Increasingly, big companies are bringing their marketing efforts in-house. It usually starts with a small, internal design group or a new Chief Creative Officer, which evolves into a whole department full of talented creatives. Inevitably, they ask themselves, “Why do we need an ad agency?” 
I’ll tell you why.
First, let me disclose that I’ve worked in advertising agencies for most of my 20 year career. But, lest you think I’m biased, you should know that I’ve also worked as a freelancer for a number of years, often directly for in-house marketing departments. So I’ve experienced both worlds. 
For years I dealt with this question, mostly in response to clients who wanted to dictate creative ideas. Or change the ones we developed for them. It was frustrating because we were the ones with the expertise. But more importantly, we had something they couldn’t acquire: objectivity.
Expertise is one important reason why a company should have an ad agency on retainer. But since agencies can’t corner the market on talent, I’ll focus on the importance of objectivity. This is a critical attribute that is totally unobtainable by in-house marketing teams.
Every company is like a new mother who thinks their baby is the most beautiful child in the world. Even though everyone else can see it is not. If you work in-house, no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to distance yourself from your brand in order to really see things objectively. 
Why am I so sure? Because, ultimately, your allegiance is to your paycheck. Which means it’s virtually impossible to take risks that will enable your brand to be surprising and innovative.
Pretty much all company men (and women) are bobbleheads. Even when they think they’re independent, analytical, contrarian thinkers, who aren’t afraid to disagree with their bosses, they eventually conform to senior management. Especially when their job is on the line.  
I know because it takes a former bobblehead to know a bobblehead. I’m a creative person by trade and we creatives are anti-conformists by nature. However, when you come home at night and look into your toddler’s eyes or kick back on your designer sofa with a fifty dollar bottle of wine, you get an eye-full of what you’re risking if you push senior management beyond their comfort zone. And so you ease up. I don’t like to admit it, but it’s true. It’s human nature.  
There are only a handful of people on the planet that are seemingly immune to the fear of getting fired or making a mistake. These people are rarely ever employed as company men. They work for themselves as entrepreneurs. Everything they do is risky. It’s a way of life. 
You might ask, since an ad agency is essentially employed by a company as well, aren’t they just as much afraid of getting fired and therefore less apt to push their clients into an uncomfortable place? Well, yes, the bad advertising agencies do whatever their clients want.
However, the good ones don’t. For this reason: their reputation is more important than the monthly retainer. In the long run, clients will come and go. But an agency’s reputation is their livelihood. That’s why the best ad agencies say the tough things. They argue with clients. They push them. They even resign accounts. All because they have integrity. 
You’re welcome to disagree with me, but you’d be wrong. Ask yourself, do you respect a “yes man”? If you can honestly answer yes, I don’t believe you.  
Nobody respects a yes man. We all value the truth, even when it hurts our ego. Because after the sting wears off we appreciate the critical comments and can make strides to improve ourselves and correct our course. That’s the power of objectivity.
When you’re an in-house company man, you’re staunchly loyal to your company. Er, um, your paycheck. So the only way to benefit from true objectivity is to retain an ad agency. If they’re good, they’ll tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear. And that is worth much more than what you pay them.
Long live great ad agencies that have the courage to stand for something. And long live great clients that are brave and trusting. Together they can move mountains.
------
6:55 PM
Anger is generally considered to be a negative human attribute. But I’ve come to see that—not only is it a positive attribute—it makes the world better.

There’s a misconception that if you’re calm and “in control” of your emotions, that you are to be admired and commended. And if you’re more reserved then you’re more rational, and therefore make the world a kindler, gentler place.

Professors, lawyers, CEO’s and politicians have become increasingly calm and reserved over the years, rarely ever raising their voices (except for effect). If one of them becomes angry, they’re labeled as irrational and people become suspicious. (Remember what happened to Howard Dean?) However, when people maintain constant composure, we assume they are more stable and trustworthy. 

What a ridiculous assumption. 

A few weeks ago, I got passionate and very animated about something and my wife asked, “Why are you getting angry? Relax.” I thought to myself, what has happened to us? Why are we so averse to expressing a little anger?

I remember watching a TV documentary and they showed some really old footage of Theodore Roosevelt giving a presidential speech. He was animated and emphatic. He waved his fist around. I thought, “Wow, presidents were different back then!” I can’t imagine our current president filled with such conviction and becoming that emotional.

