It was not just the scepticism over the power that the government had in terms of monitoring its population that was a concern for Libertarians, it was also related to commerce. Libertarians believe that the government should not be in charge of their population’s currency. The first instance of this was in 1998 with PayPal. Libertarian and founder of the company Peter Theil’s vision for the company was ‘to create a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution — the end of monetary sovereignty, as it were.’ However PayPal ended up being government regulated when it was sold to Ebay. This set the stage for Bitcoin, a cryptocurrency that was free from government regulation.

Bitcoins got their early success thanks to another Libertarian online venture, The Silk Road. Ross Ulbricht was convicted in 2013 as being the mastermind behind the Silk Road, which has commonly been referred to as the Amazon for buying drugs. The site was a libertarian nirvana in Ulbricht’s eyes: “Silk Road was founded on libertarian principles … The same principles that have allowed Silk Road to flourish can and do work anywhere human beings come together. The only difference is that the State is unable to get its thieving murderous mitts on it.”

It has both the fiscally conservative approach of the government not being involved and the social liberal element where people could buy anything they wanted. The site’s customers were a small base of dealers and buyers, although they got to experience a libertarian marketplace. The currency that made this all possible was Bitcoin. A currency that allowed for transactions to be anonymous in the same way that money can’t be tracked offline. The value of Bitcoin comes from the fact that there are a finite amount and no governing body can produce any more.

Both Bitcoin and The Silk Road have provided the general public with real life examples of what the Libertarian values are. They have won over a number of fans with examples of what can happen when the government are not in control of the your choices and currency.

It is not just happening on the fringes of the internet anymore, Libertarianism is gaining popularity in Silicon Valley as well. Libertarians also believe that the government should not be in control of services — this should be left to the people and the disruptive economy, one of the latest movements in Silicon Valley, is disrupting many government regulated institutions with a new wave of start-ups. Investor Chris Dixon got straight to the point of what they are trying to fix — ‘regulations that truly protect the public interest are necessary. But many regulations are created by incumbents to protect their market position.’

Uber is currently the poster child of this new generation of disruptive start-ups. The mobile application connects cab drivers with passengers via a mobile app. Mike Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, who has been very enthusiastic about the company since its launch in 2010, claimed ‘let’s help break the back of the taxi medallion evil empire.’ City taxi services are one of the most regulated bodies in a city.

Uber have provided a model to other starts up to challenge government organisations. Uber didn’t try and work through the red tape of government utility regulatory bodies. They scaled fast and got a number of loyal fans on board and, by the time they got into legal trouble, they used social media to mobilise their fans and lobby government over antiquated laws that no longer made sense. In DC and San Francisco, Uber fought legislation and got old laws overturned in their favour, thanks to their vocal fans.

It is not just Uber vs. the taxi industry, there are a number of other high profile start ups that are taking on government regulation. Peer-to-peer home rental start up AirBnB recently got 235,000 people to sign their petition to legalise AirBnB in New York City, much to the dismay of the government regulated housing board.

The internet has been an amazing opportunity for a 300 year old radical philosophy to help permeate pop culture and show why their point of view makes sense. Through the internet they were able to show why the population need to decrease the power of the government at all opportunities. Through Wikileaks and Edward Snowden they were able to show the governments abuse of power when it came to freedom of communication. Through Bitcoins and Silk Road they were able to give you a choice of currency that was not controlled by a government and a freedom of choice. Then through this new school of start ups that are disruptive to government, they were able to give you an option to services that were only ever offered through government regulated services.

The above piece was written by Julian Cole, ECD and Head of Communications Planning at BBDO and was taken from the “Culture” section of our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which features chapters from 35 leading creative directors and business owners giving their views on the big topics shaping the future of advertising and brands.

300 Year Old Philosophy Powered by the Internet was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We were promised jetpacks.

They’re just about here, in a manner of speaking. And while owning one should be extraordinary, I want to talk about the way in which the veritable jetpack is going to affect your creative life.

Sure, actual jetpacks aren’t coming (sorry to get your hopes up) but the type of future we once imagined coming alongside jetpacks and flying cars is on the way. It’s a future that’s defined by an ecosystem of things that seamlessly work together and make life a whole lot better. That ecosystem, that future? That future is within grasp.

Scroll through the pages of Gizmodo or the offerings over on Kickstarter and you’ll find a glut of intriguing technologies, from 4K 3D TVs to gesture based wearables. There’s rarely a day that goes by that doesn’t include me staring slack jawed and wide eyed at some new awesome thing. (On that note, I got a chance to “drive” the self-driving Google car (very fast) at TED which was quite amazing. It was also easy to see how this would be good for advertising — watch TV while someone else drives.)

For the most part, the development of this new tech has been in silos. One car company comes up with a proprietary navigation system. Microsoft develops Kinect. Makerbot introduces affordable 3D printing.

What’s about to change — in fact, what is already happening, is that these disparate technologies are becoming a whole lot less disparate. They’re starting to connect with each other and pretty soon, you’ll be thinking more about what you want to do than who has the technology to make that happen. Think about this…

Today we’ve got Bluetooth speakers, wireless headphones and connected watches. Within a decade, we won’t have individual pieces. Instead, we’ll be surrounded by an entire Bluetooth zone. Want to watch a movie? You won’t pick up a phone, you’ll tap into your zone and project the image right in front of you.

Today we’ve got texting, video chat and voice data. Soon, we won’t think about the platform we’re using, we’ll just communicate. We’ll say what we want to communicate and to whom — that person will then choose how they’ll receive that information. It could be a phone conversation. It could be a text message. It could be something we haven’t thought of yet (Side note: In a way, we’re already preparing kids for this in schools. The shift is on to move from the physical process of writing/spelling to the context-based process of communicating an idea).

