Why not all ideas are equal

Is David Hockney’s American Collectors (Fred and Marcia Weisman) creative? Yep. Is putting a second coat of Dulux Swansdown satinwood on the skirting boards creative? Mmm, no. But, when I started working in advertising, suddenly ‘creative’ seemed to be less of an adjective and more of a noun.

Every piece of work that was produced was officially ‘the creative’, whether it was an incredible piece of film, like Dunlop’s Unexpected; a deeply insightful press ad, like Chivas Regal’s Father’s Day; a big and bold poster, like DFS’s Hurry, Sale Now On; or an online display ad, like Currys PC World’s Samsung 42 inch. Was £399. Now £249. All of it was ‘the creative’, whether there was anything creative about it or not. 

When I started working in advertising, suddenly ‘creative’ seemed to be less an adjective and more of a noun.

And, if every scrap of promotional activity that gets put in front of its audience gets referred to as ‘the creative’, then are we losing, or even worse, throwing away the distinction between what is, according to the dictionary, ‘the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something’ and what is basically just a bit of information? If it’s okay for even the straightest, most unimaginative, insight-devoid, visually uninteresting piece of information to be called (and sold to clients as) ‘the creative’, does that mean that the advertising industry is happy to leave ‘creative’ as a noun and not worry about it as an adjective? I hope not.  

Above: Dunlop's Unexpected can be classed as creative, posters proclaiming 'sale now on' less so.

When advertising doesn’t actually make the information more interesting is it really advertising, or is it just publicity? Don’t get me wrong, publicity can sell things. It’s simple, and that’s fine. It can be useful information and it adds to awareness (to an extent), but the creativity of advertising adds a layer of something much more effective than simple publicity. 

When advertising doesn’t actually make the information more interesting is it really advertising, or is it just publicity?

When I see marketing that’s nothing more than publicity, it feels disappointing – a missed opportunity. Because, when I’m being advertised to, I love it when it’s clever, or witty, or surprisingly insightful, or it just looks amazing. I appreciate the fact that whoever’s behind it has made the effort to engage me. They’ve respected the demands on my attention and they’ve done everything they can to earn some of it. It involves me and makes me think or feel something.

I, and most people I know, have got favourite ads from the past. Whether it’s spectacular Guinness or Cadbury’s commercials, or the magnificent Economist posters, whatever they are, we like them because they didn’t just make their point, they made an emotional connection with us. But, increasingly, publicity is on the rise. More and more marketing feels about as creatively compelling as an instruction leaflet for a toaster. Why? Because it’s easier. Maybe because it’s cheaper (but I suspect that, usually, it probably isn’t). Or, worst of all, because of the fallacy that it’s safer. 

Above: Most people's favourite commercials are ones with a creative spark, like Cadbury's Gorilla. 

Just like publicity can make me feel as though someone is talking to me as if I’m stupid, ads that are so obscure that I genuinely don’t understand why I should want to buy or use whatever they’re advertising, make me feel like maybe I actually am stupid. 

But show me an ad that invites me to get involved, to use my brain - even just for a moment- to ponder a thought, or maybe to make a tiny step to fully understand and appreciate what it’s saying, and that ad gives me the satisfaction of knowing that ‘I get it’.