It seems we’ve become so obsessed with physical demeanor and verbal delivery, we often overlook the content. We’ve become more concerned with appearances than inner motives. Why?

I believe we’ve overreacted to our less gentle parents and grandparents—who were sometimes violent disciplinarians—by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many of us vowed to behave differently, even to the extent that some parents now refuse to discipline their children in any way whatsoever. So the pendulum has swung completely to the other side. 

The truth is, anger and violence are two totally different things. Anger is an emotion, violence is an action. Anger can be helpful, violence can be harmful. Anger is simply a result of feeling something inside, then expressing it. You can be angry and still perfectly rational. 

The problem with perpetually calm people is that you don’t know their inner motives. They wear a perfect poker face like emotionless mannequins. 

Let’s be clear, when anger becomes irrational and violent, it’s bad. But anger can indeed change the world.

Anger inspires action. It inspires change. It propels passionate people to snap out of their complacency and indifference, and do extraordinary things. It helps make the world a better place for all.

Anger compelled Martin Luther King to lead a non-violent charge to speak out against racial hatred and help achieve civil rights in America.

Anger compelled Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn to write an incredibly powerful book, Half The Sky, to raise awareness of severely oppressed women around the world. Which I highly recommend reading because it will make you informed (and angry).

Anger compelled Robert Kenner to create the documentary, Food Inc., to help inform the world of the disastrous health and environmental consequences of America’s industrialized food system. He also launched a website called, FixFood.org.

Anger compelled Cesar Chavez, Bob Geldof, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill and thousands of others too numerous to name. 

How do I know that anger was the active ingredient in the minds of these people? Because only the emotion of anger can literally eat someone from the inside out and compel them into activism. Despite fear.

Some people avoid anger for health reasons. And there’s some evidence to support that. However, I believe the supposed health risks can be mitigated by a healthy diet, plenty of exercise and quiet meditation (whatever kind you’re into).

The world is definitely broken. And you can do your part to help fix it. Just allow yourself to get angry. It’s powerful fuel. Become a passionate person and take action. Don’t be afraid to raise your voice once in a while.

I’m beginning to view my passionate, angry, ranting friends differently. I’m realizing that they are actually more trustworthy than the rest. They might wear their emotions on their sleeve, but I like that they’re not holding anything back. There’s no guile. No pretense. I know the real them. And I’m invigorated by an animated person who actually stands for something.

So let’s get some righteous anger about the things that need fixing and transform our spineless, soft-spoken, emotionless culture for future generations. 

(But I say again, please avoid irrationality and violence. It’s counterproductive. Remember, words are more powerful than fists.)

-------


Note: In case you didn’t know, this is an advertising-focused blog. So I should add here that anger can help transform anything and everything—including the advertising industry. It just needs a few passionate people to show some backbone and let anger move them to action.


1:48 PM
It happens all the time. A person or company invents something that changes the world. They enjoy great success and perhaps even follow it up with another big thing. But a few years pass and their ability to innovate dwindles. How does this happen? What transforms a visionary into a has-been?

Innovation is essentially problem solving. We see something broken and we are compelled to try and fix it. It could be a sluggish system, an obsolete product, a void in the marketplace, you name it.

Many people believe innovation is for the young. This may be true for many internet start-ups but generally age has nothing to do with it. Henry Ford was in his 40’s when his company launched the Model T. Martha Stewart was 41 when she published her first book and 49 when she launched her magazine. Frank Lloyd Wright was 70 years old when he experienced his surge of success.

In fact, innovators are increasingly getting older. A study of Nobel prize winners over the last 100 years shows average ages on the rise.* 

So what are the factors that diminish our ability to innovate? Is it because we run out of ideas? Not likely. Ideas are infinite. I believe it’s primarily three things: loyalty, fear and focus. 

1) Loyalty

When you introduce something innovative into the world and achieve great success, you become immovably loyal to your formula. You might even repeat it a few times to greater success. 

The problem is, the world will copy you. Soon your cherished formula is commonplace and no longer innovative. However, this doesn’t stop you from using it over and over because you are hopelessly loyal. You tell yourself, “It worked before and it will work again!”

Some people and corporations are so loyal to their proven formulas, they are like captains who go down with a sinking ship, stubbornly refusing to believe what’s happening. 

