The difference between results and ideas to me underpins a lot of the complications a dm-er (whatever that means these days) faces.
For me, if you're going to be judged by results, hard-and-fast results, then that should be your priority.
Some creatives will sneer at this. But fuck them. Getting results is not easy. Beating controls is not easy. People will turn their noses up at a 1% response rate and say why not get nearer 90%. Well, my challenge to those creatives would be...try it. Without changing the mailing list, go and get a 90% response rate. You won't succeed. So shut the fuck up.
Beating controls is not easy. It's like beating a proven champion.
There are two ways of going about it - the first is just to guess, the second is to calculate. Personally, when it comes to beating controls, I like to employ the second approach.
I like to look at the control, question the little fucker, analyse it...and then try to outwit it. Is it a creative process? Well, I suppose not. Not conventionally, at least. It's more akin to a bearded labcoat with test tubes bubbling away.
It's more a test of intelligence than creativity.
There is definitely a case for coming up with a cracking idea and just seeing what happens. But most times, that doesn't work. To me, it's an admission of inability. It's guess-work. And while that's often very creative, it also results in failure most of the time.
Beating controls is difficult. And a different process from the kind of Watford college approach to DM. And to be honest, I find it a more rewarding process. Because when your hypothesis is proven right you get a sense of satisfaction. Even if you create the most creative mailpack in the world. It's still only a fucking mailpack. No-one cares.
Ideas, however, are different.
It's a different kind of fun. You can attack it with your imagination and creative flair. Here, with TV ads, press ads and websites, you can really express yourself creatively and show off to your friends. I love this too. This is the stuff you can put in your book and will win you awards.
But I'm not sure I'm fond of the meeting of the twain. And I think understanding the difference will only become more important as we get more interactive. Are we selling? Or are we wowing?
Results are results. Something cool is something cool.
The two shouldn't really be mixed up. Otherwise you end up an uncool failure.
And we've got enough suits already.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
ok, so you wanna beat the control, why give the pack to the "creative department"?
you said yourself "It's more a test of intelligence than creativity."
so why don't the planners and studio just do it? cut out the creatives. save themselves a fuckload of whinging and back biting?
Cos something has to be made.
I still reckon a good creative department can beat a control without planners and research.
And to be honest, planners and studio can't really understand the process I outlined. Only someone who has made a piece of work can really get under its skin.
In the same way that only a person that has written a song can be a true music critic.
yes and no.
i've never written a song but i love music, i own fucking tons of it, i subscribe to music mags and i see a lot of live gigs. don't care what type of music it is i can generally find something i like in it. i think i could be a music critic.
planners can love the job, love the process and have a far more strategic way of thinking than i can.
so if it's about intelligence, then surely the planners pack would have as much chance as the creative pack?
i'm just playing devils avacado here though, i mean, couldn't really be a music critic 'cause i think mick hucknall is a cunt.
Your input is appreciated.
Besides, I am only really talking about my process here. And even then only when it comes to "beat this control or die" type briefs.
I suppose I'm talking about creative intelligence, deductive intelligence rather than academic prowess.
If you make something you can see deeper than people who like something.
I've beaten loads of controls - with packs that were based on my hunch, or hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it - only for a planner, client, account man or other expert to tell me how and why it worked.
These experts only come out after the fact. Very few planners I've worked with have helped me beat control. They've just made the client feel confident in the agency's ability to do so.
The inventor understands the science more than the observer.
No planner will agree with that. But then their mortgage payments depend on me being wrong.
And everyone thinks they can be a music critic.
But only musicians really know the craft.
Music critics are like planners. Musicians are like copywriters and art directors.
The divide is narrow but categorical. Unless you've got under the skin of something you are only qualified to comment on the surface. And that's not trenchant enough to warrant authority.
fuck knows why i went anonymous there.
you hit the nail on the head some paragraphs back... "I've beaten loads of controls - with packs that were based on my hunch, or hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it "
i think THAT's why the creative department get the job of beating the controls, even if the answer is an unbranded envelope and a letter, we have a feel for it. a good creative KNOWS when it's right.
thing is, we do stuff that's the right thing to mean the brief, even if it's right, if the brief is off it won't work.
no wait when did this start being about the brief?
what was my point?
oh yeah, mick hucknall is nothing like an art director.*
*but he does look a bit like pat these days
PMSL
Post a Comment