The (changing) state of digital creativity

 

There’s a refrain I’ve heard repeated, oftentimes on the media seller  side: digital creativity sucks. The idea is the Internet hasn’t found its Bernbachs, Ogilvys and the rest of the advertising canon. That’s why the Internet has failed to attract much attention for brands.

Recently, IAB CEO Randy Rothenberg weighed in. In a lengthy blog post/manifesto, Randy decries the state of creativity in interactive media. This is the real problem, he says, not whether display ads are sold like pork bellies. To be sure, the state of creativity in banner units and microsites probably is regrettable. Yet I wonder if Randy is missing the point when he thirsts for an online equivalent of classic outbound ad campaigns like Doyle Dane’s “Think Small” campaign for Volkswagen. This is general fighting the last war, not the next one.

The problem is this assumes digital will work like TV. I can understand this viewpoint from the side of ad sellers. Brand marketers have never found the Internet a particularly great place to build brands through online media. That last part is quite important. The IAB is premised on the notion that the Internet can do brand advertising at scale. I remember how often it flogged those McDonald's flat-bread sandwiches case studies. What if that’s not the case? A digital agency CEO I met this morning confessed he doesn’t think it’s possible to do large-scale brand building through Web media. If you want scale, you need to standardize, which then leads to commoditization. The Web’s strength is its niches. What’s the answer to covering niches at scale? The sketchy ad networks that are driving the price of online media to nearly zero.

The question then remains whether creativity can change that. It depends. "Creative” comes in many forms in digital. Some of it is the online equivalent of TV’s talking animals and slapstick humor. It’s things like “Whopper Sacrifice,” a very smart gimmick that got people’s attention for a little while. Or it’s those Mac vs PC “talking” banner ads. Clever stuff. But digital creativity isn’t simply an imitation of TV. What if it’s a blend of design, utility and technology that goes into what Ana preaches: brand systems. That means digital creativity might look more like software than TV spots. Sure, it’s hard for these things to win awards and aren't as easy to admire as singular objects of "commercial art." We touched on this during a panel I moderated last week at The Rubicon Project. Andrea Kerr-Redniss, an executive with Optimedia, noted digital creativity can be quite different. It can be a useful application, not just a viral piece of entertainment people pass around. Often, they don't involve much paid media. Randy mentions "Subservient Chicken" as the paragon of digital creativity, but you could argue something like Nike Plus is a better example of where creativity is going.

I've written before about how digital is changing the entire notion of creativity. This is something that's just starting and requires the industry change a mindset that seems still very tied to old structures built in a bygone era.

Comments

[Chris Allison]

I agree completely. I think BK's application on Facebook is a good example of creative thinking. It's not about makding ads. The television wasn't interactive, it was one way and we could feed people advertisements that worked. The web is interactive and to truly be effective we need to create interactive experiences, not ads.

Ads could still work if they were less often and better quality, but I don't think they scale. As you've said networks are the only real answer to scaling niche targets...and from the publisher end, I would rather work directly with people than networks.

[Cliffbot]

Amen brutha. I am totally picking up what you are laying down. a modern brand must try a lot of things. build value for people in their everyday lives. Interesting stuff they can use. But it must always come from the core of the brand. the next bernbachs will be the guys who understand brands from the inside out and can wrangle all the cats back at headquarters to do things quickly, cheaply and effectively. we are striving for that every day here at cliff freeman & partners. its a strange and wonderful challenge. we're having a lot of fun.

thanks for always having interesting stuff.

[Tom Cunniff]

TV is a scale medium, with all the attendant strengths and limitations.

The web is an intimacy medium, with all the attendant strengths and limitations.

I'm not sure why people still find this difficult to understand. Perhaps even more puzzling, this lack of understanding seems to run just as deep in digital world as it does in the analog one.

Maybe I just have perspective because I'm on the client side, working in both worlds at once.

[Todd Havens]

One thing we may gain (if we haven't already achieved) is great diversity of creativity with online's niche marketplace.

Instead of aiming for an eyeball goldmine with content in the TV ad model that happens to hit a collective nerve or collective funny bone, we have a tremendous wealth of options in front of us which makes the field pretty darn exciting right now.