Consider those 3D printers. Today, they’re just out of reach for the mass market. Tomorrow, they’ll be the basis for everything, whether it’s a replacement part or a replacement heart. The existence of the interconnected internet and cheaper hardware means we’ll be able to make anything for anything. Think forward far enough and you can see the possibility that 3D printers could easily become the Star Trek replicator…or even transporter.

The most fascinating part of our future isn’t that it’s lined by unheard of technology, it’s that the foundation for this convergence of things into a seamless ecosystem already exists. We see this pattern again and again in current technology and you need to be fearless of this future. Photography led to film, then digital. Horse and buggies were superseded by a buggie with an engine. Screens became touch-screens, which became environments controlled by hand movements and voice commands. Our 360º future has many of the pieces in place that will form the foundation of our future. Those pieces are just in the nascent forms.

So. What? What does this educated guess at our future mean to you?

If we’re about to cross that line from proprietary technology silos to an interconnected series of ecosystems, you need to start thinking about how you can create for, mine and fund those ecosystems. For example, instead of simply creating a smartphone app, you want to think about a smartphone app that connects to a wearable that talks to an iBeacon that relates to a physical installation.

“Creating” for the future is going to be a lot of fun, and in a way, it’s already begun. The shift from “brands” to “brand experiences” is going to be accelerated (and hopefully, improved) by this integration. It won’t be a “social media” campaign or an “above the line” campaign. It’ll be the answer to the question — how does the promise of the brand stay with you wherever you go? My film company pitched a client on the idea of replacing the seats of a movie theatre with the seats of its luxury car brand. We proposed creating a short film that played with the trailers, a film in which the audience could use their own smartphones to affect the outcome. It’s early days, but this sort of integrating into people’s lives and what they do is going to happen more and more. That can be a promotional experience like the film we proposed, holographic way-finding systems that send data to a phone, or simply the ability to say “Hey Siri, find me a restaurant,” then looking up from the phone to see digital signage flashing at locations with sight.

We’re going to need to get paid for the work we do and that payment won’t come in the traditional ways. Today, we bill for our work, but as we continue to monetise data, the model will shift from paying for work to paying for action. 15 years ago, the dotcom crash happened because we tried to apply old financial models to the technology frontier. Then Google came along and demonstrated how data could make money. Amazon started generating revenue by becoming the backend to the Internet. As we move forward, even these relatively new models are shifting. Google is taking data to the personal level. The purchase of Nest shows that they’re thinking about this integrated ecosystem and how to make money from it. Expect more and more of these types of acquisition as we all explore how to make sense of the future.

Technology can still be expensive, which is why advertising should continue to do what is has historically done very well — fund the future. Advertising built the infrastructure for TV, keeping costs reasonable and getting sets into homes. Advertising expanded the smartphone and tablet markets, using data mining as a way to create revenue and subsidise the cost of the amazing little computers in our pockets. We’ll be counted on going forward, financing the base technology for things like those Bluetooth zones. In a sense, we’ll be responsible for setting up the ecosystems in exchange for data that we can use to tell and sell our stories.

The future isn’t about reddit or Facebook. It’s not about iPads and Oculus Rifts. The hardware and software will be there, but it’ll be integrated into customised experiences. At retail, that’ll mean that the next generation of iBeacon will generate a personalised shopping experience. At home, that will mean more efficient everything, whether that’s air conditioning profiles or lighting connected to the RFID in your phone. The promise is that it will all work together, and it’s up to us to fearlessly find new and compelling ways to turn those ecosystems into great storytelling.

And jetpacks. Hopefully, there will finally be jetpacks.

The above piece was written by James Stewart, Chief Creative and founder of Geneva film and was taken from the “Future” section of our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which features chapters from 35 leading creative directors and business owners giving their views on the big topics shaping the future of advertising and brands.

Replicators, Fearlessness and You was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

By Mark Earls, Herdmeister at Herd Consultancy

“There have been a lotta tough guys. There have been pretenders. And there have been contenders. But there is only one king.” Bruce Springsteen

“He was a unique artist — an original in an area of imitators.” Mick Jagger

Of all the icons of musical creativity in the 20th Century, Elvis Presley remains an original: from his early Rockabilly days with Sam Phillips’ Sun Records, through his Hollywood period, to his gloriously overblown Vegas years, Elvis remains distinctly original and not just as a white man playing the blues (there were a number of those around Young Elvis’ Memphis). The great classical composer and conductor, Leonard Bernstein was unstinting in his estimation of Elvis’ impact, in his view:

“Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century. He introduced the beat to everything — music, language, clothes — it’s a whole new revolution. The ’60s comes from it.”

He changed the course of popular music with his musical choices and his vocal stylings — the Reverend Al Green, one of the greatest soul and R&B writers and performers of all time, suggests that:

“Elvis had an influence on everybody with his musical approach. He broke the ice for all of us.”

And as both James Brown and Jackie Wilson noted, his act became the template for many black artists whose music he loved:

“A lot of people have accused Elvis of stealing the black man’s music, when in fact, almost every black solo entertainer copied his stage mannerisms from Elvis.”

Rod Stewart sees a more direct influence:

“People like myself, Mick Jagger and all the others only followed in his footsteps.”

