MEASURING CREATIVITY
How do we measure and define something so subjective as creativity? Who are the people most suited to work as creatives and what value do we give to an original idea? These are the questions being pondered in this data analytics age, to define and value exactly what it is to be a creative within the advertising and marketing industry.
There are no definitive answers to what being creative 'is' but it's universally accepted that we are all creative in our own unique way. Psychologists at one time, used to believe there was a direct relationship between an individual's IQ and creativity and having an intelligence score above 100, was a sure enough measure of one's creative ability.
But creativity requires more than just cognitive intelligence. It's about persistently exploring possibilities, to forge connections and make new discoveries — with divergent as opposed to convergent thinking.
Scientific research has been more recently focussed on collecting empirical data to better measure creativity and we've now arrived at a defining point in their scholastic investigations for categorising one's creative status. Creative types, can now fit into what researchers have coined the Four C Model. So, if we've conveniently compartmentalised them into four main 'C' categories, how do we accurately grade creatives to know which badge applies to them?
Referencing the works of Psychologist, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and observing the various methods used since the 1950's for testing creativity, we can utilise four different methods for assessing creativive work. But however these methods are used, the results obtained are all still very much based on subjective viewpoints and influenced further by social implications depending on their audience.
Comparing The Markets
We can be extremely creative people, passionately focussing our energies on our music, writing, art, design and creative concepts, but until we get 'discovered' by the right people, we have no standing to receive any kudos. It can take a depressingly long time to have your talents recognised. Van Gogh is a well known case in point, but there are many other souls who struggled to find an audience, lived out their lives of obscurity and were only awarded their elusive accolades posthumously. If appealing to the minority — publishers, gallery owners and music producers etc. was seen as such a major hurdle and the defining reason why artists from the past, failed to obtain recognition in their lifetime, then surely, having so many channels available today — through TV, radio and the internet, etc., should allow creative types greater opportunity for success...But perhaps that's not the case?
For an artist to reach their creative pinnacle within a lifetime — even in this day and age — is still a very rare occurance. To be seen as uniquely creative, first takes a niche set of 'mavens' (as Malcolm Gladwell defines them in Tipping Point), to buy into their product. Either experts in the field, collectively recognise and report on the artist's talents or else, the early adopters and salespeople spread the message of creative genius, for the mainstream to pick up on. Having the artist's work seen or heard by so many, will accelerate this phenomena. David Bowie was a living embodiment of this — but is he revered as a major (Big C) creative talent such as Mozart? Only time can really tell. Because we are using Mozart as a reference point, Bowie's music would theoretically need to stay popular for over another 100 years. If this happens, then it's more likely he'll be added to the hall of fame. But even if we measure the creative talents in a reasonable time frame. ie. during Bowie's lifetime, it's again very subjective — he was a pop star after all, so there'll be questions raised regarding the importance of his music contributions in that regard.
In professional creative terms, being niche or having mass appeal can have equal success. But in marketing terms, having more people buying in to a product, is ultimately what will be measured. Money makes the world going round as they say and sales figures are the speed indicators.
Something perceived as having greater creative value because it is exclusive, can also decrease in creative value but increase in monetary value as it becomes more widespread and abundant. It's a dilemma again for artists who strive for creative kudos, who then become a household name, only to lose some perceived creative brilliance in the process. When listening to Grayson Perry harp on about his being 'discovered' and consequently 'wheeled out' by the art world as their bastion for UK's avant-garde scene, one can see the dilemma he now faces on being so widely recognised, accepted and famous. His TV shows/appearances and regular presence in the spotlight, has diminished the shock factor he once possessed as a cross dresser and his Turner prize accolade puts him in a bracket along with other prize winners. His work is still revered and valuable, but with all the exposure had, rather than be elevated higher, he's likely becoming just another great 'pop' artist.
So for musicians and artists, there are many subjective viewpoints of what is great or good. Whatever the theories and research/studies taken by psychologists end up revealing, the creative output, the genus of the 'big idea' — the creative element and prized holy grail in advertising circles — has a value we still find difficult to define, certainly in monetary terms.