Why is it so difficult to abandon formulas and reinvent? Why are brands so loyal to their established image, even when it becomes stale? Why does every great musician seem to become boring and irrelevant over time?

Very few innovators and artists seem to successfully reinvent themselves after a period of ten or twenty years. They are simply too loyal to the past. But there are additional factors.

2) Fear

When you are young and scrappy and broke, you take bigger risks because you don’t have far to fall. With success comes financial security. But also altitude. The ground looks very far away and you begin to worry about making a misstep. So you fearfully play it safe and stick to your proven formula. Which almost always fails.

Avoiding these two pitfalls is easier said than done. The obvious answer is to stay reckless and abandon stale formulas. And realize that everyone experiences fear—that it’s only threatening if you let it paralyze you.

3) Focus

Following your initial success you try to grow your audience. That means shifting away from your early-adopting, passionate, core audience in order to appeal to the masses. Which usually requires dumbing down your product. Which grows your base but alienates your core. 

This shift in audience focus can bring financial success but can result in eventual disaster. The masses are fickle. They’re not loyal. They are easily drawn away by a lower cost product. So you react by making it cheaper to keep them buying. And so begins a downward spiral. 

That might be an oversimplification, but it’s essentially what happens. Companies get big, then get bad, then fall apart.

These are three powerful forces which cause us to fail. So how do we avoid becoming victims of our own success?

There is one approach which I believe can cure all three ills. There are other names for it, but I call it, The Discomfort Factor. 

The more innovative and unfamiliar something is, the more difficult it is to predict how well it will be received. It could be a huge success or a giant flop. But since there’s no precedent, your uncertainty creates an incredibly uncomfortable feeling in the pit of your stomach. This is The Discomfort Factor. (Or, as someone else put it, “Dance with the fear.”**)

Discomfort might just be the key to continued success. If you learn to thrive on it, you are more likely to continually innovate. And if you stick to your passionate, core audience and grow slowly instead of chasing after the fickle masses, you will help ensure longevity.

-------

*Age and Great Invention by Benjamin F. Jones
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11359

**Quote by Seth Godin
http://bit.ly/1jWvVuJ
1:37 PM
Technically, a stigma is a mark of shame or disgrace. It gets applied to a person—often unfairly—and is not easily removed. 

Avoiding a stigma is like walking through a minefield. In our hurried age, people make shallow judgements about you based on stereotypes, personality, title, age, even wardrobe. Then they lump you into a category. This can all happen in an instant. 

It’s mostly a result of laziness. It’s taxing on our brains to actually get to know someone thoroughly and discover their hidden talents before forming an opinion about them.

Here are three common stigmas and how to overcome them:

The “in-house” stigma.
In ad agencies, there’s the in-house stigma. Like an in-house photographer or in-house editor. These individuals are generally viewed as not being as ambitious because they don’t work at an independent, cutting edge studio or production facility. Therefore they are assumed to be not as good. This is true sometimes but not always. Either way, it’s a powerful stigma that is unlikely to change. To overcome it: Try looking outside your day job to help establish a better reputation. Take on personal projects in the evenings and weekends and make something great. Or quit your job and seek out a hot, independent company.

The “wallflower” stigma.
Not everyone is a hilarious stand up comedian or life of the party. Some of us are quiet and shy. Which means we are frequently disregarded. People aren't comfortable around us and they avoid conversations. This is all despite the fact that many of the greatest artists and craftsman are socially awkward wallflowers. To overcome it: Learn to start conversations. Read more. Read the newspaper. Read books. Have an opinion and express it. Help your career by being more outgoing and sociable. I’ve had the tendency to be a wallflower but I’ve forced myself to be more outgoing and engaging over the years. And I’m glad I did.

The “uncool” stigma. 
The uncool stigma is probably the most shallow and offensive of all. Your wardrobe, manner of speech and social presence can sometimes determine whether you sink or swim. Personally, I applaud people who refuse to change who they are just to appease the cool police. However, if you feel that you’ve been stuck with the uncool stigma and want to remove it, you can. To overcome it: Use your talents. Do some risky and original work. Make it truly great. Then make sure people see it. It will supplant the uncool stigma over your head. Or you could simply develop a new sense of style. Change your wardrobe and image. It hate to admit it but this has worked for some people. They went from frumpy to hip and everyone seemed to view them (and their work) differently. Just like what happens on that TV show, “What Not To Wear.”