[Bill]

This is an old conversation. One that Bob Greenberg made many times. Digital advertising becoming a utility that improves ones lives rather than a viral piece of communication. Everyone knows that online advertising is glorified Direct Response as it is more the conduit to a consumer's wallet more than any other medium. We do have our Bernachs and Tom McElliots. They are just not as consistent as the medium and the technology is always changing.

[greg christman]

Well put. Luckily digital creativity comes in many shapes, models, & sizes. In the digital space I think the barbarian group does is just as well as any shop. With projects like their CNN Headline T-Shirt campaign, visualization software 4 itunes, & their on-line community site created 4 Kashi they constantly strive 2 do unique campaigns that raise the value of a brand in consumers lives. To me that's what makes gr8 digital marketing.

Thx 4 the post Brian, good food 4 thought. peace

[Phil Rubin]

As a client said, "it's a lot easier to run print ads and send out press releases."

Not to take anything away from the Bernbachs, et al., but 2D is a lot easier than 3D or 4D. Digital requires contemplating the user experience, customer/prospect data, interaction, multiple touch points and multiple channels/devices.

BK and Nike get it and do some very smart things, as do brands like Amazon who are indeed brands even without a heavy reliance on advertising in its traditional or even base online form.

The creativity that these brands have shown, as you point out Brian, is that creativity is just ill-defined when done so in an oldworld advertisingesque way.

With all due respect to Bernbach, I'll side with Ogilvy and support that isnt' creative if it doesn't sell.

[Tim Brunelle]

Thanks for carrying the conversations forward, Brian! Great insights here.

Won't it be interesting, ironic and possible frightening if—20 years from now—"advertising" basically doesn't exist? Blade Runner got it wrong. Minority Report got it more right. So it's amusing to see the media sellers calling the kettle black. Actually, I think part of the next wave, the new definition, of digital creativity will be in media. That is, if entities like the IAB can step up.

The challenge here, as you've noted, is that we've got 50+ years of standardized process, "accounting" and expectation built around what an advertisement is, how it functions, what it does, how it's placed. Oh, and who makes and places ads. Yet, there has been maybe 10 years of digital creativity and digital media thus far. Not really enough time has transpired to etch one clear message into stone.

But it sure is fun to be along for the ride.

[Allie Savarino Kline]

We’ve been stuck in a rut because creative has never been considered a critical part of the online advertising equation. It’s no surprise that online branding hasn’t flourished when banner and display ads have been primarily considered traffic and click tools. Part of the problem with online branding has been a hesitation on the part of many digital advertisers to take risks. It may be counterintuitive to digital agency folks, but borrowing some old tricks from traditional brand marketers is one way to approach the problem. Calling a digital and traditional “meeting of the minds” is the logical first step…

[Garrick Schmitt]

Spot on. Digital creativity is remarkably different than traditional formats, though it's too hard for most in our industry to make the leap. Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are elegant, utilitarian, data and people driven products/services. Great brand experiences like Nike+, ESPN.com, MyStarbucksIdea, play by completely different rules.

It's all a far cry from the digital fare that wins awards at Cannes and the like. Software is a more appropriate corollary than the 30-spot. It's time to move past "Skip Intro"

[Brian Morrissey]

Thanks for the comments. I'm interested in some of the best examples of digital creativity you guys see. Colleen DeCourcy once summed up the problem quite succinctly when it came to awards shows -- and greater recognition of new forms of creativity: "We award objects, not systems." I think that's why people fall back on an Apple banner ad or a Halo site when they think of digital creativity. I think both are quite nice, but they're also basically extensions of print and TV spots.

[Alan Wolk]

I was going to write a response to this just now, but Tim's already done it for me. So a few long-winded side-comments:

I've been reading Ken Romann's biography of David Ogilvy. Ogilvy, especially in his later, post-retirement years, was not a big fan of "creativity." He thought ads needed to do something more than just entertain us and that agencies had lost the ability to sell products. But he also blamed clients, who he felt weren't demanding anything other than entertainment from their agencies.

I think he was onto something: we're not comfortable calling systems "creative" because our clients are looking for us to create objects that we then judge on a standard created 50 years ago.

The other thing we need to bear in mind when looking at what's "creative" online is context: I've written before about how all brands are more or less equal on television since any brand can produce an entertaining 30 second film and, given ample media spending, reach a large audience. But online, what you're selling really matters. High interest brands get more traffic. That doesn't make what they do more important or better, but it does make it different.

