Is Creativity Enough?

It's a question that the advertising industry has been asking itself publicly. And apparently it disagrees. At the Guardian Media Summit at the end of March, BBH's John Hegarty expressed his frustration that data is now inhibiting creativity while WPP's Martin Sorrell was adamant that the marriage of data and creativity is crucial to driving the industry forward, and because of this believes the very definition of creativity needs to change.

But what is it they're really getting at?

Hegarty pioneers inventive creativity, what he calls "pure creativity", which he believes can only be revealed by particularly talented creative people, untarnished by information. Ideas start things, data is by definition a result, therefore how can we ever be innovatively creative when too much emphasis is placed on the past?

However, Sorrell is simply arguing that pinpointing the right data can actually help shape ideas. A brief can be shaped by data, if it is written cleverly and succinctly. A great insight can be developed into an even more poignant execution by knowing small nuggets about a target audience. As he says, surely information that helps you to understand a consumer drives further creative stimulation?

Both good points in their own right. But ultimately isn't their goal the same? To drive towards a more innovative creative industry. They simply have different opinions about how that should be achieved. Hegarty thinks great creative ideas are born regardless of data, which he thinks can actively impede this early stage of development. In contrast, Sorrell thinks it is vital to welcome and integrate data into the process, because through it we open up the possibility of new ideas and insights that may have never even occurred to us.

Personally, my gut is more aligned with Sorrell. As I've talked about in previous posts, I believe data is important and that if it helps us understand the experiences of others, we can be inspired by it. Influenced by Dad, I also believe creativity is driven by our experiences - so if data can help us to new ways of seeing things, then it can definitely enhance it. I think the reason Hegarty and Sorrell disagree is simply because they differ in what they think of as being creative. Time to dig a little deeper...

Innovation Vs. Creativity

So this common goal - better, more innovative creativity. Does that mean creativity in it's own right is not enough? When I started writing this post it struck me that there are different dimensions to it which I grappled with for a while, before the answer became obvious. I started with the Google definition:

From this alone, one could reasonably assume that creativity effectively is innovation, i.e. creating something on the basis of an idea. But I’m not sure I’m satisfied with that. There is a lot of creativity out there, but not all of it is innovative. Creativity is only innovative when it's new in some way: whether it hasn't ever been thought of (Hegarty's 'Pure creativity'), or when it unites existing ideas in a way that has never been done before (drawing on existing experiences, possibly informed by data, to create new and exciting combinations).

In the context of advertising, innovative creativity doesn't just mean a new insight or execution, it could be a new use of media; a never-done-before stunt; integration of a new piece of tech to drive a brand - literally anything. The only condition is that it is in some way pioneering - whether driven by an entirely new insight (unusual but always possible in an ever-changing world), or by the marriage of existing ideas / tech / media that have never before been united.

Innovative Creativity in Practise

Now it's about time for some examples. Most brands use YouTube video adverts in a similar way - however they all encounter the same problem, the fact they can be skipped after either 5 or 10 seconds. In response to this The Martin Agency created the Geico unskippable ad, challenging market conventions by creating an ad that was over in just 5 seconds, followed by amusing 'frozen' scenarios which consumers watched and shared of their own accord. Why? Nothing like it had ever been done before. Watch it if you haven't already.

Another favourite example of mine is the Samsung Safety Truck. Tackling the problem of road deaths caused by overtaking in Argentina, a live feed of the road ahead was streamed across the back of the Safety Truck. This view, not possible to see from cars behind was captured in a video seeded online, positioning Samsung as a brand that cared about creating tech that transforms lives. A never before used media space, to deliver a poignant brand message. Unmistakable creative innovation I'm sure you'll agree.

And lastly, in a genius nod to the Wifi generation and a constant desire to be connected - Fiat tackled road safety in a rather different manner to Samsung. Brazil is notorious for road deaths, caused in part by lack of seatbelt use. By activating free Wifi in taxis once a seatbelt was worn - within only a few days 100% of people buckled up, opposed to the previous 8%. Suddenly Fiat is a brand that cares, lives are saved and an idea that began as advertising could become a global safety initiative.

The Final Ingredient - Making it Happen

We have established the creativity alone is not enough. Innovative creativity is what holds real value, and is what will drive the advertising industry forward. However there is still one final point to make, vocalised with clarity by Andy Nairn of Lucky Generals: "ideas are useless unless they're used".

He wrote in the context of an industry award that recognises creativity without limits, regardless of whether the idea behind that execution / campaign ever actually ran. He ridicules the very notion that we would award ideas if they were never realised.

This becomes obvious when you revisit the role of an advertising agency, which in it's simplest form is to come up with strategic, creative solutions to business problems. We are paid to come up with innovative creative ideas, then make them happen. So why would we award ourselves if we didn't achieve our very purpose?

In fact, when I sent this draft to Dad for proof reading, he pointed this out from Tony Robbins. While I think anything titled 'Ultimate Success Formula' is overselling itself, it resonates with the need to act on ideas rather than just think of them, in order to generate results. Alongside the other four principles it can be applied beyond the realms of advertising but for the purposes of this post, I'll leave it here for now.

In light of all this, looking back Hegarty and Sorrell's disagreement seems irrelevant. Using data in the creative process is an issue in itself - but however we do it, the key to driving the industry forward is to both deliver creatively, and to continually innovate. Then crucially, we must make sure the very best of those ideas are actualised.

After all as a noun, creativity only has meaning with examples.