Risk and creativity. Why you should manage them the same way.

A recent post on LinkedIn bemoans the demise of creativity in marketing

“The revolting truth is that creativity produces vigorously medium profits. It’s exhaustively time consuming. It requires a level of personal commitment which is unfashionably inconvenient. It selfishly demands its practitioners to learn and keep learning a very specialized set of evolving skills. The value of creativity is highly subjective and analogous to other esoteric trades where skill and experience are of amorphous value; such as plumbing and cosmetic surgery.

It’s also outrageously expensive to keep all those highly skilled and experienced people coming in three days a week on a hybrid work schedule. If we're really being honest, magnificent creativity births at least as many problems as it slays. So, as a responsible profit oriented industry, we have taken steps to develop advertising that reduces creative effort,” asserts the article.

With respect, “vigorously medium profits,” is not entirely accurate, because it generalizes

Yes, creativity might deliver average results when looked at as a whole.

But, in individual cases, it can and often does lead to spectacular returns.

Or spectacular losses.

There is no shortage of case studies that prove both scenarios.

So how do you tell the difference between winning and losing creative strategies?

First, look at creativity as a risk strategy

There are exact parallels in investment-terms.

Namely, the greater the level of risk (or creativity) the higher the potential returns. Or losses.

That's how risk works.

And like all risk, it can be managed.

The job of the skilled marketer is to know how to manage the risk inherent in creativity.

Let’s look at the risk strategies most marketers currently apply.

And, right up front, I am not advocating for any one particular risk strategy.

Each has its own merits for the people who employ them.

This is simply an attempt to understand the different approaches.

By far the most popular strategy is to be average

By definition, it's easy to be average. And safe.

Sure, you will inspire no-one and won’t move the needle much, but you have an excellent chance of keeping your job. And of being able to pay your rent.

No further explanation is needed on why “low to no creativity” is such a popular choice. Most, quite literally, cannot afford to take the risk.

For people who prefer this approach, it’s safest to hide in the middle of the herd. And who can blame them?

If you prefer the low-risk strategy of playing it safe and protecting your livelihood and career, it’s hard to argue that this one it not a winner.

There is limited upside too, of course, but that is the price of any low-risk strategy.

Some just embrace creativity and hope for the best

As with financial markets, simply hoping for the best is to invite disaster.

You likely have a better than 50% chance of seeing your a$$.

Which, for most of us, is best avoided.

The chances of this risk strategy being unsuccessful are high.

The final strategy, which offers far the best chance of massive success out of all proportion to any investment made, is not that surprising.

Know what you are doing

Here, you understand the risks inherent in creativity AND know how to manage that risk.

It might sound obvious, but the pervasively low level of creativity referred to in the post I am responding to suggests few marketers have, a) the will or b) the know how.

And it’s not their fault.

To the best of my knowledge “Risk Management for Creativity 101” is not widely taught.

Even so…

… the fundamental principles of managing creative risk are easy to grasp

Step one

Understand who your audience is, know why they value your offer, and why they prefer it to competitors’. Most marketers already have this down in their brand strategy.

Step two

Get your messaging right.

Make sure you understand exactly what your audience needs to know to embrace your brand.

And communicate it to them. Clearly. Efficiently. And memorably.

That means you need to nail your messaging down, precisely.

Everything you need to know about messaging in the final chapter of this free book. (No email or registration is required. It really is free.)

Then test and test again to see what works and refine your thinking. There are times when you might consider moving past a poor test result (see Step Three) but it does not apply at this level.

BTW, if “Step two” is as far as you get as a marketer, you are likely already ahead of the herd and doing well. (Hello to paint-by-numbers performance marketers.)

Stopping your ascent up the risk curve on this second level gives you an excellent chance of keeping your job and, not least, of ensuring your brand makes bank.

If you’re satisfied with moderate success, it’s not a bad time to cash in your unused creativity chips.

However, if you are someone who wants to achieve success beyond the ordinary, it’s time to strap on your big boy pants, big girl boots, or any gender galoshes and step up to the next level.

Step Three

At this level, you are sure of your audience, you are sure of your messaging, and now it’s time to apply creative fairy dust.

Your creative team delivers relevance wrapped in creative brilliance.

You test the work where possible, and refine as necessary.

But you always remember that testing is far from a perfect science, for the many reasons you can explore on this link.

For example, it’s hard to test how an audience will respond to things such as real-word experiences(events), promotional films of any kind, or complex multi-channel campaigns before you have finished production. And by then, the production budget is blown.

So, the smart marketer needs the knowledge, experience and judgement to know when to push a creative concept past a poor test result or, in some cases, even past extreme skepticism (Sony Walkman, Post-it Notes and Netflix’s shift to streaming are three examples that spring to mind).

Perhaps the most epic example of pushing past poor test results is ad agency, Chiat Day’s battle to sell the famous 1984 commercial to Apple. The ad bombed in research and was hated by Apple's entire board. It’s a miracle it ever saw that light of day, but see the light of day it did.

And it changed the history of advertising, particularly Superbowl advertising.

But only because someone with enormous conviction and courage believed and fought for it. And even resorted to low-level deception, according to this account.

The most important and additional requirement for the third level of risk-taking is having the courage of your convictions.

Belief and dedication of this nature takes some serious spine when you stand to lose a client like Apple. I can think of few agencies that might risk it today.

BTW, apple sold 72 000 Mac units in the 100 days following the Superbowl. More than twice the anticipated number.

Knowledge backed by courage has its rewards.

Last word

The ultimate test of creative efficacy?

Let’s give final word to legendary madman David Ogilvy, who said:

“If it doesn’t sell, it’s not creative.”

Whatever your preferred approach to managing creativity and risk, good luck.