Stigmas are a painful reality. They affect how people view your work. If your raw creative output was the only criteria for judging your work, the world would be a better place. But that’s a pipe dream. Don’t waste time waiting for human nature to change. Refuse to be stigmatized. 


-------
11:12 AM
What does your physical presence in a room of people say about you? The way you carry yourself, the way you speak, your volume level, your amount of eye contact, your wardrobe, your facial expression, everything.

I’ve been around a lot of people in my career and I’ve always been impressed by people who have an instant presence when they walk into a room. And then they impress even more when they speak.

The advertising industry attracts extreme personalities. Bubbly extroverts, gloomy introverts, arrogant people, shy people, brash and pushy people, and a host of others. There are people who dress like hipsters and people who dress like the janitorial staff. There are smilers, frowners, arguers, whisperers, shouters, jokesters, laughers and painfully awkward people. 

All of these character attributes affect our work. They can hold us back or propel us upward. So when you walk into a room, what’s your presence? When you speak and interact with others, what signals are you sending?

I’ve given this a lot of thought over the years and I’ve taken a lot of mental notes. The things that give people a powerful presence are actually amazingly simple. There’s no voodoo or mystery at all. 

Here is a shortlist of things that I believe make a huge impact on our personal and professional lives. They might seem obvious but, shockingly, most people don’t follow them.

1. Smile. This is one of the most effective weapons in our arsenal. A genuine smile is disarming and friendly. Any tension in the air will immediately dissipate. Plus it’s infectious. It literally compels others to smile back at you. Conversely, a scowl or straight face repels people. It makes them not want to hang out with you after work, because you are presumably a boring or rigid person.

2. Give a firm handshake. It goes without saying, but a firm handshake implies confidence and dependability. To clients it shows you aren’t a pushover. On the flip side, a limp, squishy handshake implies timidity and insecurity. So don’t be afraid to squeeze.

3. Keep good eye contact. It’s easier to do this when you’re listening to someone speak but doing it when you are speaking is powerful. It communicates intensity and conviction. Practice it on your spouse, your friends, your dog, a wall. It’s even more powerful with fewer blinks. One of my good friends uses laser-focused eye contact while he’s speaking and it elevates everything he says. I believe he really means what he says.

4. Give the gift of validation by nodding while others are speaking. It doesn’t necessarily mean you agree, it means you are giving them your full attention and you understand what they are saying. Try this game: next time you’re in a conference room full of people, give validating head nods to the speaker. You will find that their eyes eventually settle on you more than others. This is because you’re giving them what they need: validation. And, surprisingly, I’ve found that it makes it easier to make a rebuttal. Perhaps because they truly feel you heard them thoroughly. After all, most people (especially clients) just want to be heard.

5. Learn the art of small talk. This one didn’t come easy to me. I’ve been shy since childhood. But I’ve learned the power of casual conversation. The key is having something to talk about and there are only three things: (1) Yourself, (2) the other person and (3) topical subjects. It’s easy to talk about yourself but it’s better to get the other person talking about himself/herself. However, the best thing you can do is listen to news radio or read the newspaper (or the online equivalent.) It makes you informed and gives you something to talk about. 

There are many more things you can do, but these five will give your life and career a big boost. If I were to add one more, I would say increase your volume. Many people (including myself) are soft talkers and sometimes get drowned out or interrupted. 

Lastly, the above principles are ultimately only effective if you have something relevant and valuable to contribute. Otherwise, it’s all for nothing. 


-------
9:27 AM
Everyone knows that layers in any approval process are bad. Just look at what happens when there are too many layers on the client side. And yet we’ve essentially done the same thing within the agency creative department. We’ve made it extremely difficult for exceptional ideas to make it through unscathed. The ones that do make it through are usually safe and full of compromises.

There was a time not too long ago when the average creative department was flat. There was only one creative director (or sometimes a team of two) and then creatives under him or her. The only delineation between creatives was “junior,” “mid-level” and “senior.” But all of them reported directly to the creative director. 

This worked perfectly because everyone had access to the final decision maker. They could engage in conversation, discussing problems and solutions surrounding the work, and save a lot of time. And there were fewer egos and personal agendas involved.

