Latest
KPMG board as pictured on the Gardiner
This one is next:
Great work. What is it?
I recently read the late Phil Dusenberry’s book “One Great Insight Is Worth a Thousand Good Ideas”. (If you haven’t read it, go get it. Run don’t walk.) It inspired me to get my thinking straight on what constitutes great work in ad/comm land. So I’ve taken some of his main points, mixed them with some of my thoughts and will attempt to dogmatically define what makes great work, then describe how to make it. All this with the assumption that the aim of great work is: “work that works” (i.e sells stuff). And not work that “spits on the table” or just wins awards. My goal here is a pithy manifesto that can be recited while standing on one foot. (Or stuck for a clue)
Are there universal principles of good work?
My answer is yes. And they’re timeless. (The Greeks figured all this out before you were born). At a time when marketers are defining a new era in communications by chasing technology, I think some simple (and old) truths are getting lost. People don’t talk about or share or buy things that don’t connect with their souls in some way. It has always been thus. The principles native to great TV work in the eighties are the same for, say, a social network strategy now. The human heart hasn’t changed, even if some of our behavior (and environment) has. Yes we’re more connected. Yes we’re more involved. Yes our filters are stronger. But the animal inside doesn’t care about any of this. We’ve got a million years of evolution in the bank and only ten online.
So let’s start with defining the standard. If creative work fails on any of these criteria, you haven’t got great work:
Original/Unexpected - It breaks stuff. It jams culture. It baffles the head to get to the heart. You’ve never seen it quite like this. You notice.
Insightful – The main point speaks to you. If you have a good insight, “the executions could write themselves”. And an insight can be reduced to a tagline. “If it sounds like Mark Twain wrote it, it’s probably right.” A solution must be indigenous to the problem (naturally). The category, the product/brand, the people, and the culture all must be accounted for. And you can’t arrive at a unique insight without defining the base problem first.
Simple - The work should be a study of obstinate reduction. i.e. Simple.
Well said - The insight determines the “what” and the “what” determines how the “how” manifests. Got it? Insight=what you’re saying. Creative idea=how you’re saying it.
So when you look at a piece of creative, does it meet these criteria? If it does, chances are it’s something you really like.
So how do you get there?
Case by case. Each category/brand/product has it’s own array of challenges, but you can apply a basic process to reveal them. The conversation about leveraging technology for “brand engagement” is a tactical one. A lot of work has to be done before the tactics if it’s really going to engage. In my opinion, saying: “let’s do something on the internet” is just as wrong as assuming the answer is TV.
The process (from Phil’s BBDO process):
R.A.I.S.E.
(Starts with the head)
- Research
- Analysis
- Insight
- Strategy
- Execution
(Ends with the heart)
If this process sounds simple, that’s because it’s meant to be. What’s hard is filling in the blanks and going over the top at each stage.
The Parity Problem*
With few exceptions, mainstream advertising has to solve the problem of product parity. Most things are made so well that there’s little difference between them. Even innovations can be copied in short order. But you have to solve the parity of advertising too. (Since creativity is so vital to good work, it’s amazing this is even an issue- but it is.) Parity is the subtle force trying to pull everything down into the pit of sameness. And sameness is impotent. The best way to solve the parity problem, according to Dusenberry, is to capture both the head and the heart with insight and execution (creativity). “It’s a one-two punch. Insight is the shot to head. Execution is the shot to the gut.”
Because solving parity is such a crucial function of advertising (if not the most crucial), we can judge work solely on how well it solves this problem. So let’s look at some recent(ish) work which I’ll view through lens of parity. How well it solves both product and advertising parity. If you apply this model to all the great, effective new work out there (even viral), you realize they have something old in common.
Recent(ish) examples of what works:
Dove – Evolution (Ogilvy, Toronto)
The insight that solves product parity: All beauty products create a gap between us and the “ideal”. The head: It’s ok to be who you are.
The execution that solves communication parity: Everybody knew that models where “doctored”, but nobody showed it in this way. The heart: Holy fuck!
Burger King – The Subservient Chicken (CP+B, Boulder, CO)
The insight that solves product parity: The Head: We’re individuals.We want to customize. Show it.
The execution that solves communication parity: The Heart: This is cool, funny.
Cadbury – Gorilla (Fallon, UK)
The insight solves product parity: The Head: I’m still not sure about this one. but it could be: parity is so bad in this category, anything ridiculously different will work.
The execution solves communication parity: The Heart: I don’t even know what the fuck this is but I like it.
If you look at work through this lens, you can suddenly explain why you loved that new campiagn. It probably had an insight, solved the parity problem(s), and was immaculately expressed and executed.
*To me, this is where Dusenberry’s book shines. We’re all familiar with this problem, but Phil gives it a new very useful perspective.
- All quotes are Phil’s Dusenberry’s. RIP.
Next: Digital Natives: How they’re different. Why they’re the same.