The one and only

Elvis’ physical appearance — be it as the beautiful Sun-era hoodlum, the mid-era cheesecake (Warhol rightly picked out Gunslinging Elvis to play with) or the bloated jump-suited beast of the latter years — still seems so unique. Most of us have at some time tried out an Elvis move and vocal mannerism (an “uh-huh” or a “vair march”) and most of the time our efforts are rewarded with recognition. Impersonating (“paying homage”) to the King is no new phenomenon — France still just about has it’s own Elvis (Johnny Halliday) and Britain has both Cliff Richard, whose early career was built on Elvis impersonation, and a host of others (including Cardiff’s own Michael Barrat AKA Shakin’ Stevens who styled himself on Truck Driver Elvis, wobbly leg and everything). You don’t have to look far to see Elvis in today’s leading performers — Alex Turner, frontman of the Arctic Monkeys has recently (like so many before him) restyled himself as a young Elvis-a-like.

Even today some 37 years after his death, Elvis remains one of the favourite fancy-dress choices around the world and the basis of many a night-club act: at various times and in various places, I’ve seen Chinese, Sikh, Jamaican, Bangladeshi and Thai Elvis impersonators. Recently the “Elvies” (an annual festival of Elvis impersonation held in the South Wales holiday resort of Porthcawl) managed to break the world record for the simultaneous performance of 942 Elvises (singing “Hound Dog” of course).

Copycat Elvis

You’d think then, that for Elvis to be “The King”, to be “The Original”, “The One and Only” he’d need to be, and do, original and different at every turn.

Interestingly, the truth is otherwise: Elvis wasn’t even his mother’s only son — he was one of a pair of identical twin boys to be delivered to Gladys Presley on January 8th 1935. Sadly Jesse Garon Presley was born stillborn and Elvis remained an only child for the rest of his life.

His music was far from original — the early swampy mix of blues, country and gospel emerged from the stew of all those gamblers, hustlers and musicians drawn from across the Mississippi delta to downtown Memphis. Indeed, the story goes that on his first session at Sun Records, it was only by accident that the hard-paced rockabilly sound was spotted. Elvis, Scotty Moore & drummer Bill Black were mucking around while a tape was being changed, racing through a fast cover version of the old country tune, “Blue Moon of Kentucky”. “That’s it”, came a voice from the control room — “that’s the sound!” Over the years, his love of gospel styles (learned especially from family visits to the Tupelo Assembly of God Church) became more and more clear and visible, as did his love of sentimental ballads of all sorts.

While in later years, his management twisted the arms of songwriters to hand over a share of publishing credits to the Big Man for him doing the favour of recording their tracks (including, unsuccessfully the stony-hearted Dolly Parton) Elvis was essentially a covers artist — using other people’s music as the basis of his art. For example, while you may think “Hound Dog” as a Presley tune, it was written 4 years before Elvis’ cover by 19-year-old songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller and was a hit for blues singer Willie Mae “Big Mama” Thornton in 1953, spawned a handful of country-style covers and a bizarre selection of “response” and spoof records (including “Bearcat” with re-written lyrics by Sun’s own Sam Phillips).

It appears that Elvis was particularly taken by the tempo and the verve of the version played and recorded by Vegas lounge act Freddie Bell & the Bellboys: “When we heard them perform that night, we thought the song would be a good one for us to do as comic relief when we were on stage. We loved the way they did it.” noted guitarist Scotty Moore. So Elvis and the boys copied it and made it their own.

His clothes were not especially original or novel either: from his earliest days hanging around in Memphis, Elvis’ loved the street fashion he saw from the cosmopolitan, and somewhat shady crowd that gathered on Beale Street. Local shopkeeper and tailor Bernard Lansky dressed Elvis throughout his career — as he got more famous, Lansky and his brother either closed the original Beale Street shop so that Elvis could shop unmolested by his fans, or took armfuls of “real sharp” threads up to Graceland for the King to select his own. Lansky’s influence on Elvis lasted nearly 25 years: “I put his first suit on him and his last suit on him,” he boasted. Over that time, Lansky introduced him to the latest street-sharp looks in Downtown Memphis. From the peg-leg pants and boxy jackets of the early days through the leather jumpsuit of the ’68 comeback TV special and the white all-in-ones of the Vegas and Hawaii era — all of these looks Lansky borrowed from what hustlers and gangsters were wearing in that one small Southern city. And helped Elvis to do the same, too.

It’s not even that his name is all that original (although it may seem now to us that there could never be another Elvis): it’s no “moonunit” (the name Frank Zappa gave to one of his unfortunate children). Indeed, analysis of the historical record suggests that the name was already in decline in the US when Elvis was christened. And as our own Dylan Thomas impersonator, Rory Sutherland, points out, Elvis is a Welsh name. It is the name of the bishop who baptised the future patron saint of God’s Own Country, St David. This is why the original Church of St Elvis is not to be found in Memphis or Vegas, but on a windswept Pembrokeshire hillside, within reach of the city of St Davids and in sight of the Irish Sea.

So what does all this Elvisology have to tell us about creativity and originality?

Well, first and most importantly, it’s clear that copying and originality aren’t polar opposites: being original and doing original work is often best achieved by using the power of copying. Elvis was a covers act, whose musical stylings were borrowed and honed through practice and accident. His iconic appearance was the result of borrowed fashions and styles. Even his name — perhaps the most “unusual” aspect of the piece — turns out to have a long, borrowed history. Elvis is not a fake but he is a copycat and that’s what makes him and his music so original.

Other creative minds have long appreciated this simple truth about making original things: Sir Isaac Newton may possibly have been the most self-regarding of all physicists but even he was forced to admit that Descartes and Robert Hooke’s work on the science of Optics had provided the basis of his own much acclaimed work.