Now, creative departments are bloated with a lot of layers. Creative work starts at the bottom and must run the gauntlet through ACD’s, CD’s, GCD’s before finally reaching the ECD’s. And sometimes it must be approved by the CCO. It’s reminiscent of a scene out of Indiana Jones, where he had to run through a tunnel filled with flying darts, swinging blades, rolling boulders and trapdoors with wooden spikes. This is how great ideas get ruined.

What’s so wrong with layers? Here are a few things.

1. Human ego compels every person in each layer to add his or her own input to an idea running the gauntlet, often resulting in a Frankenstein. Sometimes ideas are improved along the way but more often they are not. 

2. Without direct access to the decision maker at the top, those on the bottom must try to interpret the feedback from the layer above them, which is often cryptic and contradictory. It’s the classic game of telephone.

3. It puts too many internal reviews in the process. If you are briefed on Monday and the ECD’s want to see ideas on Friday, that means the GCD’s must see it Thursday and the CD’s on Wednesday. And if there are ACD’s, they see it on Tuesday. And who knows when the account people or planners get a peek. Probably at the last minute. All of this reduces actual creative development time down to nothing.

4. It filters out great ideas too soon. Middle management CD’s like to curate. Which basically means to kill. The problem is, nobody’s tastes are identical. The tastes and biases of the ECD’s are guaranteed to be different than the intermediate CD’s. So why filter out work that the ECD might see potential in? 

5. It eliminates discussion and debate. Sometimes an idea needs to be talked out with the ECD’s. They might be on the fence with an idea and a few alterations suggested by the creative team can make the all difference. But that’s virtually impossible when they’re not in the room together.

I know some will disagree with me, but in my experience, layered creative departments are totally counterproductive. It’s no different than having a lot of layers on the client side. And every (every) creative murmurs and complains about that.

So where did these layers come from? How did this trend start? Personally, I began to see it about 10-15 years ago. I believe they started appearing and multiplying when agency chiefs discovered that promoting people with titles was an effective substitute for pay raises, and it helped keep creatives from getting lured away by other shops. 

Unfortunately, we’ve painted ourselves into a corner. Every agency has embraced this system and it’s become standard. So these layers are here to stay. The question is, where can we go from here?

Here’s one solution that I believe would make all the difference in the world: Collective CD reviews.

It would work like this... schedule one creative review with every CD-level person in attendance. CD’s, GCD’s and ECD’s. One by one, each creative team comes into the room and presents their work (or collectively with all teams together). Then everyone can make comments and have their say. And the creative team can defend their work and suggest solutions to problems, right on the spot. This way, everyone will truly share ownership and huge amounts of time will be saved.

It’s true, nobody likes big meetings with lots of people. Especially executive creatives. Probably because it’s far easier to kill work when the creatives are not in the room. However, creatives are actually more satisfied and less bitter when the ECD explains why their idea isn’t working. And they develop a much greater respect for the ECD because they say it to their face, with honesty and directness. Plus the creatives get some closure.

This method would lead to (A) better communication, (B) greater understanding, (C) less bitterness, and (D) better work. Streamlining the process can only have a positive impact.

A few years back, when I worked at Media Arts Lab, every creative presented directly to Lee Clow. Even the creative interns. The other executive creatives were standing there as well. It was a group of people roving around a room full of work. And it worked brilliantly. If Lee didn’t like an idea, you heard directly from him. And you could defend your work. Rarely did it change his mind, but at least you were allowed to speak up and hear his feedback in person.

One last thing. In the layered system, there’s a false assumption that a CD must always make a comment or request a change, even if the idea is just fine as is. And that’s totally understandable. It’s natural to desire to make your stamp. And to feel like you’re actually contributing something. But, just know, it’s okay to like something just as it is. You share ownership if you simply champion it. I believe it shows real maturity and confidence when you resist the urge to meddle unnecessarily.

-------
Addendum

I’ve received some great feedback since posting this blog entry yesterday. One comment from my friend, Annie, provided some more insight. She said: 

“I think one of the issues for these layers is salary requirements. Big agencies can't justify (anymore) the $200k+ salaries to a Senior Writer. The bean counters have to say, ‘oh, this person is important and valued, so they get a title that allows for the inflated salary.’ Titles over the decades have become very important to creatives, too. 'Look what I accomplished Mom by going to that art school!'"

Thanks, Annie, for sharing your perspective. It makes sense. In some cases, the bean counters have had a part to play in multiplying these titles and layers. Which is really a shame, since it has affected the process and the work. 

