Laura McGeough’s Blog : Creativity & Freshness

The existence of an obscure subatomic particle called a “cascade b baryon” was recently established by accelerating a proton close to the speed of light and smashing it into the nucleus of an atom.
By observing the trails of the subatomic wreckage caused, scientists were able to derive fundamental information such as mass, charge and direction of spin. They used this to establish that the cascade b baryon was, in fact, composed of three types of quark – called, somewhat prosaically, “down”, “strange” and “bottom”.

But what, I hear you wondering, can this obscure particle physics teach us about advertising effectiveness? I use the oblique introduction to highlight the distinction between the observations taken as proof of an effect and the actions that made it happen in the first place. In this case, the capricious cascade b baryons were only made visible by forcing an ultra-highspeed sub-atomic pile-up, using a four-mile particle accelerator somewhere outside Chicago. But a vital step before building the accelerator was the construction of a theory about the existence of quarks, baryons, gluons, neutrinos and all the other bizarre thingummies that make up matter. Without such a theory, scientists would not have been able to devise their sub-atomic experiments or make sense of the results.In other words, the development of a working theory or hypothesis is the vital first step that precedes any results.

Science has, in fact, progressed by being equally obsessed with prediction and validation. Einstein famously deduced his SpecialTheory by “thinking about it ceaselessly”. It wasn’t until 66 years later that super-accurate clocks were flown supersonically for months on end and the effects he predicted were finally proved. In our industry’s somewhat more humble sphere, a similar division exists between the science of evaluating effects and the practice of creating them.

The “evaluators” who obsess about measuring effectiveness trade in measurement, indications, comparisons, variables, quantification, elimination, modelling and so on. And they perform a vital role in validating (and sometimes invalidating) a campaign’s effectiveness. But a vital aspect of effectiveness that is often overlooked is the creation of the very effects the evaluators measure. After all, there are only sales uplifts to analyse because someone devised, created and implemented a means of encouraging people to purchase more. The people responsible for this sideofeffectiveness-let’scallthem “creators”- obsess about attitudes, behaviours, mindsets, objectives, challenges, stimulus, response, decisions,indecision and so on.

Effectiveness is not just something we measure, itis something we create, Richard Storey explains

The IPA Effectiveness Awards were conceived and introduced by “evaluators”. The awards have always placed great emphasis on measures such as “return on marketing investment”, “scale of effect” and “strength of proof.

However, it’s clear from judging the winners of the most recent awards that the recipe for a great effectiveness case is equal parts creation and evaluation. Indeed, what is fascinating about the winning cases published in Advertising Works 16 is not how well they worked, but how they worked so well. Without exception, each campaign was effective because its “creators” developed a theory about the problem it was facing and, from that, found a means of influencing the dynamics to work in its favour. I guess we call that having a strategy.

So, for example, E4’s theory was that marketing for its new show shouldn’t just aim to be where its audience were interested, but should be what its audience were interested in. So it set about embedding its new show’s characters in the social environments of its young target audience – MySpace, Facebook,gossip pages etc. Miles Calcraft Briginshaw Duffy developed a theory that the social value of Waitrose’s ethical sourcing policy could add emotional value on top of the tore’s “good quality for a fair price” positioning. So they told engaging stories about the origins of the upermarket’s citrus fruit and the welfare of the good people who grow them. The Union and The Scottish Executive needed a theory to overcoming people’s reticence to register as an organ donor. They figured that people’s reticence to consider their own death could be overcome by presenting the issue as a matter of someone else’s life or death. So they forced us to decide if we should “Kill Jill”, “Let Guy die” or “Spare Clare”.

In each of these three cases, the evaluators were able to studiously establish a return on the client’s investment, but much of the credit for the achievement belongs with the creators who devised the theories and the solutions that came from them. Because effectiveness is not just something we measure, it is something we make happen. By implication,the Effectiveness Awards are won by the “creators” who devise the campaigns as well as the “evaluators” who studiously write the papers.

So who are these “creators”? And what skills do they need to go about their business?

Despite the similarity in name, “creators” are not quite the same thing as “creatives”. Creatives are paid to be creative. They invent, twist, craft, mould, add flourish, reinterpret and so on. Their primary concern is with the stimulus they create, whether that be aTV ad or a marketing stunt. They worry about whether it is original,intriguing,entertaining,moving,”creative”etc. Creators, on the other hand, are concerned with the outcomes they create, not just the campaign that creates it.They worry about whether their work will open people’s minds, change opinions, increase conviction, prompt action, change habits etc. In order to do this, they also invent,twist and craft,but,critically, they listen, observe, synthesise, theorise, question, speculate and test.They use a blend of objective observation skills, logical deductive skills and intuitive creative skills.

This kind of “diagonal thinking” is perhaps a more valuable skill in agencies, than purely linear evaluation skills. There are, of course, tests to establish whether individual people have this invaluable skill. Some creatives have it, arguably some of the very best ones. A few planners have it too. But, by and large, the best way to achieve this kind of “diagonal thinking” is to combine the thinking skills of different kinds of people into tight units.

With that in mind, it is interesting to consider the two”teams” historically favoured by advertising agency structures: “creative teams” and “account teams”. Each exists to achieve a different end; namely, creativity and client service. They are not, however, specifically conceived as “creators” in the sense I outline above. Nor are they constructed in the best way to achieve the kind of diagonal thinking creators deploy. In the quest to further “effectiveness culture”, it will be interesting to observe whether agencies continue to stick to these arguably outmoded structures.

The IPA Effectiveness Awards could also gain from accommodating this line of thinking. By making a distinction between “proof of effectiveness” and “cause of effectiveness”,the awards have acritical decision to make. Should they stick rigidly to their existing criteria as the bean counters of the advertising industry? Or should they embrace the “cause of effectiveness” agenda and acknowledge they are rewarding the creators as much as the e valuators of any campaign? Perhaps the answer lies in the usefulness of the papers these awards were devised to create. As practitioners and academics pour over the papers, either via the Advertising Works books or electronic downloads, what are they looking to learn? Are they anxious to know “how that effect was measured” or “how that effect was achieved”?

The answer is surely a bit of each, but a lot of the latter. Hence my point. Effectiveness is not just something you measure. It’s something you create. Agencies keen on pursuing an effectiveness culture should think about who their effectiveness creators are, not just their effectiveness evaluators.

Copyright © 2008 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Source: This is an extract from “Effectiveness is not just something you measure” by Richard Storey, M&C Saatchi’s chief strategy officer, from the IPA book Advertising Works 16, which was published on 3 April
Author(s): Richard Storey
Publication title: Campaign. Teddington: Apr 11, 2008. pg. 10, 1 pgs
Source type: Periodical
ISSN: 00082309
ProQuest document ID: 1501096521
Text Word Count 1318
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1501096521&sid=2&Fmt=3&cl
ientId=11502&RQT=309&VName=PQD
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&sid=2&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=… 10/08/2008