The Scientific Method — with its focus on experimentation, transparency, peer review and verification through experiment — has enabled science to advance by providing a reliable way for scientists to use each other’s work (rather than just rely on authority and reputation).

While in our world we tend to disdain people who copy and work that is clearly copied from other work (“derivative”, “pastiche” or “rip-off”), there are folk like the brilliant Faris Yakob who have challenged this: Faris’ blog puts the famous Picasso dictum that ‘talent copies, genius steals’ to work to champion and explain “remix culture” and sampling.

Take the Amen break — a 4 bar drum sample from the b-side of the 1969 single by the Winstons, titled “Amen Brother” (sic) which is probably the most sampled piece of music ever. It was originally shared by hip-hop pioneer DJ Breakbeat Lenny on the first of his Breakbeat sample compilation albums in 1986. Slowed down, it became the basic rhythm track for early hip-hop; speeded up, it’s the template for dubstep and drum and bass, and in between it became a mainstay of 90s dance music, even getting sampled by the Gallagher brothers. Taking a piece of someone else’s stuff and using it, collage-style, is one way of using copying to create something new that is now an accepted part of contemporary culture.

But another — more important and more widespread — use of copying to create original work is described by the poet TS Eliot. All poets copy, but it’s how you copy — not if you copy — that signals the poetry’s quality:

“One of the surest tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.”

On the one hand, there’s Single White Female copying — where accuracy of replication seems to be important; then there’s what you might think of as “sort of” looser copying. This has a really important scientific basis: when a copy is looser, it creates error and it’s in the error and variation that the value for a creative person or enterprise emerges. Mistakes in copying — like Elvis’s speeded-up “Blue Moon of Kentucky” — are where the juice is.

This is clear in genetics and evolution: when your parents bumped uglies to create the amazing unique individual that is you, they produced a mixture of their own genetic material — or rather, copies of their genetic material. It’s the miscopying in this that is responsible for your uniqueness (and as far as the species is concerned, the variation that makes it possible for the evolutionary forces of selection to operate — without variation, selection becomes a very black and white affair).

If you’ve ever played the “Chinese whispers” line game with me, you’ll know how rapidly copying a simple gesture along a line can create innovation and transform the original thing.

Of course, this is not what we normally mean by “copying” — we tend to think about copying either as deceit (think of forger Tom Fielding’s “Sextons” or of George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” which — so the circuit judge thought — was unconsciously copied from Ronnie Mack’s original “He’s so fine”); or, think about copying in terms of producing the same old, same old. The business school notion of “benchmarking” tends to produce just this kind of bad copying result: again and again, when key players in an industry benchmark themselves against each other, this will tend to commoditise the market, producing interchangeable products, processes and services.

What’s needed is looser copying — copying making errors — rather than Single White Female copying.

Far far away

The other way to access this power of looser copying is to copy from far away. Again, T.S.Eliot put it clearly:

“A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest”

Rather than copy from your immediate peers, copy from as far away as possible. If everyone’s copying Korean filmmakers, look at Argentinian or African sources — anything to get away. If everyone’s design is aping Apple, who are you going to look for as your source material?

In my work, I’ve turned this into a whole approach to solving problems: together with my collaborators, I’ve collated some hundred different types of strategy, each of which has been successful in a particular context (from Frederick the Great teaching the Prussians to eat potatoes to Apple making their users advertise the popularity of their music players by using white earbuds).

Rather than following the traditional reductionist approach (where there must be only one answer to the client’s unique problem), we ask first what kind of problem is this and then use the 25 or so strategies appropriate for that kind of problem to act as start-points. This pushes the thinking as far as possible away from the problem we’re thinking about and whatever rules might be the norm for people working in the space.

And if my observations about how people use this archive is correct, it seems that having several potential sources is important in making the copying looser. In innovation projects, my chum John Willshire does the same thing with a game he calls “popular thing — broken thing”, which encourages problem solving by using a whole range of different successful answers — sometimes at least, we need to shake off our habitual solutions and force ourselves to look at a wider range of source materials.

This is where that old practice of scrap-booking is so useful: noticing and recording things you find interesting and useful, and then forcing yourself to apply them as source material to any problem that comes your way, creates the opportunity for error and variation. The more different things you can copy from and the further away they are from your problem, the better because you’re creating more error.

Alex’s top tips:

My friend and co-author Professor Alex Bentley first opened my eyes to the importance of copying, so I thought it only appropriate to ask him for his tips on copying and creativity (one of the core subjects of his Anthropology and Archaeology studies). And for me to pass them off as my own.

Get over the idea that copying is cheating.

Yes, when you discover all of the movie plots identical to Avatar, it’s hard not to think worse of the movie and its creator. But loose copying and copying from far away really do create error and variation and it helps you see the problem from new angles rather than the same old way. It’s also something that humanity have long done — Anthropologists distinguish between “invention” (what we would normally think of as creativity) and “innovation” (using copying to create variation and error and thus new ‘stuff’).

Get over the idea that copying makes you a cheat.

Copying is a natural as breathing — we do it from the moment we are born and it becomes our species’ #1 learning style. The ability to use the brains and behaviour of those around us — to outsource the cognitive load, as the scientists put it — is one of the central evolutionary advantages that our species has. Just don’t be a Single White Female.

Not copying is cheating yourself.

In his recent Reith lecture, transvestite ceramicist Grayson Perry points out that “Originality is for those with short memories”. All those ideas and suggestions are out there in the world, waiting for you to use them — why ignore them and insist that you have your own idea. Is it really worth it? Yes, you may be a genius but even then it’s probably a better bet to start elsewhere.