Of course there are some people out there who will say, “I got promoted with a title but never saw a salary increase!” To which I say, squeak louder and more often.


-------

9:34 AM
Probably every art director working in advertising right now has asked himself/herself, “Why didn’t I choose to be a writer instead?”

As an art director, I’ve probably spent most of my career comping. And most of that time has been spent looking for images. It’s a sad reality and one of the reasons that I’ve become disillusioned with advertising over the years. 

Presentations have increasingly relied upon amazing layouts to dazzle clients. In my early years in the business (in the mid-nineties), it was still acceptable to present sketched comps to clients. This was great because everyone’s attention would be focused on the idea itself. It was impossible to trick any client into buying a weak idea that was obscured by beautiful eye candy.

Nowadays, if you walk into a meeting with simple sketched ideas, the reception is likely to be flat. Everyone expects finished-looking comps.

It’s only natural to try to find someone to blame for this trend. But if you ask me, we art directors can only blame ourselves. 

As highly visual people, we understood the power of beautiful visuals and we used them to gain an advantage. We discovered that our visual powers of persuasion even worked on seasoned creative directors who should have been able to see past pretty pictures, but were swayed anyway. We competitively out-comped the other art directors when multiple teams were assigned to the same project. We stayed up later and later to craft our layouts. And it worked. Our work stood out.

But look where we are now. Everyone expects luscious, high-res comps and incredible graphic design. If we have three days to develop ideas for a creative brief, we spend one day concepting and two days comping. We spend less time brainstorming ideas and more time scouring the web for great images. This has led to weaker (but prettier) ads.

I don’t think we can put the genie back into the bottle. What’s done is done. We can only look forward. The future lies in ad agencies building studios full of young graphic designers that specialize in making stuff pretty, so art directors can spend their time directing not designing. This is how it’s typically done at agencies in London. And at certain agencies like Wieden+Kennedy (or so I hear).

I do think it’s a valuable skill to be able to craft beautiful stuff. It’s empowering. But it doesn’t make bad ideas better. Sometimes it’s only a façade that hides shallow work.

I would love to see creative directors try something refreshing. Instead of expecting highly produced comps when reviewing ideas internally, CD’s should demand to see only sketched comps. It’s a true test of the power of an idea. The make-up and lipstick can come later.

I’d also love to see agencies remake their studios by filling them with young, talented graphic designers who are dedicated to comping. Perhaps treat it as a bootcamp for newbies, who eventually transition out of it and become fully-fledged art directors (knowing that it’s not very rewarding to spend your time “wristing” other people’s ideas, so nobody wants to do it for very long.)

Things won’t really change until CD’s start demanding changes. Demanding that their art directors spend more time concepting with their writer partners. Demanding more emphasis on raw ideas. Demanding that they stop using beautiful layouts as a crutch.

If you’re a young art director in school and you also happen to be a decent writer, you might consider switching to being a copywriter. You’ll have more of a life. You’ll go home from work earlier. You’ll get more time with your wife and family. You’ll get more sleep.

On the other hand, as an art director, you’re kind of a one man/woman band. Often I’ve worked alone because my writer partner was on vacation or unavailable. And I managed pretty well, since I was able to use my design skills to bring ideas to life singlehandedly. 

Whichever way you look at it, I believe art directors are the hardest working people in advertising. That is, if you measure it by perspiration instead of inspiration. Too bad the majority of ideas never see the light of day. That’s a lot of man hours spent making beautiful clay pigeons. 

-------



6:36 AM
This is how most creatives see it: “I dreamt up the idea, I lovingly nurtured it, I painstakingly toiled over it, I passionately pleaded for it, but the client killed it. So I’ll just recycle it later.” 

What creatives seem to forget is, they signed an agreement when they were hired that says their ad agency owns it. So, technically, it’s not theirs to recycle if they leave that agency.

But the rules seem a little hazy. Recycling is incredibly common. Pretty much every creative I know recycles their old ideas from time to time. Yet, we never seem to hear of agencies suing them over this kind of thing. So most creatives feel safe recycling.

Perhaps agencies don’t sue because, by the time they find out about it, the recycled idea has been produced by another agency and is on air. So it’s too late to claim ownership. Or perhaps because it makes them appear petty and desperate. Like the kid who ignores a toy until another kid picks it up. Then suddenly they’re fighting over it.

