@markcridge \ muck and brass

Is good enough, now good enough?

Jay Chiat famously said 'good enough is not enough', however as an industry we've often been guilty of using this to justify big-budget production to cover up for a lack of actual substance.

I posted recently on how employing the correct etiquette for each media is going to change the requirements of agencies and Creative Directors alike. Pressure on budgets in the midst of recession, but also the rise of social media which may inadvertently be turning the focus of the work back on to what really matters. Getting back to the 'substance' of genuine connection and involvement first, rather than relying on the 'style' of big-budget indulgent and over-wrought production.

The practical impact of this can be found in a couple of posts which highlight the changing expectations and demands of digital work.

BBH Labs posed this question recently asking is this leading to a dearth of great interactive work, and followed it up with a summary of their 10 reasons why.

One comment in particular noted that microsites tend to deliver most creative awards. I'm not sure if this is completely true, but it wouldn't really be any surprise, that the key generator of awards comes from work that allows creative agencies to flex their creative muscles, free to use all the tools at their disposal in an owned media space they control completely.

Microsites don't need to fight for attention in the same way, as you see it you’ve already made the choice to visit, but in many cases we're probably kidding ourselves on that this stuff actually makes much of an impact.

Brian Morrissey in Ad Age also picked up on how the awards circuit has driven this trend;

"Of course, the industry will probably still reward flashier executions. A Wordpress blog, even backed with a smart strategy, is unlikely to do well on the awards circuit.
Those concerns still matter in an industry where creatives are frequently judged based on the awards their work has won."

The main thrust of his article however concentrates on how agencies are adopting a more lo-fi approach to creating work. High-profile production agencies such as Big Spaceship and Barbarian are all increasingly turning their hands to work that satisfies the desire to get people talking and involved first, rather than having movie style production values as their primary concern.

Ensuring we choose the right tool for the job is a much more sensible place to begin. Not only is a more practical and realistic approach more appropriate for such difficult financial times, but it should also increase the likelihood that genuine innovation will take place.

Quicker, faster, dirtier experimentation that has always gone on in the background can become the norm. We'll do the Russell Davies maxim justice if we 'start by assuming a media budget of zero, then put money behind what works', rather than falling back on bling as a short cut.

Creative Director or Curator?

Picture courtesy of striatic

By definition the job of any Creative Director involves creating stuff, and for all the recent hype around social media, the vast bulk of digital creative endeavour is still focused on spending money on buying media and then filling it up with something. So far, so traditional.

This approach is even more apparent within owned media. Free from many of the restrictions of the campaign, Creative Directors are able to unleash all the digital tools at their disposal, how else to explain the proliferation of over-wrought convoluted ‘microsites’ as the defining model of digital creativity today.

In principle we talk about how different digital is to traditional media, but in practice in most cases Creative Directors are simply adopting a fairly traditional broadcast approach, often repeating the same mistakes, convincing ourselves that this is what consumers respond to rather than tackling the much more complicated and challenging requirement of actually finding ways to deliver genuinely engaging communications.

How else to explain the paucity of great digital creative examples. Great work is just as rare within digital as it is in traditional, which is ironic considering the emphasis we put upon digital work being relevant, targeted and more meaningful to exactly those we wish to reach.

What the rise in importance of earned media has made apparent is that just creating more stuff is not the answer. What you don’t do is often as important if not more so than what you do in fact do. Clearly knowing when to shut up is a skill we could all do with a bit more of!

Thinking on how to work with earned media forces a reappraisal of the role of the Creative Director, no longer required or able to be in control of every message and aspect of every campaign

Joseph Jaffe in ‘Join The Conversation’ suggested that rather than fight against what appears to be a disenfranchisement of the role of the Creative Director, instead who is better placed to act as ‘curator’ of the idea as it transcends the constraints of bought and owned media.

In a recent post he tore into both digital and PR agencies as being unprepared and incapable of properly delivering great work in social media.

However, Creative Directors of all stripes with their experience in recognising great ideas, who better in a post-campaign world to recognise what's most interesting and most valuable. To know what to nurture, what to play down, what to tweak, what to move on. To know how best to keep the story going, to introduce new elements and ensure the ideas are picked up, passed on, take on a life of their own.

So if these are the skills that are going to be important from here on in, which type of Creative Director would you rather work with? A big-budget brand storyteller obsessed with control, or one more comfortable with the ebb and flow of the interactive world.

(A version of this post appears in my New Media Age column.)