Ask yourself this: if copying is good enough for Elvis, why isn’t it good enough for you?

The above was taken from the “Creativity” section of our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which features chapters from 35 leading creative directors and business owners giving their views on the big topics shaping the future of advertising and brands.

And if you liked this piece, we would highly recommend, Mark’s new book: Copy Copy Copy: How to do Smarter Marketing by Using Other People’s Ideas.

The King is a Copycat [Too] was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

by Dave Birss, Head of TV at The Drum Studios

I spent most of my advertising career as a freelancer.

Not an inbetween-jobs-and-desperate-to-pick-up-work-from-whoever-calls-me freelancer. No Siree! I was a proper don’t-offer-me-a-job-I’m-not-interested-in-being-on-your-stinking-payroll freelancer.

It was a great life.

Unless there was a recession.

Over the years I ended up working in lots of different creative departments run by lots of different Creative Directors. I was always amazed at how creativity flourished in some companies and withered in others. So I started to take notes, just in case I ended up running a department myself one day.

I was fascinated at the different management styles of Creative Directors. They ranged from passionate, creative geniuses to unpredictable, explosive coke-heads. Some of them liked to give the good briefs to the whole department while others quietly hoarded them in an effort to hold onto the glory.

And the amazing thing was that their behaviour defined the quality of the work far more than the level of talent within their department.

A few years ago I decided to take a break from advertising. My commitment-phobic personality meant that I couldn’t even stick to one industry, never mind one job. I took everything I’d learned about building a creative culture and I offered it to businesses. That’s how I pay the rent now. And I scratch my creative itch in other ways that don’t require a logo in the bottom right corner.

So I want to share with you a dozen things I learned about growing creativity in any business — along with some input from some truly legendary Creative Directors. Feel free to stick a fluorescent Post It note on this page and casually leave the book on your Creative Director’s desk.

1. Recognise the good work

I’m not talking about the ability to tell good ideas from crappy ones. Let’s take that as read. I’m talking about giving recognition to the people who came up with the ideas in the first place. And that recognition should be public and congratulatory. Giving creative people credit is more motivating than giving them a cash bonus. And it makes all the other idea-people want to try harder so they can get the recognition next time.

“A great CD will always convince you you’re onto something good. A great CD will make you feel like you’re a genius — and this job could be the one that makes you.” Alan Young, ECD at St Luke’s

2. Keep it accountable

I once worked with a terrible Creative Director who used to brief the entire department on any big opportunity that came in. As a result, hardly anyone did any work on it. He’d then make some bland idea-soup out of the half-hearted scraps he got. And thereby lose every decent opportunity that came his way. It’s much better to keep your team small. So small that there’s nowhere to hide and your reputation is on the line if you don’t deliver.

“The perfect Creative Director will spend her time focusing less on the kerning in a poster and more on how to get the right people to collide powerfully.” Nils Leonard, CCO & Chairman, Grey

3. Inspire the department

Inspiration is such an important ingredient in creative leadership. The boss should be showing examples of the kind of idea they want people to produce. They should be pointing people towards the interesting stuff that might spark an idea. And they should have enough charisma and passion to get people excited about what they’re doing, even when it seems a bit tedious. This is one ability I’ve seen declining at a frightening rate in recent years.

“You are there to inspire others and get them to do their best. You need to be able to listen more than you talk. Understand it’s a business but that you can be playful within it.” Patrick Collister, Head of Design at Google

4. Prove you can do it

I once heard it said that a good Creative Director is someone you can trust to crack the brief if you can’t. There’s something in that. If you’re managing a team of creative people, you should probably have more experience and ability than they do. Just as you’d expect the manager of a McDonald’s to be pretty good at flipping burgers themselves. It’s probably a good idea to show off your skills from time to time to prove the point. Just not all the time.

“In my opinion, CDs should only write in a crisis to make sure the teams are getting as many opportunities as possible. A great CD will rip up their own work in order to promote the ideas from people in their department.” Alan Young, ECD at St Luke’s

5. Share the opportunities

This point balances off the last one. Only a bad leader keeps the good briefs for themselves. That shows that they put their own priorities above the rest of the department. Or — just as bad — shows that they don’t trust the rest of the department to produce good enough work. Regardless of the reason, it’s pretty destructive for morale.

“What makes a terrible Creative Director? EGO (in my opinion). Masses of confidence and inspirational qualities yes, but ego no. I know there are a lot of successful CDs out there that have biggies. I think they can f*** off, personally.” Laura Jordan-Bambach, Creative at Mr President

6. Free people from their desks

Forcing people to work creatively at their desk is a waste of time. Office desks are designed for executing rather than thinking. If people feel the pressure to look productive, they go to their computers and start doing stuff. Or even worse, they start watching YouTube videos in the vain hope that it’ll give them some inspiration. Just getting out of the office — or moving to a different part of the office — is enough to change people’s perspective on a problem. Everyone has a mobile phone these days, so you can still keep in touch with them. Liberating people from their desks is the simplest way to liberate their minds from the obvious.

“People want to have a more fulfilling life. They don’t necessarily want to go into an office every day. They don’t necessarily want to keep doing that same job day in, day out. We have to think about more flexible structures.” Sir John Hegarty, Founding Creative Partner at BBH

7. Give clear feedback

There’s nothing worse for a creative person than vague feedback. The job of a Creative Director is to offer direction to their creatives. It’s better to have a wrong opinion than a vague, indecisive one. At least a bad decision to kill a good idea gives you somewhere to move on from. Saying “there could be something in that idea — explore it a bit more” is usually a waste of everyone’s time. If you want people to develop an idea, tell people exactly what’s wrong with it, what needs to be addressed and what you want them to come back to you with.