Whatever the reason, it’s like a big hole in an electrified fence, where everyone seems to be stepping through without injury. But one day, someone will get fried. So be warned. When you recycle an idea, there is some risk of getting burned.

Despite that, it may be a risk your willing to take. Personally, I have old ideas that are too good to let die and nobody has done them yet. Some of them are a few years old so chances are greater that memories have faded and nobody remembers them.

Not that I don’t strive to come up with new ones. Of course I do. Ninety-nine percent of the time. But sometimes an old idea is a perfect fit.

Here are three things to consider when recycling. 

1. Realize that you are breaking the agreement you signed.

2. You most likely collaborated on the original idea with a former creative partner who now works someplace else. He or she will definitely feel slighted if you recycle the idea without their knowledge, since they’ll likely not get credit for it. The proper etiquette is to call them and ask if they’d be okay with it before you represent it. Chances are, they’ll be cool with it. But it’s polite to ask first.

3. Take into consideration the length of time that has transpired. Anything over two years is unlikely to cause a conflict. Memories fade. Anything five years and beyond is highly unlikely to cause a problem. But, after five years, ask yourself: is the idea still fresh?

Those of us who have been around a while accumulate a file cabinet full of unused ideas. I specifically remember working on a project with a very seasoned freelancer, who brought ten amazingly thought out ideas to the table in a single day. I thought to myself, “Either this guy is the most prolific creative ever or there’s a bunch of recycled ideas here.”

I think there needs to be new rules governing intellectual property. Individuals should be allowed to legally regain ownership if the ideas they generate are unwanted by their employers. After all, generating ideas is difficult. Paying for them is easy. Why does the individual do all the hard work and the agency get all the ownership, even after they toss them into the trash? It’s just a natural instinct for a creative to claw through the landfill, find his cherished idea, dust it off and file it away for later use.

Since laws are not likely to change, it makes sense for each individual to request an amendment to the agreement they sign when they’re hired that stipulates they will regain ownership of their rejected ideas after 24 months. Or something like that. The hiring agency might go for it, if they want you bad enough. Better yet, consult your attorney before signing if you’re serious about it. Or simply assume the risk later. It’s up to you.

Personally, I’d think twice about contacting your old agency about an old idea you dreamed up while under their employment. They’ll probably say no by default. After all, you signed the piece of paper agreeing to the terms of employment. They own your ideas. 

Most creatives take a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach to recycling. It seems to be working. I just hope nobody gets burned.

-------
3:46 PM
Creative departments are increasingly assigning multiple teams to projects. Gone are the glorious days of personal ownership, where a single team tackled a brief. Now creatives are expected to duke it out in gladiatorial combat for their CD’s. 

Oftentimes it means taking turns presenting ideas in a group setting—just like ad school, presenting to a room full of your peers. This can be a little unnerving, but it’s exhilarating when you have ideas you’re excited about. And you can make a statement with your work.

If you’re slated to present your work in a group setting on your next project, choose to go first. It has a few advantages. 

Here are five:

1. It shows initiative. 

Be willing to lead the charge by choosing to be the first on stage. There is always a moment when the CD says, “Okay, who wants to go first?” This means nobody is making a decision and it’s wide open. It’s your chance to take the ball and run with it. This can only reflect positively on you.

2. It shows confidence. 

Most people hate to go first. They’re simply afraid. Or they’d prefer to wait for others so they can stall for more time to mentally prepare and to form their arguments. So volunteering to go first shows boldness, which also reflects positively on you.

3. It helps you stake a claim.

Sometimes a great idea is so obvious, other teams arrive at similar conclusions. Which means, if you go first, you sort of get “first dibs.” Unless someone else executed the same idea better or is buddies with the CD (in which case, personal favoritism could unfortunately be a factor).

4. It helps protect your reputation if your ideas are weak.

Let’s face it, nobody bats a thousand. Sometimes, we haven’t nailed it and our ideas are a bit weak. When you go first, other creatives aren’t paying very close attention. That’s because they are mentally preparing for their turn and therefore distracted, so they won’t scrutinize your work as much. This is helpful if you actually respect the opinions of your fellow creatives. So, if you want to reduce embarrassment because you didn’t bring your ‘A’ game, go first.

