Damon Stapleton: Advertising. If you keep doing that you will go blind
A blog by Damon Stapleton, chief creative officer of DDB New Zealand
“A communicator must be concerned with unchanging man, with his obsessive drive to survive, to be admired, to succeed, to love, to take care of his own. It is insight into human nature that is the key to the communicator’s skill.” – Bill Bernbach
“TV is dead. Have you seen that new John Lewis ad. Pretty cool.”
Somebody said this to me about two weeks ago. It kind of stuck in my head. Only in advertising, could you say this and nobody would think you were weird. Except, it is pretty weird.
When I pointed out how strange that statement was, the person triumphantly said, yes, but I saw it on Facebook. I went and got a coffee.
Last week Nike released its powerful Dream Crazier spot. In a publication that praised the commercial, there was another article that said, yep, you guessed it, traditional advertising is dying because everything is changing.
I began to ask myself a few simple questions. Where is the work that is replacing this kind of work? Everybody is talking about it, I just never see it. Also, what is actually changing? Look at the three commercials below. They span an entire decade. Ten years. They are all good stories with a human insight at the centre. Are they really that different? I mean, ten years in advertising is a lifetime. The answer is no. Because, good stories are timeless. That’s why they are good stories.
2019
This got me thinking about our obsession with change. It gives us a weird amnesia about what has worked and what hasn’t in advertising. We are always searching for the next thing in case we are not seen as contemporary or modern. Remember the frenzy around Pokemon Go? It was going to change the world. Google glasses too. Anybody remember Vine? And just last week, Amazon discontinued dash buttons. I remember being in Cannes and somebody in cool trainers saying they were the future. Nobody remembers what anybody said yesterday. We just keep moving forward. I understand that this happens with innovation. And innovation is energetic and sexy. What isn’t sexy is stuff that is timeless. Things that don’t change. That’s a bit boring. So, we don’t really talk about it.
Towards the end of last year, Mark Ritson wrote an article about marketers being obsessed with the future.
He used the phrase ‘the pornography of change’. This has really stuck in my head. I think it is a excellent way of explaining our obsession with new stuff. VR headsets etc. Inherently, in advertising, we believe the new will always be the correct answer.
I also think a lot of what comes and goes is the delivery mechanism. The platform. This is changing a lot and will keep changing. How stuff gets to you and what data that stuff can generate. What hasn’t changed is it has to make you feel something. As the late great David Abbott once said, it doesn’t matter how fast shit reaches you, it’s still shit.
Perhaps, you don’t want to look at film because you think that is old school. Ok. For the hell of it, go back to 2007 and look at the Tap Project. Now, look at few ideas from 2010. Go look at T-Mobile Dance, or The Zimbabwean, Droga 5’s Jay-Z Decoded in 2011, Dove Sketches in 2013 and then look at Fearless Girl, a recent piece of brilliant work. What you will see is a whole lot of good work. You will also see how when you have a great idea time doesn’t make much difference. A great idea is a great idea. That’s why they have value.
Delivery and how things integrate is the place where there are many shifting tectonic plates. And this will continue to escalate rapidly. However, what that delivery mechanism serves you has not changed half as much as people make out. If you want a person’s time, you better have something to give them. That was true yesterday and will be more true tomorrow.
We are a business that is constantly looking at the future with good reason. However, occasionally we should learn from our past about what is unchanging.
Last week WPP’s Mark Read said this. “We need to invest more in creativity. We’ve disappeared down the rabbit hole of optimization, but a fantastic idea can multiply a client’s budget by three to five times.”
He is right, although Les Binet and Peter Field would claim it is even more effective than that. What he is saying though is clear. Over the last couple of years, advertising went a bit crazy. Some people thought we were selling something else besides ideas and creativity that helps business grow. My question is what else besides creativity can do that to a client’s budget? My next question is why did anybody ever move away from creativity if it can do that?
The simple answer is people thought efficiency and effectiveness were the same thing. There are many examples right now in ad land of this blindness. For some, it will prove fatal.
It would seem a good story is still a good story. A great idea will always be a great idea.
I am not sure that will ever change.
17 Comments
Bloody HEAR HEAR
Well said, mate. Can’t tell you how refreshing it is to have someone speaking some sense.
is a great article. I’m printing this (old school) and plastering our walls with it.
Couldn’t agree more.