“A good CD is one who points you in the right direction and gives you the courage to take risks. A bad CD is one who snaffles the best briefs for himself.” Jeff Stark, ex-Saatchi & Saatchi

8. Defend your staff

Creative ideas are often brutally torn apart by the shirt and tie brigade. They don’t care about the talent and passion that led to the ideas. So they throw around criticism that would knock the stuffing out of the creatives. A good creative leader will protect their staff from these harmful barbs, because encouragement nourishes the creative soul far more than criticism ever will.

“A great CD won’t have a department. They will have a crew. An understanding that goes beyond the culture of an agency. And they will maintain and create the rarest entity in our game, trust.” Nils Leonard, Grey

9. Remove the obstacles

The measure of a great creative leader is the output of their department. The better the work they produce, the better you’ve done your job. There’s more chance of them doing something brilliant if you take away the crap that’s preventing it. Stuff like politics, pointless meetings, unrealistic deadlines and bad briefs. Go round the department every morning and ask what’s getting in the way of them doing something jaw-dropping. Then deal with it for them. That gives them no excuse for not doing something astounding. And they’ll love you for it.

“The perfect creative director presumes that her people are talented and want to contribute. And accepts that, without meaning to, the company, the process and even herself are stifling the work and its ability to be brilliant in some way.” Nils Leonard, CCO & Chairman, Grey

10. Hire people who scare you

David Ogilvy once said “If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs. But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants.” A good leader should be looking to curate a department of frighteningly talented people and making sure they have everything they need to do the best work they can.

“I always liked what Kenny Dalglish said when he was player-manager of Liverpool. On Match of the Day they asked him how he was making the transition from being one of their greatest players to managing a team. Dalglish said ‘I’ll know I’ve got the team right when I can’t get on it.’ For me that’s a great creative director. It’s your job to get the department to do better work than you could do yourself.” Dave Trott, The Gate

11. Don’t assume the client is an idiot

Creating an us-and-them division is never going to lead to anything good. It just makes everyone’s job more difficult and leads to compromised work. The client isn’t there to crap on your creative genius, they’re there to make sure your ideas are going to help them achieve their business objectives. That’s not a bad thing. A good creative leader will gain the confidence of their bill-paying clients, giving them more freedom to do effective, ground-breaking work.

“Talk to clients. It’s the only way to find out how they tick. It’s the best way to build trust. And trust lets you make the work that you want to make.” Tim Clegg, Saatchi & Saatchi X

12. Keep learning

Lead by example. No one is ever too senior to learn something new. Be curious about everything. Learn all you can about the business. Research your clients and get to know about their industries. Read up on new technology. Find out about the latest thinking in psychology and human behaviour. And let your staff know that you expect the same from them. Create a learning environment and your department will never stagnate.

“A great CD wont just set the agenda on the work, they will give the agency a true north. And will give not only the creatives a purpose, but make everyone who brings great things to bear a chance to shine.” Nils Leonard, CCO & Chairman, Grey

If you work in a creative department, these points should help you work out if it’s any good — and if your Creative Director is the kind of person you really want to work for.

If you found this book on your desk with a fluorescent Post It note marking this chapter, good luck.

The above was taken from the “Creativity” section of our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which features chapters from 35 leading creative directors and business owners giving their views on the big topics shaping the future of advertising and brands.

Creative Talent Means Nothing if Your Boss is a Moron was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

by Erkki Izara, Director of Product Marketing

Our job is to make people love stuff. The main tools we use are intuition and humour. The way we organise ourselves to do the job is through layers of creative teams and directors. The higher we are in the food chain, the smaller the chances we meet the people we’re trying to charm. So, how can we claim that we know anything about their love?

I met a real person, an actual consumer, for the first time in 2008. The night before, the thought started creeping upon me. For the first time in years, I was nervous for professional reasons — less confident than before meeting any CEO. Getting to sleep was harder than before any first date.

I would meet a student girl at her home. I only knew one thing about her: she couldn’t afford the product we were working for. She was picked because she was a fan. Would I really be able to talk with her about ideas and professional views? Would it be a waste of time? Or, would ad-talk make me look like an idiot? It’d probably be an embarrassment to everyone.

Meeting people, discussing ideas with them, and observing them in their own environment is what designers call design ethnography. We at 358 implemented it into advertising work. We called it co-creation. We weren’t the first ones to use the word but, to my knowledge, our real-life office-wide experiment of bringing ad making and product making together was a first.

Art Directors and Copywriters share the title of “Creatives”, but the way to make advertising is so established that the C-word is hardly the best one to describe it. Why did we want to challenge, and eventually change, the way we work? We wanted to understand what people really think about the companies we worked for. Research gives you answers to the questions you ask but a chat can give you something you don’t know you need to know.

Many creative minds get to ideas through discussing. If you do that only by staring at the sneaker soles of your partner, you’re missing an opportunity. Talking to recruited consumers at their own homes can make your head spin in just the right way. Loads of ideas start pouring out and you need to hurry-hurry-hurry to write them down.

The result could be all kinds of ideas — both traditional advertising ideas and unconventional things that could be interpreted as advertising: an app, a festival, new packaging, a service, or even a tweak to the product itself. Our first motto at 358 was “anything that helps people like a company is advertising”.

Our second motto was a little more empathic: “We help people and companies to like each other.” The bit that made the real difference was “each other”. No love catches fire as fast as an ad man’s love to the product that he’s assigned to work with.

But do we love the people who’re supposed to love the product?

