whizdumb

Diaolgue, Part 2

I just went back and reread Part 1.  It feels forced, and like it was written by a planner, which it was.  I didn't mean for the creative to be so shortsighted, I guess it's just that there are a lot of creative minds out there (just as there are a lot of planners) and some of them think that way. 

If I wrote about a creative that was a complete likemind then we wouldn't have to have a conversation at all.  We'd just sit there in a room, silent, knowing exactly what should be done.  Gee, that actually sounds even more strange.

Continued from Part 1.

Setting: An internal creative review, Conference Room C

PLANNER: Yes, beautifully told.  Consciously beautiful.  Like, way too perfectly beautiful.  Not relatable.  We assume way too much here.  Like the people looking at this want to hear from us.  Like they will be paying full attention.  Like they really give a s**t about hearing a story from [brand] about [benefit].  I'm not saying it's not beautiful I'm just saying that beautiful is not going to cut through. 

CREATIVE: We tried cutting through before and you know how that one ended.

PLANNER: That's because we shouted louder.  That's a volume issue not a tone issue. 

CREATIVE: This is what they're asking for.  I think they'll buy it.

PLANNER: Do you buy it?

CREATIVE: F**k man, it's not about me, like you said before, I'm not the target audience.  They aren't buying [brand] because they can't justify the higher price.  We have to show them why they should.  Their lives are so busy and stuff that we have to reach them with something meaningful, like you said.

PLANNER: Right.  But what is meaningful in this context?  We can't talk to people like that anymore.  We'll get ignored.  Look, you've got a fantastic intuitive sense about people.  You don't need me to tell you about the human draw to a good story, about characters, about drama, hope, dreams, all that s**t.  You get it.  But those are also the things that are thrown around into bad TV and movies.  The thing is, the way things are going, that kind of blockbuster mainstream story is going away in favor of other things.  It takes a new kind of creativity.  It's a lot harder, I have to say.  I worry that we're taking the easy way out.

CREATIVE: We're just trying to sell more [category]. You make it sound like we're saving the world.

PLANNER: We're sparing the world from more crap.

CREATIVE: Maybe, but it is still advertising.  The other one we did that was similar to this tested through the f*****g roof.

PLANNER: Oh, so now you're a fan of our client's copy testing?

CREATIVE: No, but this will probably test well too, and that's the only way it will get made.

To be continued...

Dialogue, Part 1

I was wondering if sometimes it might be easier to write a conversation than to write a straight-on point of view.   

And I had some stuff knocking around to get out.  So how about some imagined exchanges between agency people. 

Is it an easier read?  Different?  Break things up a bit?  Whatever, here goes.

Setting: An internal creative review, Conference Room C

PLANNER: It feels like an ad.

CREATIVE: It is an ad.

PLANNER: I know, I know... it just feels conspicuously like an ad.

CREATIVE: Well it's supposed to sell stuff so...

PLANNER: It just feels false, I can't put my finger on it.  Like we're not really getting to the truth we talked about, the insight.

CREATIVE: What do you mean, it's all right there.  It's bringing that insight to life.

PLANNER: Yes but, ummm.  Give me a sec, I'm trying to figure this out. 

Okay, It's like I'm watching Pearl Harbor.  I'm totally aware that I'm watching a movie.  Like I'm on blockbuster ride that leaves a bad actor taste in my mouth.  There are special effects that I've seen a million times before.  I know what's going to happen, and when.  But we want this to be more authentic, like a Paul Greengrass thing.  The guy made the Bourne movies and, whether you like them or not, you didn't totally feel like you were watching a movie while you were watching them.

CREATIVE: But blockbusters make money.  It sounds like you're trying to impose your particular sense of taste.

PLANNER: In a way, yes.  Because the tastes of people are shifting.  Blockbusters aren't performing nearly as much as they used to.  People are turning to more imaginative and authentic kinds of entertainment, and doing it on their terms.  We need to make stuff that people would not instantly look at and say, "that feels like an ad."

CREATIVE: It is real though.  The art direction is beautiful.  The casting is perfect.  It's a genuine moment between the [subject A] and the [subject B].

PLANNER: Really?  Do you think people will look at that and feel a genuine impulse of human emotion?  Is it more like a Hallmark card or is it more like some high-impact kind of art? 

CREATIVE: Neither.  There's a story in there.  It's telling a story.  It's a beautifully told story.

To be continued...

[image from Doc Ross]

The Art of Idea Preservation

Awhile back I went to see Alex Bogusky speak as part of the launch of the New Denver Ad Club.  One thing that I found interesting was when he referenced the progression of the Truth vs. the Miller Lite campaigns. 

He encouraged tolerance in evolving a campaign over time.  Referring to a Miller client he said something to the effect of, "when a creative approach is not working perfectly to their liking, some feel the need to put a bullet in it, rather than learn from it and evolve the approach."

That thought came back to me today as I was perusing blogs on architecture.  In my wandering I found an interesting little flash video on a site dedicated to art of preservation, specifically an effort to save the 1960 Blue Cross building in Boston.  The group espouses the many creative ways the aging building can be preserved - rather than demolished.

