Back in the early 2000s, I was fortunate to have dinner with a professor of economic history, Monica, who taught at an American university in Florence.
On the subject of business decision-making, she shared with me two particularly useful expressions that I’ve used regularly ever since, especially in the context of creativity:
“The avoidance of post-decisional regret.”
“The ceremonial display of rationality.” and
The two things are intrinsically attached to one another, and together I believe they are the enemy of creativity in advertising.
Taking a step back, it becomes clear why …
Creativity is risk.
Creativity must be something new – by its very definition. And if it’s new, it’s inherently risky, because it’s never been seen or done before, and we don’t know exactly what will happen.
But here’s the rub: if you want greater returns from the same or smaller budgets, you must take greater risk.
It’s as true in marketing investments as it is in any other kind of investment.
But risks are scary, they represent danger, so people act in “the avoidance of post-decisional regret” killing original, ‘scary’ ideas completely or knocking the dangerous edges off them to make them feel safe, or familiar. As Bill Bernbach noted back in the 1960s:
“Playing it safe can be the most dangerous thing you can do.”
And the judges of creative work do the killing and knocking with “The ceremonial display of rationality.”
You can see ceremonial displays of rationality all the time. Like when we say what we think we ought to say, or what we think others expect us to say, instead of what we actually think or feel.
When we assess advertising with ceremonial displays of rationality, it doesn’t reflect what we really feel about it, let alone reflect how the desired audience would respond to it. In most cases, but especially in broadcast, advertising is a passive medium. To be effective, it must take the risk of trying to hook, tease, intrigue, and even bewilder to engage.
Yet our displays of rationality warn of things like:
“I don’t think they’ll get it” or “We can’t make the consumer look like a fool”, (even though Hamlet Cigars built a brand platform doing exactly that) and suggest “shouldn’t we do more with that white space?”.
And worst of all: “the client will never buy that.”
You can try to mitigate these risks with consumer research, but even research is limited: consumers ceremonially display rationality, too.
And what happens if we fail?
When we take a risk, and our advertising fails, we’re nonetheless asked to justify its failure (as if its success was always a certainty). Even if risks are taken in good faith and by consensus – when everyone knows they carry a higher chance of failure – marketers and their agencies will still be held accountable if that risk doesn’t pay off. As a result, our defensive instincts steer us toward safer, more predictable options, which inevitably deliver lower returns.
Decades ago, when agency profit margins were that much higher, agencies could push harder for the better, riskier advertising, understanding that its failure might mean losing the account. These days, pushing too hard isn’t such an affordable option. Agencies have neither the financial nor the psychological safety they once had.
This doesn’t mean that it’s therefore only a problem for CMOs and marketing directors to solve. Agencies still have a vital role to play in helping their clients sell the work internally, speaking the strategic language of risk and explaining how riskier creative ideas are meant to work.
Brands’ CEOs can’t have their cake and eat it, too.
Those most culpable for the compromised returns on safer creative work are the ones to whom CMOs and marketing directors are accountable: their CEOs.
If CEOs want marketing to deliver greater returns on smaller budgets, they must give their marketing teams the freedom to take more risks – the freedom to be more creative, even the freedom to fail. They can’t have it both ways.
For many brands, the real failure is already here: low growth or no growth. For others, especially those whose success is largely dependent on and driven by, the physical availability of their products – there’s only an upside to greater risk. Genuinely outstanding creative work is unlikely to dissuade a brand’s customer base from buying loyally, but it may well persuade lapsed or non-buyers to become loyal buyers.
For example, a recent LinkedIn post hotly debated a 48-sheet poster for a McDonald’s McMuffin comprising a close-up of the profile of the muffin sandwich dominating the landscape poster. No strap line, no logo, no “CTA”. There’s no downside to running this ad without these ceremonially typical elements. But the upside is greater engagement, allowing the viewer to finish the communication themselves as they seek to understand: first, what they’re looking at, and second, why they’re looking at it – only to realise that it is unmistakably a McDonald’s McMuffin. And those that recognise it, are arguably also those most likely to go and buy one.
Equally, one of Britain’s best-loved ads of all time, the infamous Cadbury’s Gorilla, had to battle its way through several rounds of ceremonial displays of rationality. But there was no credible consequence to face had the Cadbury Gorilla not been effective other than the money spent on it. The gorilla wouldn’t have actively dissuaded people from buying Cadbury’s Dairy Milk, only potentially confused them. But as it turned out the ad increased sales by 10%.
The Meerkat play on words of comparethemarket.com was arguably risky, but it wouldn’t have pushed anyone away from their website had it failed; and had it not become the advertising institution that it is today.
But, meanwhile, we continue with our rituals: displaying rationality, avoiding regret – and watching our brands’ fortunes quietly decline.
So, what is to be done?
We all know that you can’t repeat behaviour and expect a different result – well, we’re supposed to know.
Brands being asked to deliver more for less must start using the language of creativity and risk with their CEOs. Without genuine license to buy more creative and more risky work, the rest is academic. But that isn’t enough on its own.
Brands should also understand: in the case of creativity, the behaviour they must change is not limited to what they write on their briefs for their agencies.
The brands which regularly produce great, genuinely creative work with their creative agencies are not just luckier than other brands. They routinely adopt a broader behaviour set to nurture creativity including their processes, remuneration, incentives, and managing their stakeholders better.
In summary: brands won’t suddenly get better creative work from agencies unless they create the conditions conducive to:
- getting the best available talent within their agency …
- to write the truly creative ideas …
- that take wisely and strategically calculated risks …
to deliver a greater return on investment that would otherwise have not been achieved.
That’s not easy, but it can be done.
And there’s no shortage of great creative ideas; they’re still routinely produced in agencies everywhere. However, they often end up being buried under ceremonial displays of rationality made in the avoidance of post-decisional regret and never see the light of day.