Feed on
Posts
Comments

An Overdue Reply…

Feb 5th, 2007 by Simon

Insights Keynote Jpg.016

Back in November, Casper made this comment on a post I did on “Insights”

…

“What could be a further inspiring read is your take on how to give stimuli to creatives besides insights hence your example on great solutions without insights (though i suspect some of the responsible planners would argue that they do include some sort of insights).

Off-course a few of the great creatives don’t need much help at all – besides our interventions in the process and help to make strategic argumentation for their solutions.”

…

I hope he doesn’t mind me quoting his question back, since it’s so long ago that any normal person would have forgotten by now! Unfortunately, my own idiocy resulted in me finding that comment just this weekend. What can I say, but improvement will be made on that track record.

Meanwhile, an answer:

First off, I’ll just go on the record as saying that I’m not against ‘insights’ per se. Good ones are valuable. Lots of ads have a great one. But, not all…

And I think that we hide behind them too often as planners – we go on research trips and do brainstorming exercises and run ideation sessions, then we come up with something that isn’t particularly exciting and call it an ‘insight’ so that it’s OK. The client signs it off and that’s it for creatives – you’re stuck with it. The ‘insight’ that will reduce any idea to rubble.

In reality, we’re looking for ideas. Thoughts. Something that sparks. That’s the real golden nugget. It may come from anywhere. It may be about looking at an old insight from a new angle. So, the picture we paint may need to be simple enough that it gets out of the way. Sounds weird, but what if you gave your creatives a brief that’s so simple you can do anything from it? Not an insight-laden brief, but a clean opportunity. Maybe it’s better than the one you’ve got with an insight that you know isn’t really that great?

There’s no hard and fast answer, as we all know. But, for me, I think that we need to look beyond the expected – which is too often an insight nowadays. I also think that we shouldn’t pretend that planners have to have the answer before the creative process begins. Opening the door enough that a new idea could come through is important.

So, without killing the insight, I’d like to propose that we spend more time thinking around it. Firstly, defining the problem. Maybe being ‘insightful’ about the business problem would show more than being pedantic about a process that doesn’t produce great ads every time. i.e.., a process driven towards insight-generation and nothing else. Secondly, the truth in the product – spending time getting the little-known fact that often comes out of side-conversations and factory tours, rather than reading what the web agency and clients have posted on the web site. The consumer’s life outside of this brand. And on…

Posted in Advertising | Comments

  • Hi Simon,

    Great to read your response. Never mind the tiny delay.

    Interesting, interesting topic.

    I’m assembling a future collaboration of the Danish and Swedish planning associations where we are looking for great topics and speakers. “Creative thought starters 2007” could be a very suiting theme.

    Let me know if you are interested in going on a little trip to Copenhagen and Stockholm? (it will probably be after the summer holidays).

    (and thanks for the ppt.)

    Cheers

    Casper
  • I like the idea of planning offering up "creative thought starters" -these may be consumer insights, they may be interesting product quirks (gleaned from those factory tours and side-conversations), they may be observations of the advertising norms of the category... After all, an "insight" (ow whatever we choose to call it) is only useful if it sparks the creatives. So going to them with an array of thoughts/factoids/ideas/pictures in support of the strategy is always a good idea as it gives them lots of hooks to swing around on.
  • As Ted's pointed out, I do have a tendency on this blog to rant without clarifying my point! Hell, it's my blog, and I think you have to scrawl things down quite raw, otherwise posting gets slowed down.

    But, I'm excited that someones bothered to leave a meaty reply.

    Ted's spot-on with this commentary. And, I like the idea that we should be evaluating insight - for me, there's something interesting in finding insights from anywhere in the agency, in the process, etc... flipping that old "creative ideas can come from anywhere" mantra and getting to something that we can be more expert on... Although, should it be about ideas? I still have a mental block on insights. Feels like the word itself has been abused so badly that it has no value.

    Meanwhile, thank goodness Hashem's grammar was corrected!
  • Ted Florea
    Ahh!

    I was worried there for a second! ;)
  • I meant that we should NOT use a language that doesn't lead to something concrete. My language, er grammar, in my comment wasn't very good! :)
  • Ted Florea
    The danger, of course, with blanket statements about the limited usefulness of 'insights' is in how we define them.

    Simon seems to be arguing against generic 'consumer insights' generated in focus groups that specifically probe product usage. He seems to be saying not so much that insights are limiting, but that some things pretending to be insights are actually not, and that real insights can come from other places - product, manufacturing process, the greater lives of people, etc.

    That's why as planners and strategic account/media managers we do tour the factories, do in home ethnographies, stay up to date on cultural trends, get into the deep psychology of usage, and so on - all rich areas that are often off limits to the very consumers (and often creatives!) we will be communicating with.

    If anything, moving away from traditional sources of insight places even greater pressure on brand strategists to break away from 'common sense' understandings and stimulate creatives and clients to think in DIFFERENT ways. It's no longer enough to quote consumers. You sometimes have to go out on a limb and introduce people to really alien ideas born out of different areas of knowledge.

    How can Kleenex tap into an emotionally stunted Zeitgeist and challenge people to "Let it Out"? Why do the dynamics of oral fixation make us eat Twizzlers in dark places? How can toilets that capture rain water in a factory make a car the more the 'responsible' choice?

    If after a briefing we've done nothing to deepen the way our team thinks about the role of the product in the lives of people, we shouldn't waste their time or ours. Moreover, we owe our colleagues and clients some assurances that the ideas we're unearthing or new perspectives we're pursuing are ultimately relevant to our audience. We owe more to the creative process than to simply not suck.

    Here's a fun example - I worked on De Beers for two years and I can tell you what really drives many men to buy diamonds - insecurity, social dominance, guilt, the need to fetishize intimacy given deep fears of commitment, leverage in negotiating sex-access. Fun stuff!

    But none of that is terribly useful in selling the product or building equity for the brand. Ironically these are some of the first places creatives go "Give her a rock and she'll let you go golfing." "She'll pretty much have to." or "Be the talk of the country club." These executions seem creative because they dare to tap into areas that go unspoken. Unfortunately, these areas are damaging to the brand and toxic in communications. They're original and have never been done before... because they're wrong.

    So let me propose a caveat - yes, insights can and should come from anywhere and the best ones do. If you don't have one, don't make one up, it'll only bog everyone down. Yes, planners and strategic account managers should attempt to open up as large a sandbox as possible for creatives to play in.

    But what about a slightly less touchy feely role for strategists - that of evaluator of insights and valuable sources of knowledge about how consumers will respond to communications built off of various insights? We might not have the answer that's right, but we should, at the very least, have a strong sense of what isn't.

    In this way our responsibility only gets greater and our day to day involvement needs to increase when we 'get out of the way.' And that's the exciting part of creative, collaborative planning!

    As for aspiring to a 'language that doesn't lead to anything concrete' (if I read you correctly, Hash) let me suggest a sure bet - silence.
  • This is so important.

    Media...holders of the keys to client's new media wet dreams...have failed to deliver information in a language and a way that is usable, actionable, creative...they are stuck in a traditionalist frame of thinking while whining about not being recognized & part of the process.

    Planning has done the same but being so rigid to insights, to process, to some sense that they hold the answers that will unlock everything.

    The irony is that at the end of the day we are paid for our creative solutions to business problems.

    Both planning and media need to work in a way that ignites ideas, sparks something, seeds something, and in a way that is not heavy handed or in a language that doesn't lead to anything concrete.
blog comments powered by Disqus