Specifically, they pose some interesting What If questions about preserving buildings that can clearly apply to other things:

What if we considered the degrees of preservation between ALL and NOTHING?

What if we thought of preservation through the ideas of artist Gordon Matta-Clark?
What if we thought of preservation through the act of demolition?
What if we integrated a building into new development?
What if we expressed a buildings ideas and concepts through anatomical exhibition?
What if we re-inhabited a building by dissecting it?
What if we treated a building as public art?
What if we distribute remnants of a building to plazas and museums?
What if we move the building from its site?

Could we use degrees of preservation to educate?
Could we better heighten awareness of a building's original value in an altered state?
Could we increase the perceived value of design in the public consciousness?
Could we preserve our cultural heritage while embracing our future?

I think there's a lot we marketers can learn from architecture.  And maybe this can help open the doors for asymmetrical ways to rethink a flagging campaign, rather than running to the nearest phone to summon the wrecking ball.

Art meets science at Le Laboratoire

I heard a story recently on NPR's Weekend Edition called New Space Promotes Intersection of Art, Science.  It's about Le Laboratoire, a place in Paris that is part science lab, part art exhibit.

It was founded by a Harvard professor of bio-medical technology named David Edwards who moonlights writing fiction. 

He started talking to his colleagues across disciplines and found they shared a similar story - the scientists had a hidden interest in art and the artists had a hidden interest in science.  He was struck by their covert passions and wondered what would happen if he brought the seemingly opposite disciplines together in a public space.

Le Laboratoire was born, and it was driven by a central question: What lies behind innovative intelligence?

He wrote two books related to the founding of the lab.  One is called Artscience: Creativity in the Post-Google Generation. I haven't read it.  In the meantime I recommend giving the story a listen.

Le Laboratoire has since closed the exhibit featured in the story but it looks like they have ambitious plans for the future. 

They segment their types of innovation into four kinds:

CULTURAL Through collaboration with a scientist, an artist creates a new form of ?????

INDUSTRIAL Through collaboration with a designer, a scientist invents a new scientific process.

HUMANITARIAN  Artists and scientists engage in dialogues to bring solutions to humanitarian problems.

EDUCATIONAL Artists and scientists create with or alongside a student in the arts or sciences to produce passionate experiential learning.

Sometimes I feel like the common themes of left brain vs. right brain; art vs. science; rational vs. emotional have become the tired dualities of pre-concept conversation.  We talk about how such-and-such concept hits on a balance of emotional and rational.  We debate the role of each extreme, often for the purpose of explaining why a concept, an approach, an execution, works.

I like what Le Laboratoire is doing because they use art and science as creative inputs.  They crash them head-on and exhibit the result.   It just seems like a good approach for true creative alchemy.

One designer's visual take on Buy Nothing Day

Spending Black Friday in Los Angeles has given me a few things to post about.  One of them is this gem from the Los Angeles Times op-ed page today.  Its' a visual take on conspicuous consumption by British graphic designer Jonathan Barnbrook.  You could call it the family tree of Black Friday's doppelganger, Buy Nothing Day.

Download buy_nothing_day.pdf

Sprinkle Brigade finds inspiration in unlikely places

These guys call themselves the Sprinkle Brigade.  They search the streets of New York City and create their own brand of found art. 

"Our mission is to be a solution to the problem, to put a smile on your face, and to meets [sic] some ladies in the process. So if you're out with your pooch and you don't have anything to pick up its chud baby, just leave it ... we got it."

Talk about finding art in unusual places.  They've even created some rather nice videos of their installations.

It's a clear reminder that inspiration is everywhere.  You just have to sniff it out. 

If you find yourself in New York starting 11/29/07 their work will be on exhibit at Riviera.

Thanks to Andy for the link.   

A Few Good Creative Men

Iv'e got a few posts kicking around the noggin that haven't made it out yet.  Soon.  In the meantime here's something fun to watch.  Saw it on Paul's site and in a few other places.

The New Yorker gets bold and brilliant

The New Yorker's covers are often gems.  Usually they touch on the essence of the city in ways even a non-resident can relate to.  But sometimes they strike a broader chord and this is one of those cases. 
By intersecting two debacles: the Senator Larry Craig
bathroom scandal, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement that there are no gays in Iran (wrong!), they attained simple brilliance.  Well done.

Weatherproof Caveman Ad

The mini-controversy over the dumb Weatherproof Caveman ad has been dissected nicely by Seth at murketing.  I saw it in the NYT Magazine recently and, along with my pal Erin, was totally perplexed.  As Seth tells it, the whole thing was just drafting on the coattails of the Cavemen / Geico's success and had no formal agreement or permission from Geico or the Martin Agency.  It's based in the fact that one of the cavemen in the sitcom is a weatherman, the resident minority like Al Roker. 

It's a pretty thin thread to go on but hell, it's got us talking.

Economist's delicate balance

The Economist in the UK has released a series of new ads aimed at younger readers.  Each of them show vividly how good art and good copy come together to be much more than the sum of their parts.

See them all at The Planning Lab.