[michael maurillo]

this is a tough post to comment on. we're talking brand building, the definition of digital creativity, banner effectiveness...

from the top... building a brand from the bottom up using web media ALONE has yet to be proven. those brands that have built themselves online have actually done it by delivering utility, value, connecting with their consumers and creating rich experiences without online media (or any media for that matter), the one that instantly comes to mind, as unoriginal as it is, is zappos. i definitely believe, though, that online media can play an valuable role in an overall brand campaign.

i think its a waste of energy to measure the quality of creativity within online media. to your point, digital creativity goes so far beyond banners and lies within all pieces working together. with that said, i think Uniqlo is doing some great, fun stuff that is not just engaging for the sake of engaging. every experience they deliver reinforces their brand personality.

i'm preaching to the choir by saying that banner effectiveness is hurling towards 0, but the Mac vs PC banner campaign has been brought up a couple times. i think you have to take into consideration the massive amount of money that was poured into that campaign year(s) before they put a single banner online. in-banner video that interacts with the content around & speaks directly to the audience is nothing new, but when one of the most popular brands in the world does it with an 8 figure (9?) TV campaign behind it. it makes a difference.

[michael maurillo]

this is a tough post to comment on. we're talking brand building, the definition of digital creativity, banner effectiveness...

from the top... building a brand from the bottom up using web media ALONE has yet to be proven. those brands that have built themselves online have actually done it by delivering utility, value, connecting with their consumers and creating rich experiences without online media (or any media for that matter), the one that instantly comes to mind, as unoriginal as it is, is zappos. i definitely believe, though, that online media can play an valuable role in an overall brand campaign.

i think its a waste of energy to measure the quality of creativity within online media. to your point, digital creativity goes so far beyond banners and lies within all pieces working together. with that said, i think Uniqlo is doing some great, fun stuff that is not just engaging for the sake of engaging. every experience they deliver adds to and builds off of the brand they are creating.

i'm preaching to the choir on banner effectiveness, but Mac vs PC banner campaign has been brought up a couple times. i think you have to take into consideration the massive amount of money that was poured into that campaign year(s) before they put a single banner online. in banner video that interacts with the content around it is nothing new, but when of the most popular brands in the world does witha 8 figure (9?) TV campaign behind it. it makes a difference.

[Matt Daniels]

On TV, the agency is tasked with making something interesting enough to hold an untargeted audience's attention for 30 seconds. It's trickery, at best.

Online, and to your point, creative has many flavors. But in an online environment, is there a need to be creative? With so many resources to be relevant and targeted, the gimmicky creative that tricks me for my attention loses all its value.

[Rick Webb]

I started to comment but I just turned it into a blog post. ;)

http://www.barbariangroup.com/admin/posts/1712-brianmorrissey_the_dearth_of_internet_creatives

[James Cooper]

Randy's notion that digital creativity sucks is a pretty weak argument. Who is to say who will be the Bernbachs or the Ogilvy's of digital? It's pretty unlikely that there will be *no one* - the odds just don't stack up.

Someone will become that famous, at the time DO and BB were not gods, merely people running their own agencies. They became gods in history. It's so much easier to look back and say there was all this great work but for every 'Lemon' there were a million real lemons - bad press ads, bad commercials, that no one ever talks about.

I should imagine the percentage of 'good' versus 'bad' digital work is identical to the percentage of 'good' versus 'bad' work in every other media in every other era. It just so happens that we are in the middle of a new era so it's easier to scrutinize / criticize.

We can have a sensible debate (if talking about meaningless stuff that sells meaningless products could ever be described as sensible!) in 10, maybe 20 years time.

[Stephen Thompson, ECD iCrossing]