We have to adapt our love to them to make them love us back. Most of us are convinced that our own sense of humour is the best (ad men seem to be even more convinced than others). Those who are right get pretty far. But if you can adjust your humour to the target group… you’re considered a sell-out! And that’s scary. An ad man should never have a recognisable style. If you do, you can only hope the clients who really need your style will find their way to you. If not, you’ll be neck-deep together with architects and other style-nazis — sooner or later you’re alone defending your own aesthetics.

Talking about ideas with people outside advertising serves both as inspiration and a reality-check. It helped me avoid several stupidities. For example, I might have suggested printing pictures of money on the floor of a supermarket for a campaign. Co-creation made me understand the customers would have felt intimidated.

After the chats with the consumers, we distilled insights from all the quotes and ideas in “synthesis sessions”. They often led to solid and understandable common sense strategies. A CEO of a bank once said: “These are just like my own thoughts but written better”.

When we reach out to people for help, inspiration and ideas, it doesn’t mean we’re handing over the steering wheel. Both agencies and companies still need strong decision makers. Informed decision making just makes more sense. Especially when it comes to love affairs. Why give tulips to someone who likes lilies?

In this case, love is not just a two-way thing. It’s a threesome between people buying the products, marketers and product makers.

To understand product making, imagine a diagram. I’ve borrowed it from the guys we hired from IDEO. Can you see the classic three circles that all overlap each other? A successful product needs to be a) technically feasible, b) financially viable and c) desirable!

These days, everybody is so aware of financial realities that we can skip viability for now. Technical feasibility is traditionally the job of R&D guys and engineers. Desirability is often left to marketers alone.

Once, a Marketing Director briefed me by showing a comic strip that said: “Now, do the trick called marketing!” He basically outsourced desirability.

Designers think about both desirability and feasibility. Sometimes they are also great marketers, but more often not. Regardless of how good they are, they should always be involved.

Together the whole gang should go to meet the people who use their products. We gathered the troops to understand where the music business is going to sell beer. We also did it to develop an alternative to beer … and for beef. We explored the category boundaries of a fishing brand while pitching for it. We found out that a design brand was mostly bought as a gift. And we built the whole marketing strategy of an operator around ‘recommending’ because they had the happiest customers.

What happens during this processed chatter is as important as the outcome. The whole gang gets shared understanding of the consumer; they start to share empathy. What do people need? What do they think about us? Why is that student girl our fan?

Companies are not empathic by nature. They’re companies. You need that process and shared principles to become empathic. This leads us to the last motto of the day. “Implementing empathy” was kind of the “Intel inside” slogan for us. Without empathy there is no love.

The above was taken from the “Creativity” section of our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which features chapters from 35 leading creative directors and business owners giving their views on the big topics shaping the future of advertising and brands.

What do we know About Love? was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

by Sam Ball, Creative Director at M&C Saatchi

You have been brainwashed.

As soon as you can walk you are told what to do. Then you are put into school, a place with more rules and regulations. You are told what to wear, when to talk, and when to eat. They clip your wings and prepare you for a solid and respectable job. Has a careers adviser ever advised anyone they should be a stuntman, artist, or rock ’n’ roll star?

You make it through the system and you think you’re free. The world is your oyster. Then you find out that the brainwashing continues throughout your career, and now it’s even worse because you have the added pressures of paying your rent or raising a family. Your bosses and colleagues will persuade you that conformity is the best thing for you to progress your career. Don’t rock the boat, keep your head down and work hard and you could make regional manager. They will, over time, brainwash you so that your main motivation is security: “I’ve got a good job. I don’t want to get fired. How will I put food on the table?” This fear will blind you as hundreds of opportunities whoosh by.

I am not painting the picture of some corporate drone. I am talking about the creative industries. Music, architecture, art, theatre, dance, the movie business… I don’t claim to be an expert on any of these, but do I know a thing or two about advertising. I can confidently say if you were to visit any advertising agency in the world, you’d think that 80% of people who are working there are simply going through the motions. Their motivation to create new things has been replaced by conformist habits and patterns.

The great brainwashed make the “world go round” but they never really change it. For that we need the troublemakers. The troublemakers aren’t smarter than you, they are not luckier, and they are not bestowed with any unique powers. Things don’t come easy to them. What separates them from everyone else is they couldn’t give a f%^& about the consequences of their actions.

People will want you to be who you already are

It was July 1965 and a nervous Bob Dylan, the greatest folk singer of his generation, was about to walk out onstage and make the biggest statement of his career. To the 20,000 folk purists, Bob was their hero, prophet and mystic poet. It would have rocked them to the core when he plugged in his Fender Stratocaster, cranked up the volume and ripped into an electrified version of Maggie’s Farm.

As they stood there and watched they felt betrayed. Their blood boiled and a barrage of boos and jeers followed. Did Dylan give a fuck? No, he kept on playing. This was a man breaking away from the traditional folk label that had been slapped on him. Dylan was breaking away not by picking the lock and sneaking out, but by blowing the bloody doors off. It was no coincidence he chose to open that set and declared his independence with Maggie’s Farm, a song that is often interpreted as the oppressive nature of the folk music scene.

In the first verse Dylan sings;

“I have a head full of ideas that are driving me insane,

But it’s shame the way she makes me scrub the floor”

How many times have you been driven insane by a client who wants what everyone else is doing, despite starting the project with the now hollow ambition of wanting “the very best ideas you have”?

For all their anti-establishment leanings the people who booed that night wanted their singing talisman to remain the same. They wanted the times not to change but to remain exactly how they were. His fans didn’t grasp the fact that he had to keep moving, that he had little respect for the status quo.

