According to Dr. Roger Von Oech, author of "Whack on the Side
of the Head" and president of Creative Thinking Inc., the one
common trait that all creative people, "Creatives", have is
that all Creatives believe that they are creative. It's kind
of like the Rene' DeCartes', the father of French philosophy,
"I think, therefore, I am".
Simple though this finding is, it is the result of much
research. And the ramifications of this study are important
to remember for both in-house and outside advertising/pr
entities in dealing with the keepers of the cash, i.e.
management. For latent in every transaction, there is the
possibility -- more likely probability -- for a conflict if
the management also considers him/herself to be a Creative.
So, this can be many people -- not just "artsy" types as
commonly thought of -- including computer scientist, military
strategists, doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs etc.. and even
taxpayers this time of year.
At issue is the conflict over C O N T R O L. Clearly, the
IRS wants it... as do all of the rest mentioned above. They
want control to achieve their goals. BUT SO DO YOU. And
while it is economically obvious that you cannot walk away
from every creative manager that wants to control his/her
destiny -- especially in the '80s with the resurgence of the
entrepreneurial spirit --it's not so obvious how you team up
and work together where conflict exists.
When in these situations, you need to ask and answer two
major questions before proceeding with your creative
solutions: What is the
of the difference: Is it about
standards, methods, goals or facts? And what is the
for the difference: Is it attributable to roles, information,
or perception. The synthesis of these answers will provide
an action plan focused on the areas of agreement.
NATURE OF DIFFERENCE
: Of the
mentioned above, perhaps none causes
as much trouble as that involving differences in standards...
especially with others who consider themselves to be a
Creative. It's not that conflicting values don't have
benefit in a collaborative brainstorming session. It's just
that at some point there must be agreement on creativity, or
the advertising/pr budget will remain frozen.
I think that it is obvious who has the control in this
matter. Therefore, it is critical for the servicing party to
get an accurate fix on the standards of the Creative who
needs to be pleased. Very often, this is not explicitly
accomplished. And yet when done, this disclosure takes what
would normally be percieved as a rejected creative idea and
puts it into the perspective as one concept that just didn't
measure up to another's standards. There's no need to lose
face here. Creative standards are personal, not absolute.
And yours are just as good -- I'm sure even better in your
own mind!
Fortunately, the remaining three natures of differences, i.e.
methods, goals and facts, seem less arduous to address due
either to the knowledge base that has been accummulated
regarding advertising effectiveness (though continual
advertising failures make you wonder) or to the frankness
with which the differences are expressed..
: Next to Standards, methods are the next most
difficult to resolve primarily because they are the embodi-
ment of those standards. For example, I hate mailing labels
on any first class, letter sized envelope. That's a standard
value. As a consequence, I have to use certain methods to
"personally" address my letters, all of which are more costly
than four-up cheshire labels. Pennypinching managers would
fail to appreciate the difference.
: My goal in expending extra time, effort and money in
addressing first class letter sized mail is multifold.
First, I want it to get there. Secondly, I want the
recipient to open the envelope. And third, I want to create
the right impression so as to predispose the recipient to
open my next letter.
Since no one spends money for a negative outcome, the
problems associated with goals are more inclusive and elusive
than exclusive.
For example, just what was Cullinet's goal in using Bobby Orr
(he's now a Boardmember) in their
Super Bowl
advertising. Who knows of him in Alabama, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio and all those other great football
states that had millions watching their native sons? Or is
there something
going on between Cullinet and Bay
Banks which also uses Mr. Orr ("Oh, hi Bobby")? Then again,
stretching the point to absurdity, Bobby and Bob Crane, the
Treasurer of Massachusetts, are known to be close friends.
Could Cullinet and Bay Banks be competing for an investment
by the State? Or could it really be as straight forward as
Cullinet just wanting national exposure? (At any rate, the
specific goal(s) escape me, except for the fact that Bobby
Orr sounds and walks remarkably like Lee Iacocca who I heard
was running for President in '88 and I'm betting on Bobby to
take over Chrysler!)
: One color verses two/three/four; full page verses
four quarter pages in the same issue... in different issues;
bleed verses no bleed etc. are mechanical facts that are well
documented by statistical analysis.... The Board wants Super
Bowl exposure; or we have only $250,000 to spend; or the
CEO refuses to buy space in Magazine X are other facts of
life that constrain or expand an advertising/pr campaign.
REASON FOR DIFFERENCES
: Again, of the reasons mentioned above, none causes
more consternation than that involving differences in roles.
Though this next statement will draw considerable fire, the
way I see it, management (creative or not) has the right and
the responsibility to direct and control all matters pertain-
ing to the company. That includes advertising and public
relations. Consequently, it's hard to understand why
should require complete control
over creativity or be frustrated by the lack thereof. For
those so bothered, happiness can more easily be found in
other companies where the creative control will be
relinquished for whatever reasons.
A personal case in point: I have both a colorblind uncle and
a friend who are tickled pink (they don't quite see it that
way..it's more greenish - grey) that their non-colorblind
wives coordinate/shop/and layout all of their clothes. These
men have delegated their dress to others more qualified...and
have received compliments ever since. It's a question of
role responsiblity... and roles are heavily influenced by
resources (good eyes) and reputation (compliments).
: In informational differences, parties have
simply been exposed to different information.... and
therefore have a different understanding of the problem or
what what alternatives make the most sense. It takes little
imagination to pictures the communications problems between a
manager who has been privately warned that he needs a "big
win" n-o-w and a proponent of creative three step campaign.
On brighter side, information can be easily dispensed. Where
it is factual, the matter is simply reduced to an educational
excercise. Where it is emotional or personal as above, it
requires the establishment of trust -- both ways.
: Two people may view the same event physically,
but perceive it in two different ways. Their history makes
each of them see different aspects of the same situation or
arrive at different meanings.
As you have observed, I perceived the Cullinet ad quizzically
because of my understanding of celebrity endorsements, suit-
ability, awareness etc. DESPITE MY RESPECT FOR THE
EXCELLENCE OF MR. ORR AND CULLINET, I question whether a
athlete cum businessman (he's not Lee Iacocca, yet)
who played
(a second tier
tv sport) is the
best wat to garner attention during
of the
year. However, I do feel differently about the Bay Banks'
ad. It's a regional ad and he is
an excellent regional
NET NET
T
