I think D&AD is in a similar position to WPP, in that it really needs to stand proudly for creativity in all its forms. Creativity can sell established brands one minute and challenger brands the next, then switch to marketing charities, causes and political movements. It can prop up the 'system' and be the vehicle for challenging it. That's a powerful thing to celebrate and I think D&AD really needs to get back to doing it, instead of trying to pretend all the best work is socially progressive (whatever that means).
Oh I LOVED reading this! Thank you! I have just started a substack to simply learn how to write better after coming back from a second maternity leave. I see writing as building up muscle - the only way I’m going to get better is by doing.
So thank you for the validation and push. Selfishly I love the timing of this post (and also love your writing too).
I also want us as an industry to get back to some excitement about creating better - to stop feeling that we’re fire fighters and start thinking like creative futurists ✨
Thanks Jess, lovely to hear. Totally agree about writing as building up muscle – often feel like I write in order to work out what I think about something, and it forces you to think harder while doing it.
I do recommend any of the lectures by Larry McEnerney (Chicago School of Writing), where he explains simply but powerfully how deep and persuasive thinking is only possible through developing the craft of writing. An absolute joy, focusing on making your thinking (and writing) *valuable*…
The problem with creativity is it can’t easily be costed. I remember many years ago Saatchis had an invoice to P&G sent back with the itemisation for creative work crossed out and the words “We do not pay for creativity” scribbled next to it.
However. The problem for agencies now is a lot of the bread and butter activity they were able to invoice - producing reports, analysis, media plans, churning out SEO LinkedIn ads, etc - is now vulnerable to “good enough” AI tools available to clients. So agencies are going to have to focus on areas where they *can’t* be objectively costed - creative high-level strategy and executions.
When every brand has “good enough” marketing tools, the options to take leadership are either to flood consumers with cheap AI slop ads to see which ones stick to the wall or to invest in creative thinking that develops genuine brand engagement.
Though Meta is already promising Facebook ads with individualised AI-generated content - imagery and copy - which presumably can be continually compared and refined without the need for human intervention…
Yes, it's the eternal problem with advertising. Creativity is the valuable part, and the hardest part to cost. As you say, AI may end up having clarifying effect, as it takes over everything apart from the high-end creativity that makes the biggest difference. Hopefully that means it will command a premium too – but we're still basically in the same position as a Raymond Loewy, who redesigned Lucky Strike in seconds but had the confidence to ask for $50,000 or nothing.
Although well intentioned I’m sure, I found the campaign myopic and somewhat insulting even as a creative director myself. The idea that ‘creatives’ should take responsibility to fix the system seems naive to me.
Yes absolutely - I mean obviously we all have individual agency too, but creatives hardly need to be told that. Some industry leaders on the other hand…
Yes, exactly. As you rightly pointed out, we wouldn’t be in this business at all if we didn’t care. Guess the thing is, when we arguably care too much, it’s easy to forget that ‘commercial’ creativity ultimately exists to further the interests of the system whether we like to admit that or not! Which makes the role of D&AD particularly challenging….
Hi Nick, great thoughts, I very much feel this loss. You describe it as a "period of timid orthodoxy", as though the source is ideological. That is certainly a part of it but I wonder if there is another factor, perhaps even more important. That digital communication, especially of the asynchronous kind, has made a set of personal skills lapse in many of us. We no longer know how to debate, because we don't practice. We're unable to exercise emotional control because we're not used to advancing an argument or defending a position in front of people in real time. We're become far more used to retreating into cattiness from a distance.
I believe it's known as "taking that offline" the moment a meeting discussion gets heated. Ironically we do the exact opposite, we take it online and behave in a different and less effective way.
Thanks Tom – despite all its faults, I still feel inclined to defend the positive side of social media. Before it came along, only people with a Campaign column would have a platform, and the rest would talk in pubs. There is something great about having all these platforms where people can talk about stuff more openly, and you could argue it's forced us all to get better at articulating a point of view. (Though of course you're right that a lot of it algorithmically degenerates into trolling.)
I think the irony is that you would expect social media to usher in an age of wild heterodoxy, but it's arguably had the opposite effect of increasing group think and conformity – creatives fear being 'called out' for the smallest thing, though maybe that's subsiding a little.
Some time ago clients discovered that advertising creativity was overpriced, and they pulled the big money out. Creatives got miserable and lost their mojo. Then social media bruised them even more - now anyone can make memes or go viral - boo hoo. Everyone used to be so creative when all that money was washing about.
I’d tell the story differently - I think creativity is the one part of advertising that’s undervalued (including by ad agencies and institutions), and agencies have long needed to find a new business model that’s more about IP and joint ventures with the creative product at the core, rather than commission and ‘strategy’ with creative thrown into the mix.
I agree with this too. Creatives are paid so much less than strategists, yet the best strategists are creatives.
IP is low cost, incredible value for money, yet the industry never talks about it except in terms of 'deliverables'. It should be treated as contributions to a treasury. Licensing IP, where the agency retains ownership, is a difficult sell, but would be a move in the direction of better valuing creativity. Perhaps the Blockchain has a role in this.
I think D&AD is in a similar position to WPP, in that it really needs to stand proudly for creativity in all its forms. Creativity can sell established brands one minute and challenger brands the next, then switch to marketing charities, causes and political movements. It can prop up the 'system' and be the vehicle for challenging it. That's a powerful thing to celebrate and I think D&AD really needs to get back to doing it, instead of trying to pretend all the best work is socially progressive (whatever that means).