Dylan’s success didn’t come simply because he was a master of words, it came because he wasted no time attempting to gain things like acceptance, attention and praise. Bob Dylan was a rebel. The greatest revolutions in arts, politics, culture or indeed anything for that matter, have been achieved by rebels.

It’s ok to be afraid

What’s stopping more people acting like Dylan? Because of this constant brainwashing we are becoming slaves to fear. And how does fear manifest itself? Fear stifles our thinking and our actions. It creates indecisiveness that results in stagnation. You procrastinate indefinitely rather than risk failure. Here is the biggest revelation of this chapter, nay, here is the biggest revelation of this book. It is so important that you must read it ten times in a row. Don’t cheat. When you come to the end of the chapter, come back and read it another 10 times before moving on.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

You can be afraid and confident at the same time.

Mike Tyson, a man who routinely cast his life and soul to the altar, is one of the finest students of the unique duality of confidence and fear.

“When I come out I have supreme confidence. But I’m scared to death. I’m afraid. I’m afraid of everything. I’m afraid of losing. I’m afraid of being humiliated. But I’m confident. The closer I get to the ring the more confident I get. The closer, the more confident. All during training I’ve been afraid of this man. I think this man might be capable of beating me. I’ve dreamed of him beating me. For that I’ve always stayed afraid of him. The closer I get to the ring the more confident I get. Once I’m in the ring I’m a god.

If the toughest motherfucker on the planet can be confident and afraid at the same time, then so can you. Let’s not piss around, this revelation should change how most of us behave. If you’re not worried, scared or ever so slightly shitting it, chances are you’re not trying hard enough. In fact, scrap that. You’re part of the problem.

Without confidence you make decisions based on fear. With confidence you make decisions in spite of fear.

If you go through your advertising carrier with confidence and fear I can guarantee you will go further, but more importantly you will have more fun doing it. However, a rebellious attitude will mean you will lose business from time to time, but losing business isn’t the worst thing to happen to an agency, it’s the manor in which you lose business that’s important. Take these two examples:

The first is how my agency lost The Royal Air Force account. We had this fantastic campaign that tugged at the heart and raised the spirits of our young audience in a fresh, contemporary way. It had an awesome end line too ‘The best by FAR’ the last word being the RAF backwards. You’ll never see it, so you will just have to take my word that it was great.

Our client at the COI (the Central Office of Information, a government department that acts as a conduit between agencies and public organisations) kept trying to get us to dumb the idea down, something we were unwilling to do. You see the client knew what they wanted, but we new what they needed, so we had to stick to our guns, even if it meant a few frosty meetings. We went to present to the RAF, along with another agency that were showing a couple of alternate ideas. In attendance was our COI client and four representatives from the RAF, real military men, who had seen action, not just pen pushers. Every last one of the RAF guys loved our idea and preferred it over the other two presented. We went to the pub and had a drink to celebrate, thinking we could finally make our campaign. The meeting was on a Friday our COI client sacked us on Monday.

The second example is how we lost the Fosters lager social account. We tried and tried to get them to buy more challenging ideas but with very little success. In hindsight we should have resigned them, but instead we resigned ourselves to the fact we were flogging a dead horse. We simply serviced the client; we made the changes they requested without putting up any real resistance. It was no fun for anyone and sucked the life out of the team, worse of all it created middle of the road work, it wasn’t bad in that it was comparable to what their competitors were doing, it was just never going to excite and delight the young male beer drinkers of Britain.

So we toed the line and did what the client requested. Ironically, and inevitably, they put the business up to pitch and that was that. We did have a final hurrah when we resurrected Ex-Chairman Freddy Heineken from the grave. We got old footage of him and got an actor to read a script in a Dutch accent. Freddy told them in no uncertain terms that they had lost their way and were doing it wrong, it was the best and last thing we made for them.

You may think the moral of this story is, your damned if you do and your damned if you don’t, but there is a huge difference in the way we lost the two accounts. In the first example we died on our feet, and in the second we lived on knees and eventually died on our knees.

Don’t be afraid of losing clients the first way. You will often be faced with the choice to do what is right and what is easy, always choose the former. The biggest advantage is that you will meet clients who are confident and understand that to create successful brands you have to behave differently. This is certainly true in my experience. I would go as far to say that every great ad ever created was done when a confident agency met a confident client.

The majority of people have had their confidence and individualism sucked out of them. They will see you as a misfit or a crazy. Your unconventional ideas will make them freak them out. F%^&’em, do them anyway. Do not vilify the brainwashed, but do not pity them either. Many are content with their lot, but if they start messing with your mind, deal with them swiftly. Shoot them between the eyes, dispose of the corpse, move on and feel no remorse. This is easier to do if you think of them not as humans but as sheep.

If you find yourself mirroring them or echoing their thoughts nip it in the bud. Immerse yourself in the art of the rebels; listen to ‘Bringing It All Back Home’ or ‘Rubber Soul’. Read the books the rebels write, watch the films the rebels make.

Remember that the conformists are not born, they are made. Likewise, the rebels are not born, they are made. It just takes more courage, more confidence, and more hard work to make them. Resist the pressures of conventional success and constantly seek and find new and better ways to do things. Be afraid, be very afraid and then get the fuck off Maggie’s farm any way you can.

The above was taken from the “Creativity” section of our latest book, Hacker, Maker, Teacher, Thief: Advertising’s Next Generation, which features chapters from 35 leading creative directors and business owners giving their views on the big topics shaping the future of advertising and brands.

I ain’t Gonna Work on Maggie’s Farm no More was originally published in Advertising’s Next Generation on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.