Thursday, December 2, 2010

Post-logic marketing














I spend a worrying amount of my time in workshops, guiding a collection of well-meaning people toward a conclusion that is often entirely logical.

Nothing wrong with logic when it comes to many things, but when it comes to creative advertising I think that it can be a brand's enemy.

We're in danger, especially in the healthcare sector, of being slaves to logic at the expense of imagination. Why should we pat ourselves on the back for being able to see how a concept links to a product? Why should the link be that obvious? Why should we always have to show a patient / a situation / a hackneyed metaphor?

Some may argue that it gets the point across quickly. However, I would opine that it's pretty damn irrelevant if the concept is so dull in the first place that no-one bothers looking at it or feeling any sense of connection or emotional response.

I've always hated market researching concepts for two reasons: first, no-one spends hours questioning a concept in real life - this only leads to lowest common denominator creative that offends no-one (and attracts no-one). Second, Jo Public is not paid or trained to be creative, or to imagine. Instead, they're paid £40 to turn up, criticise and offer their 'logical' reasons why they approve of something.

Which, if you're in the medical profession, is likely to make your stated view one that you think will make you sound like a committed and logical physician, when actually you're stifling an emotional response.

Logic is often all we have when we're trying to describe why a concept should go forward and be made into an ad. But consider this: how are some of the best works of art 'logical'? They stay with us, intrigue us and make our hackles rise very often because they can't be categorised. And that, in my book, is brilliant.

Some may think this is at odds with being a planner. I disagree. To be able to take clients to the point at which they favour emotion over logic takes a lot more effort and convincing, despite the fact that you'll have a lot more chance of standing out.

1 comment:

Peter Kenny said...

Great post. Yes pharma is particularly bad for this, arising out of their (entirely appropriate) risk averse culture.

Maddening how more challenging concepts are routinely mown down. And for me far worse is the stultifying feeling that you have to produce something that is sellable rather than something good.

I love inviting randomness and ambiguity into my creative work. Life is full of random connections, and I would argue that for creative work to be more lifelike, it requires a wild card element to have any life. The meerkats were a great example.

Something researched and agreed to within an inch of its life is bound to be mediocre.

I'm picturing da Vinci peering through the mirror glass at three Mona Lisas, one grinning, the other sad, and the final one enigmatic. The punters, toying with their sarnies, are opting for the smiley one.