It Just Works
The more mature amongst us, may recall a time in the not so distant past (the '90's), when the advertising industry was run by the creatives. Yes, the wacky, hair-brained and in some cases socially inept, moody and aloof creative directors, were the ones really calling the shots. True — this meant that the most prestigious roles were to be found in the creative department. However, the client team's role was equally important in that they had to get the idea across and facilitate the process of getting the job back through the studio and out into the real world. A tough gig for the sales people, but it produced some fine advertising ambassadors. The creative work stood up on it's own — it was either talked about or it wasn't. It certainly helped having less creative avenues and therefore a more captive audience, but producing good adverts back then, has continued to have lasting appeal in the minds of those they influenced.
Back in the 90's, many adverts were often better produced and considerably more memorable than the actual programs broadcast on the TV. Sure, the budgets were big — the idea was big! And so it followed — the bigger the idea, the more creative it was seen to be. And that's largely what the creative agencies were being measured on.
So the ads needed bigger production budgets for cinema and TV, the photographers and retouchers became Gods in their own right, who needed paying accordingly. It was artful and a glorious golden era for advertising. Money makes money, right? So who's going to question the Creative Director about where the money goes? Well as it happens, the finance departments questioned them. They had to, because clients wanted more transparency and sought greater value for money. Too much money was being invested in ever grander advertising productions. After the creative overheads were taken into consideration, there wasn't much left in the budget for anyone else...
The solution was fairly simple — just like the social class system —the squeeze was put on the middle. There was already a long queue of passionate and hungry young minds ready to take on a 100 hour week with just a measly placement wage to support them — something so low, it barely covered their travel expenses...but it gave them a chance to shine! So agencies got them in to fill the gaps.
This is likely, to a degree, where the exploitation of creative talent in advertising agencies, has undermined the value of creativity across the industry. If creative directors being paid £250k+ per year, bring in £5 million in revenue through their pitch-winning big ideas, then there appears to be a correlation between their talents and commercial success. But, if a placement creative being paid £60 per week comes up with the killer award-winning idea (as I witnessed at a major ad agency in 1997), then how do you value that idea? As it turns out for these young hot-shots, they were employed on the backs of their merits, given a fairly decent wage and for short while, basked in a spotlight of glory.
Advertising Overload
So we're in the 21st century now and already passed the middle of the second decade. Things have moved on somewhat in advertising terms and as the rest of the developing nations connect up to the global networks, advertising is evolving at an increasingly faster pace. History dictates today where there's been a need to evolve in the past, for it to remain effective in the present. But as advertising relies ever more on 'digital' solutions, we need to look to the future for what can be present in today's advertising world.
Advertising revenue has been spread thinly over the last 15+ years. Traditional OOH, print, Cinema/TV can only be measured for effectiveness in limited ways. But because analytics can track the digital footprint and any direct interaction with advertising content, virtual billboards have become the focus for where money is being invested.
Comparing The Meerkats
Much as the advertising overloads witnessed on our high streets in the 19th and 20th century, required advertising regulations to place restrictions on adevertisers, the internet is now under closer scrutiny for global regulation. The current model is unsustainable and in much need of an overhaul. The noughties produced some memorable advertising campaigns. Cadbury and Honda were the brightest shining stars in a sky of nothingness and everyone knows about the Meerkats. This current decade may have a few gems but I don't easily recall, nor hear anyone other than industry bods perhaps, discussing them over a pint down the pub or cup of tea on the sofa. The future of advertising looks bleak.
Big data is the new God of online advertising. These targeted advertising analytics models have started to permeate through to other areas of life too. Maciej Ceglowski coined the phrase 'investor storytime', to define a practice where start-up companies, use data projection models for convincing venture capitalists to invest large sums of money in their products before they've even made a dime — in order for them to make even bigger financial gains in the future. Advertising effectiveness is also being measured for success in this way and so now are the creatives who are generating the content.