As a one time "traditional creative" turned "interactive creative", I can attest to the differing mindsets over what good creative is, offline and online. Most traditional media is intrusive (ads while reading a magazine, spots airing during a fav show, outdoor cluttering a drive, etc.). Good online media is contextual and permission marketing (smart data fed ads, contextual offers per a search, sites clicked on, etc.) The problem with many views is folks want to apply the same criteria of judgment from one media to the next. 30 second spot "guys" want to take their masterpieces and put in a smaller box online. They tend to judge online by print standards. Then many interactive creatives want to judge work by how "flash-y" it is, how many cool features they can build in, etc. So many offline pieces have online elements (lots of arrows, pull down graphics, urls) and online borrows offline elements (motion graphics, pushed music, one-way passive experiences). The bottom line is both sides work extremely well in building brands when utilizing the inherent benefits of each. People live in a connected world where they journey from one medium to the next almost instantly, access communications in ways never imagined, and enjoy a power of control previously unavailable. TV and interactive should work together but not necessarily mimic each other. They shouldn't be judged by the same standards. A print ad may need a wonderfully clever headline while a site may need a grimly efficient interface. As brand impressions are most often the result of one's branded experiences, each medium must honor the customer's triggers and drivers and deliver value in the best way possible for that one interaction. So TV can be bold and entertaining and work while a landing page can be straightforward and work. Or a site can be extremely layered and robust and work while a magazine spread can be long copy and stark and work--both are creative, just different. Now, that said, I am a firm believer in the basic principles of each experience being useful, usable, and desirable--so I would never recommend digital experiences go "Jacob Nielsen". But I always recommend the experiences focus first on delivering immediately measurable value--the reason I left TV and print to go "interactive". I remain obsessed with the word "interactive" and evangelize, every chance I get, making branded interactions a two way dialogue and relationship. That's good creative online.

[michael maurillo]

so i just had an experience with a future (hopefully) client after a new biz pitch we made this morning for a pretty large scale design phase of a website launch. we were actually the agency that did all the upfront user research and strategy work in the planning phase of the same project.

anyway, after the meeting he said he was pleasantly surprised to see so much "creative" in our presentation for a pretty complex design project. further alluding to the fact that the agency before us did NOT provide any "creative" (or wasn't "creative", i'm really not sure). either way, this struck me odd right off the bat. how would it be possible to present your thinking on a design project without thinking/being/including/sharing "creative"? and what i realized was that the client actually distinguished the two as different (which led me to my reply, "we don't distinguish the two as being different.")

then i started thinking about this post (as well as the "Silver to DDB" user comments on AdWeek)... the fundamental difference between the way the digital industry thinks about creative compared to the traditional industry (granted, i'm generalizing here) is that we need to think more like designers than creatives. if the internet equals experiences... which requires great design... that benefits from being creative, than "creative" must be defined in multiple ways, the least of which is a clever copy line, or a beautiful Flash piece. i don't think i have to list out all the ways "creative" is defined in the digital space to make my point, mostly because i don't think it is a unique thought to digital alone. i'm just starting to wonder if this one of the reasons statements are made by the CEO of IAB that makes us bang are heads on the wall so often.

i don't know, i feel better getting it out of my brain though.
so thanks for the forum to do so @bmorrissey.

[Daniel Stein]

We need to stop comparing and contrasting "traditional vs. digital." It only leads to ideological arguments filled with rhetoric and hyperbole (although it does lead to a series of great blog comments to Brian's posts)

The difference between a traditional medium and digital medium is artificial, created by the marketers to better make sense of their worlds and protect their own fiefdoms.

A good creative idea shouldn't be contained by its medium. Every marketing challenge is unique. Agencies should be expected to use the media tools available to them to address the challenge. A good idea can originate anywhere and can move through any medium, if it strikes the right chords and compels someone to act.

To say that a certain medium can only be used for large-scale branding and another medium can only be used for direct-response is ludicrous. TV is great. I sit in front of it for hours. I am engaged by the programming. I also sit in front of the internet, my XBox, my iphone, my AppleTV, my DS, etc etc.

My point is that consumers don't see the difference between traditional and digital mediums, they are simply living their lives and the ecosystems of their lives are different than it used to be. We need to find ways to engage this new type of digital consumer, regardless of the media that the happen to be consuming.

I agree with Brian that we need to stop looking at the past to define the future. The next great marketing idea may not contain a witty headline, edgy video or flashy graphic, but that doesn't make it any less creative than a kickass word-of-mouth idea that uses social media to incite crowds and inspire consumers.

I don't know what the next great creative agency is going to look like, but I am pretty sure it won't look like Bernbach or Ogilvy did in the 60s. My goal isn't to regress 40 years.

[michael maurillo]

okay Danny Downer... nice comment, though.