5. It’s a win-win.

If you go first and your ideas fall flat, the CD will be more likely to forget about it, since he or she must absorb a lot of work. Bad work is more easily forgotten, so by the time the meeting has concluded, the memory of the flat ideas has started to fade. However, if your ideas are amazing, everything else presented afterward by the other teams will pale by comparison.

I’ve learned to love group presentations. It gives you a great opportunity to practice your skills on people who tend to be highly critical. If you hit a home run, everyone will remember it. And if your creative department is truly collaborative, ideas will be more likely to cross-pollinate around the room and benefit everyone by helping to create shared ownership.

So next time, choose to go first. And go strong, with full confidence and enthusiasm.


-------


4:39 PM
The world is full of ignorant people. We despise them. We’re embarrassed by them. We sigh and shake our heads because they give humanity a bad name. Then we thank God we’re not one of them. 

Right? 

Actually, there’s a good chance you are ignorant as well. In fact, a one hundred percent chance. If you stop to think about it, we are all ignorant in some respect. 

Nobody—absolutely nobody—knows everything. It’s impossible. Not if you had a hundred lifetimes. So why are there so many know-it-alls? Why are there so many “infallible” people? Do they really think they’re smarter or better?

There are two kinds of people:

1. Those who don’t know it all but pretend to.
2. Those who don’t know it all and admit it.

Between the two, the people in category number two have greater potential in life. Here’s why.

Both categories of people can hunger for knowledge. Both can stay up on the news, read books, have meaningful discussions and debates. But the people in category two have humility, which turns out to be the special sauce that enables greater potential. 

Humble people openly admit error. They aren’t afraid to say, “Huh, I didn’t know that.” They’re more likely to abandon their preconceived notions. They’re less biased. They’re more teachable. And therefore more situated for personal growth.

They’re also more willing to take risks and make mistakes, which is critical for success. Soichiro Honda said, “Success is 99% failure.” Are you willing to fail to achieve success?

These people view life as a never-ending journey of personal growth and achievement. They acknowledge their own ignorance, take aim and destroy it. 

Conversely, “know-it-alls” find it extremely painful to acknowledge their shortcomings. Perhaps they’ve spent years accumulating a treasure chest of knowledge or academic achievements. Perhaps they’ve garnered admiration and praise from parents, family, colleagues and associates. So admitting ignorance or incompetence in any way exposes a weakness they’d rather not admit: that they might be wrong. Their reputation just can’t take the hit.

They are particularly disdainful of less intelligent, less accomplished or uncredentialed people. So they disregard them completely.

Take for instance, a folk remedy for a health ailment. Often know-it-alls will disregard it, because it’s unendorsed by the scientific community. They’ve embraced an established system that refuses to even investigate a natural remedy claim. So it threatens not only their beliefs but their allegiance to the intelligentsia.

So how does this observation help us in our professional careers? 

If you make a concerted effort to change your mindset, admit your own ignorance and suppress the sting to your ego, then you begin to take the first step toward becoming more. You’ll not be afraid to make mistakes, not be afraid to change your mind, not be afraid to stick your foot in your mouth, not be afraid to apologize.  

Projecting an aura of infallibility doesn’t garner admiration. It makes others doubt your sincerity and honesty. And ultimately doubt your leadership. 

The first step toward greatness is the decision to be humble and have the courage to acknowledge your own ignorance. Then take aim and destroy it by enlightening yourself. And—this is key—if your new found understanding doesn’t align with your preconceptions, you must swallow your pride. Which is easier said than done. 

I’m amazed at how many ways I’ve been enlightened by new information in recent years, and how strong my human nature resists it. Damn stupid pride. It stops us from growing and becoming better humans.

Our world is more connected and more informed than ever before. There’s no better time to retool your brain to analyze everything. So take the time and make the effort. Help change the world for the better. Go in search of ignorance. Starting with your own. 

But be careful when you set your sights on someone else’s ignorance. You can’t force someone to understand something, no matter how hard you try. You can’t cram it down their throat. Don’t forget, they have stupid pride as well. They won’t change unless they want to. So do it tactfully and subtly. Forward a blog posting or great article and say, “I found this really interesting.” And speak about your own transformative experience, rather than trying to “school” them.

You leaders out there, be humble. Admit mistakes and bad judgement calls, then course correct. You have a lot more eyeballs on you, which means you can be a great influence. You can lead by example.


* * * * * * *
12:29 PM
Copyright © 2015 thwartd | Blogger Templates Designed by VeeThemes.com