New(s) Media
Magazine and Newspaper publishing companies have been slow to adapt and already up to their necks. Free newspapers and paywalls, have contributed to their demise and effectively making it harder to produce good quality journalism and still make a decent living. Online newspaper advertising has been sufficing on a mixture of sponsored content and a click per view model for their upkeep. Some of the major titles have now moved to a similar pay per view model for establishing how much to pay their journalists. Some are in favour of this move, but is it the right way to go? How can we create honest and thought provoking content in a market dominated by quick-fix thrill seekers? The click-per-view model could have a detrimental effect on quality as we see more throw-away content moving to the top of the search results.
If journalism and creative writing is being paid by views, will this payment method also be used for the creatives generating the ideas? Photographers have already needed to supplement incomes through publishing work on stock libraries. Will a model eventually be established for paying the teams who produce the ads? And how will these analytics tools work out the creative value as well as the campaign's effectiveness across the many digital distribution channels?
Key Performance Indicators
KPI's are a workforce's analytics tool. These are now widely used in the workplace. The larger agencies even go so far as to separate the departments to measure effectiveness internally. This can have a reverse effect in productivity — I had to call Mumbai recently, to set up a job order, to unlock a blocked account, so I could log in to a computer and finish an urgent job. I was still getting progress updates (minus any actual progress) three days later. Thankfully, we've all learned to be proactive in these situations and yes, the job was still completed in time. There's many stories of this ilk and this is clearly something we face daily both in and outside of the work place.
But imagine a world where we are measured on more than just our job performance. This is already the case in China, who are implementing social credits as a means for measuring their citizens' trustworthiness. It's used like a credit rating for improving one's borrowing potential, but their social score could affect all areas of their lives. There's enough evidence out there highlighting how madly diverse everyone's opinions can be. If we had to please everyone all the time, we'd become a world of sycophants and hermits....
Obstacles To Creativity
Creative ideas are not only subjective to the individual's taste. Ideas need to be shared, for without exposure to the creative content, how can we even begin to evaluate it? Many are now using ad blocking software on their PCs and this same functionality has been available on tablets and Android/iPhones for some time now. Creative advertising campaigns can be viewed on an agency's website or via industry news articles and magazines like Campaign or Design Week. Otherwise, the majority of ads appear in newspaper/magazines and on TV.
I haven't read a newspaper in over a year. I don't own a TV. My entertainment is streamed and I use an ad blocker on every device. Which is strange, as I also work in advertising and media. But I've effectively thrown out the baby with the dishwater, because I can't stand the bombardment of low quality and mostly irrelevant news stories and advertising thrown at me.
I'm not alone on this point either. Similar confessions have come from people in all walks of life — including colleagues connected to the advertising industry. If the people actually involved in creation of ads are switching them off — why should we expect anyone else to engage with advertising content? Given the choice of having ad blockers, the next generation may never even see a digital advert. And once the ads are turned off with a blocker — you don't really miss them much. So, even if the advertising robots get better at filtering relevant ads, or we bring in a payment system to block ads, the newspapers, advertising industry and the internet itself, is already in jeopardy.
Engaging The Next Generation
The only way forward for advertising, is to produce quality content that people will want to look at and engage with again. That way we can properly measure it's effectiveness. We need an honest approach from marketeers to ensure we only deliver what is relevant to our market's preferences. The analytics profiling needs to be a lot smarter for this to happen. The delivery to the customers needs to be subtle and less invasive — trust has to be earned.
For understanding the best ways to do re-engage, agencies need to work on strategy. They then need to recruit the creative thinkers who, given the proper time and space, can conceive of meaningful user pathways/journeys, invest in talented writers, photographers and employ the services of cutting edge designers, who can collectively produce content which appeals to their targeted audiences.
Credit Where It Is Due
When the results speak for themselves — when agencies can recognise where 'big ideas' and relevant/targeted/ high-quality advertising, in all it's forms, really works — they can once again, reward these content creators, with a fitting financial incentive, not based on a bogus metric, but on a truly indicative measure of their creative value.