Preach, brother. Why has this been so difficult for so many to appreciate?
Oh, it’s all part of the same trend: the world is getting stupider and stupider.
Creativity is important?
Talk about the bleeding obvious.
I’ve worked with many creatives who, unfortunately, think being the first to use the latest tech is an idea in itself.
Oh God. Not another, “Let’s get back to being creative” rant. It’s 100 years too late for that. You needed to be saying this decades ago, because the sad fact is that the advertising industry has never been the home of creativity.
Like everyone else, you pull out a few examples of creative ads that have been produced somewhere on the planet at some point in the past and present, and conveniently forget all of the utter shite that has been churned out during that time.
At least 60% of advertising has zero effect. 95% of new brands supported by advertising fail. No wonder marketers and agency managements are always looking for something new to pin their hopes to. The creative departments of the world have failed them spectacularly for at least a century.
I totally agree – I think we all agree – that the most effective and efficient thing any campaign can have that will send its ROI skyrocketing is a great ad or ten. So why don’t agencies produce them consistently? Maybe the idustry is doing it wrong? If any other type of business had a product failure rate as high as the ad industry’s, they’d have changed their way of working to fix it long ago.
Why they talking about global warming in the news? Talk about the bleeding obvious.
Why is there a recipe for spag bol online? Talk about the bleeding obvious.
Why do they keep putting out these don’t drink & drive ads?
Why does my beer bottle warn me to not drink while pregnant?
Why are there instructions on a pack of Christmas crackers?
I guess the point is, if it ain’t obvious to some, we need to keep talking about it till it is.
It takes some balls to use a real name on this blog. I applaud that. But it takes some major balls to use a real name and post a comment like that and link it to that website.
It’s pretty obvious you have never worked in a creative department. And if you have, and I’m mistaken, it’s pretty obvious why you don’t anymore.
Thanks
A quick look at your site suggests that you’re adding to the shite ads you reference. I say suggest because even though you claim to be a communication expert it is impossible to tell what your site is trying to say. This article proposes a solution to bad ads through good storytelling. You clearly have a problem with that suggestion, but don’t offer any ideas on how to fix what the industry is doing wrong? No one wants your solution so don’t bother answering, but for a communication expert you’re struggling to add anything worth listening to.
The last @Ian Scott comment puts an insightful finger on the problem: There is a wide range of opinions on what constitutes creativity. As an industry, we use the term frequently, but as has also been observed, most ads are not creative – they’re lacking in creativity to the point of being banal and mediocre. No wonder so many clients- who also have differing ideas of what constitutes creativity – don’t trust agencies and aren’t prepared to entertain truly original, relevant, interesting yet unexpected ideas. Which is how I define creativity.
At the work Damon and DDB New Zealand have done on big brands under his watch. He is walking the talk.
Australia on the other hand and Sydney in particular is, with the odd exception a creative wasteland.
Always interesting how many of Bernbach’s insights still hold true. I’d venture all – although I may be proven wrong. What has and will remain always true though, is that the marketing industry’s primary task is growth. And growth can only come from a focus on effectiveness – and not efficiency. All of the industry’s research shows the direct link between creative thinking and effectiveness. My advice? Don’t waste your time with people who don’t value the overwhelming power and importance of creative thinking.
“…it is impossible to tell what your site is trying to say”
Look. If you don’t get any value out of it, then it’s not for you. There’s a story in there for those that do.
My issue is not with storytelling. It’s with this idea: “My next question is why did anybody ever move away from creativity.”
However, re-reading Damon’s piece, my rant focused too much on that line.
I agree with Damon’s central point that great creative is the one thing that can make any campaign’s ROI go crazy. Nothing else can touch it. But the industry hasn’t moved away from it. It was never very close to it in the first place. Great creative is the exception in this business, it certainly isn’t the rule. The data proves that.
That same data (and the other new stuff) can help the industry flip that. As (I think) Damon said, the new stuff won’t do anything on its own. It needs to be used properly.
I’d like to add that just applying the ‘old’ ideas to the new stuff isn’t enough. The industry needs to use that new stuff – especially the data it now churns out – to find ways to build a better product – which includes better ways to tell better stories.
Yes, you are correct in what you say about DDB NZs work. They have indeed produced some very interesting pieces but for the most part, it’s dross, just like the rest of us. Just less of it.