Oh I LOVED reading this! Thank you! I have just started a substack to simply learn how to write better after coming back from a second maternity leave. I see writing as building up muscle - the only way I’m going to get better is by doing.
So thank you for the validation and push. Selfishly I love the timing of this post (and also love your writing too).
I also want us as an industry to get back to some excitement about creating better - to stop feeling that we’re fire fighters and start thinking like creative futurists ✨
Thanks Jess, lovely to hear. Totally agree about writing as building up muscle – often feel like I write in order to work out what I think about something, and it forces you to think harder while doing it.
I do recommend any of the lectures by Larry McEnerney (Chicago School of Writing), where he explains simply but powerfully how deep and persuasive thinking is only possible through developing the craft of writing. An absolute joy, focusing on making your thinking (and writing) *valuable*…
An introduction: https://youtu.be/psU8RTePh68?si=XrOi11MiSlfTLw0E
I will check this out Rupert!
The problem with creativity is it can’t easily be costed. I remember many years ago Saatchis had an invoice to P&G sent back with the itemisation for creative work crossed out and the words “We do not pay for creativity” scribbled next to it.
However. The problem for agencies now is a lot of the bread and butter activity they were able to invoice - producing reports, analysis, media plans, churning out SEO LinkedIn ads, etc - is now vulnerable to “good enough” AI tools available to clients. So agencies are going to have to focus on areas where they *can’t* be objectively costed - creative high-level strategy and executions.
When every brand has “good enough” marketing tools, the options to take leadership are either to flood consumers with cheap AI slop ads to see which ones stick to the wall or to invest in creative thinking that develops genuine brand engagement.
Though Meta is already promising Facebook ads with individualised AI-generated content - imagery and copy - which presumably can be continually compared and refined without the need for human intervention…
Yes, it's the eternal problem with advertising. Creativity is the valuable part, and the hardest part to cost. As you say, AI may end up having clarifying effect, as it takes over everything apart from the high-end creativity that makes the biggest difference. Hopefully that means it will command a premium too – but we're still basically in the same position as a Raymond Loewy, who redesigned Lucky Strike in seconds but had the confidence to ask for $50,000 or nothing.
Though I suspect/fear only a very few people or agencies will be able to do that.
Hi Nick,
great post. Completely agree.
Although well intentioned I’m sure, I found the campaign myopic and somewhat insulting even as a creative director myself. The idea that ‘creatives’ should take responsibility to fix the system seems naive to me.
Yes absolutely - I mean obviously we all have individual agency too, but creatives hardly need to be told that. Some industry leaders on the other hand…
Yes, exactly. As you rightly pointed out, we wouldn’t be in this business at all if we didn’t care. Guess the thing is, when we arguably care too much, it’s easy to forget that ‘commercial’ creativity ultimately exists to further the interests of the system whether we like to admit that or not! Which makes the role of D&AD particularly challenging….
Also, I enjoyed your book Nick and reading this reminds me to take it down off my shelf and read it again! Thanks
Great to hear, thank you
Hi Nick, great thoughts, I very much feel this loss. You describe it as a "period of timid orthodoxy", as though the source is ideological. That is certainly a part of it but I wonder if there is another factor, perhaps even more important. That digital communication, especially of the asynchronous kind, has made a set of personal skills lapse in many of us. We no longer know how to debate, because we don't practice. We're unable to exercise emotional control because we're not used to advancing an argument or defending a position in front of people in real time. We're become far more used to retreating into cattiness from a distance.
I believe it's known as "taking that offline" the moment a meeting discussion gets heated. Ironically we do the exact opposite, we take it online and behave in a different and less effective way.
Thanks Tom – despite all its faults, I still feel inclined to defend the positive side of social media. Before it came along, only people with a Campaign column would have a platform, and the rest would talk in pubs. There is something great about having all these platforms where people can talk about stuff more openly, and you could argue it's forced us all to get better at articulating a point of view. (Though of course you're right that a lot of it algorithmically degenerates into trolling.)
I think the irony is that you would expect social media to usher in an age of wild heterodoxy, but it's arguably had the opposite effect of increasing group think and conformity – creatives fear being 'called out' for the smallest thing, though maybe that's subsiding a little.
Some time ago clients discovered that advertising creativity was overpriced, and they pulled the big money out. Creatives got miserable and lost their mojo. Then social media bruised them even more - now anyone can make memes or go viral - boo hoo. Everyone used to be so creative when all that money was washing about.
I’d tell the story differently - I think creativity is the one part of advertising that’s undervalued (including by ad agencies and institutions), and agencies have long needed to find a new business model that’s more about IP and joint ventures with the creative product at the core, rather than commission and ‘strategy’ with creative thrown into the mix.
I agree with this too. Creatives are paid so much less than strategists, yet the best strategists are creatives.
IP is low cost, incredible value for money, yet the industry never talks about it except in terms of 'deliverables'. It should be treated as contributions to a treasury. Licensing IP, where the agency retains ownership, is a difficult sell, but would be a move in the direction of better valuing creativity. Perhaps the Blockchain has a role in this.
Well done Nick another fine piece. You're not wrong about campaign since Claire Beale left.