In his recent iMedia Connection article, Sean X Cummings (Entrepreneurial leader of SXC Marketing), provides a very nice explanation as to why digital marketing (advertising in particular), of late, is now often so mediocre and even irrelevant (wish he'd just said "less SXC"). While he points out a number of strong causes for innovation mediocrity in the industry and at large, in one important moment, he notes:
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a fundamental shift in which agencies have started to be run by CFOs and account teams. If we want to start innovating in this industry again, we have to restore the creatives as the heads of agencies. Sure, many more agencies' financial structures will become completely screwed up -- they will not be as profitable, and in fact, many will fail as a result. But we will innovate.
Let's face it, measurement and analytics are here to stay; especially in a down economy. And, I haven't seen too many business teams capable of innovating anything without the comforting CYA that comes from large "team ideation" conclaves, where the finger pointing for a bad idea can't fall on just one individual when that wonderful work that took 2 days sequestered in a conference room with coffee, pastries and then liquor at the celebration dinner goes as stale as the donuts did after the first 8 hours.
Anyway, suffice it to say that now might not be the best time to simply push the CFOs and CYA orgs back to their closets and spreadsheets (Investors and clients and client's investors would likely have a mass coronary over such a dramatic shift in the corporate mantle).
However, I certainly agree with Sean's general thought process and opinion: especially, if it involves incremental approaches and projects that help us move toward the ideal vision by (as he says elsewhere in the same post) "(s)tart[ing] small...[and] (b)uild[ing] on small successes...."
I'd probably go even further than just giving the creative guys and gals more free reign in the direction of company resources. For example, I'd advocate for new accounting and incentive thresholds - innovative in themselves - that would give creative genius much greater freedom to spend, but also provide sliding scale incentives (and, perhaps, even some penalties) based on profitability and performance results - ensuring that CFOs, Investors and Clients don't think the sky is falling and do have the ability to see a "check and balance" system at work.
I'd also recommend we consider new implementations of budgets (or increases where monies already exist) for creative R&D in agencies and firms (perhaps, even shared, joint venture style with major clients), tying innovation of new technologies and approaches to an incentive plan, too. There's lots of precedent out there for this kind of behavior, just not enough innovation by risk-averse senior managers in making such activities more common, and thus, more comfortable.
In the end, it's a new work world in 2010 for many who are switching roles, or looking for new ones. In a time of economic downturns, fear pushes organizations into belt tightening mode, and gives the CFOs control of the notches. In the heady times of a cash surplus marketplace, the pendulum often swings in the other direction, giving executive steering controls to those with vision and innovation tendencies.
For me, nothing good seems to come from either reactive pole. Usually the best agencies, marketers and firms have purposely or intuitively found stability and growth through maintaining harmony between those who create and those who administer.
As far as the CYA teams and ideation by Socratic Method goes: I doubt we'll see them go away. However, educating team members in the true purpose of the Socratic Method is important. I think Socrates would agree that debate (or discussion, or ideation) by the caucus is the single best way to the truth (or best idea) of a matter, idea or question; but not that the matter, idea or question would be fully resolved or tested based on the debate. Instead, I believe he'd say that the result of debate provided another matter, idea or question to be tested and proved. In fact, it's funny how, in most of these meetings (as in many Focus Groups), one or two voices seem to always be stronger, or, interpreted slightly differently, smarter.
I've never heard a more apt description of the practice of marketing or advertising. Our ideas are usually built by consensus, but driven by one or 2 individuals with the best ideas. What's interesting is that I've been in these meetings for almost 20 years, as consultant and client, and have often heard the best ideas spring not from the marketer, but from the finance person, the ops guy, or the production leader.
Harmony and a system of checks and balances, then, must also include the possibility for equal participation in the ideation process. In companies where I've been responsible for ideation, I've often used survey tools, and, more recently, social networks, to gather ideas from the largest possible invested audience, then trimmed down the best of those ideas through discussion with a small team that all organization members agree are the best representatives of that org's interests. This quorum has been the most successful in-house tactic I've used, because I've taken its one or two best ideas (filtered from the many) to the outsource team and given them free-range to create within the limits of budget and approved concept direction.
This formula, which combines CFO interests, creative innovation, and communal voice has been the best I've seen to clear mediocrity from view. In fact, work in these kinds of environments over the years is what inspired me to begin The Virtual Idea Blender blog you're reading.
As always, I'm interested in feedback. Let me know your thoughts!
-LGP
No comments:
Post a Comment