[Digitalent]

Wasn’t able to read Rothenberg’s complete post, because it’s too long. But from what I scanned, I’d have to agree with much of it. Digital does suffer from a close association with direct, which has never been very creative. Some people here point to creative digital examples like BK, but that seems a little too easy. BK does great, breakthrough traditional advertising – from one of the more progressive agencies out there. So we shouldn’t be surprised that its digital is pretty good too. The question is, why do so many other advertisers that do great or at least decent traditional advertising do lousy digital? And when’s the last time you saw a brand that does lousy traditional advertising produce outstanding digital? I don’t think it’s merely a case of “we shouldn’t judge digital by traditional standards” – that argument is very old and played out. If you scan the job listings, there’s really only one discipline that is constantly seeking workers at all levels: digital. Why are there so many listings seeking digital creative directors? Because there’s a lack of talent. And there are lots of digital enterprises being run by great producers – people who clearly understand functionality and the technical side of things – who lack real creative vision. I could go on, but I’d probably rival Rothenberg’s rant. Oh, and by the way, I work for one of the top three digital agencies.

[Alan Wolk]

@digitalent: We've kind of covered that, no?

The digital work that gets deemed "bad" is work that attempts to mimc good offline work and since (due to our fetishization of click-through rates) it must also serve as a DM piece, it does neither job very effectively and results in watered down dreck.

"Good" offline work is usually defined by a simplification of the Bernbachian aesthetic: a joke with a punch line. You know, the stuff that lines the pages of the One Show book.

But to Tim Brunelle's point, that aesthetic doesn't translate online. So that "great" online work will not look like advertising because it won't be advertising. At least not the way we've defined advertising for the past 50 some odd years. It'll be less linear, less obvious and it won't kick you in the shins and scream "Hey! I'm an ad! Love me! Love me!"

That doesn't make it less effective at selling a product. It only makes it different.

[digitalent]

No, no, I think it goes beyond what you're getting at, alan wolk. It goes beyond the perceptions of what is "great" versus what is "mediocre," and how different disciplines have different viewpoints. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of tons of projects, so my following comments might not be articulate. I might try to elaborate later.

I think the global issue involves the desire to define digital. Even if it's just saying, "Digital is not traditional advertising." In my opinion, digital refuses to be defined, which makes these discussions both challenging and slightly pointless.

I think there are at least three major ways of creating digital (admittedly, based on my personal background). There are digital enterprises that are essentially production house vendors. Agencies and clients go to them for execution. They might be creative, but are essentially production vendors. Next, there are digital departments within traditional advertising agencies. The work from these places will be affected by the overall agency's perception about digital. That is. Some agencies view it as a department to execute work, while others have a more integrated, holistic viewpoint. Third, there are digital shops that try to be closer to full-service; i.e., they start with a brief and come up with concepts and executions. Now, I realize there are other types of digital – including SEO, which is a totally different entity – but again, I'm working form my personal experiences.

So based on which type of place you're at, your work will be affected. I can't get into all the details now, but maybe someone else here will agree or disagree.

Beyond those factors – and directly related to them – there is the fundamental difference on how concepts are produced in traditional advertising versus most digital enterprises. In traditional advertising, your "template" is usually set. That is, you're creating a print ad or TV spot. You have a 9X 12 space or 30 seconds to fill. So all you have to do is come up with the concept. Additionally, the creative process is evolutionary. Your vendors (photographers, directors, editors, music house, talent, etc.) will evolve and enhance your concept. It's funny to hear people debate things like BBDO and Big spaceship. You don't think Joe Pytka doesn't seriously change and improve most storyboards? Traditional advertising people are rarely responsible for the actual execution of their ideas – at least from a hands-on, "I shot this" standpoint.

Not so with digital.

The creative arc is almost somewhat opposite with digital. While the ad guys get two weeks to come up with a TV idea (and just the idea), digital gets the same mount of time to come up with an idea PLUS have to at least begin to create the "vehicle" it will be delivered in. As a result, digital spends less time thinking of the "concept" and more time designing it. I'm not trying to make excuses, or even create value judgments, but that is what affects the quality of the "concept." In my opinion.

And again, all of this is affected by which of the three aforementioned environments you're in.

Anyway, I have to get back to work. Hope this begins to clarify where I was coming from. Again, it is wildly incomplete thinking. This is probably why Rothenberg created his endless manifesto. There are many factors that affect everything. And the problem is that people are trying to create hard-and-fast definitions for something that refuses to be defined – on any level.

[digitalent]

pardon all the typos.