One thing I’ve really noticed about the ad industry, and probably the wider world, is that it really matters where an idea comes from.

In an ideal world, this wouldn’t be true. I’ve heard plenty of agencies philosophising about how, at their agency, it doesn’t matter if the idea comes from the creatives, the account team, the finance department, the receptionist or the CEO’s dog. An idea is an idea, and all ideas are born equal.

Much as it would be wonderful if this were true, it really isn’t. For example, I’m a relative young’un in the industry, and like all creatives, I have a portfolio of stuff I’ve done and stuff I’d like to do. If I were to walk into an agency to have someone senior critique my ideas, those ideas would inevitably be viewed through the filter of my age and experience. Imagine little early-twenties wet-behind-the-ears-me sitting in the Creative Director’s office at somewhere brilliant like Wieden + Kennedy, and saying:

“OK, this one’s for a chocolate brand. It’s a TV ad. We open on a guy sitting at a drum kit in a gorilla suit. He looks like Bigfoot. We watch him sitting there for a bit as some Phil Collins – yeah, Phil Collins, what of it? – music plays. Then it gets to that big old solo in In The Air Tonight and he bashes it out on the drums. We end with branding and whatnot”

I can only imagine the bewilderment on the CD’s face, and the hurried ushering out that would follow. Admittedly, I didn’t describe the ad very well, but it’s clear enough for the idea to come across, which is all it needs to be. So why does this sort of ad only get taken seriously when it comes out of the mouth of someone with a track record, someone hailed as an ad genius, like Juan Cabral? For those not from the UK or who live down a manhole somewhere, this is the ad I was describing:

It’s brilliant, and it’s rightfully won a whole heap of awards. But the idea would never have been made if it had come from me. Why? Because judgement calls are a fundamental part of human decision-making, and a sensible and probably subconscious way of deciding how to judge something is to look at the track record. If I’ve made ten D&AD Black Pencil-winning ads, chances are this one is brilliant too. If most of the stuff I’ve done has been mundane or even rubbish, this one’s likely to be a dud. And if I’ve got no track record at all? There aren’t many incredible creatives in the world, much less young ones. So, chances are this idea probably isn’t genius. (Of course, all of this only applies if the ad could potentially be great or not. If it’s definitely rubbish, then it’s rubbish, no matter whose brain it came out of).

So while it might be true that great ideas can come from anyone, it’s also true that those ideas will likely only be judged as great in the presence of a raft of previous successes. I’ve actually heard of Creative Directors having idea suggestions anonymised before they receive them, to prevent this kind of bias. Which might be the only failsafe way we’ve got of seeing ideas for what they are, not whose they are.

Of course, you could argue that the reputation approach is useful for establishing whether a risky ad is worth a punt. And it is. But by playing it safe, there’s always that glinting speck of doubt that in doing so, you skipped right over the next Gorilla.

2 thoughts on “Sources

  1. 123 says:

    are these sorts of ad successful, generally?
    are an ads entertainment value & it’s effectiveness at manipulation two distinct qualities?
    i mean, i can imagine hearing “everybody look at the funny gorilla”, but can’t imagine “let’s throw some chocolate in the trolley becuase of a funny gorilla”.

    • copybot says:

      Interesting question, and there isn’t really a clear answer. This kind of advertising (the primarily entertaining kind, like all the Dairy Milk ads, Barclaycard “slide”, the T-Mobile flashmob…) is usually called “brand building”, because it’s supposed to keep the brand in the top of your mind, which is supposed to increase sales in the long term. The more overtly selling-focussed ads are supposed to bring an immediate upsurge in sales.

      Having said that, so far it doesn’t look like Gorilla has done much at all for Cadbury’s sales. Brand Republic found that although people remembered the Cadbury ads more, Cadbury has actually lost market share to Galaxy.

      So although these kind of ads place the brand prominently in your head, and get people talking endlessly (mostly about the ad, though, not so much about the brand), they don’t seem to produce the same results as the ones that sell you the benefits of the product. Or mention the product at least. There’s no chocolate in any of the recent Cadbury’s ads. But they are fun to watch, and that’s why people love them. No one wants to watch an ad, really, and this kind of advertising is so far removed from selling that it’s almost trying to be the programme instead of the ad break. As a consumer, that’s great, because I’d rather watch fun stuff than sales messages any day. But as a client? I think I’d rather shift chocolate bars than pay for the week’s water-cooler topic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s