There are currently a couple ad campaigns from two Stockholm agencies that have created exceptional buzz. Execution-wise these two projects are really high-class. There’s a problem though: The ideas are clones of other ideas.
There’s a saying: talents imitate, geniuses steal. But how true is this when it comes to creativity?
In the short run, stealing pays off – it’s a genius move. Your agency will win awards and your unknowing client will be happy. But in the long run, the advertising business has to deliver creativity – ideas that have never been seen before. Ideas that have been made no not change anything inside people’s heads and are therefore not creative.
If the advertising business isn’t creative and creates it’s own ideas I see few reasons for why it should even exist beyond being printing and production factories, since the ability to find funny stuff on YouTube is not enough to get a Cannes Lion, and it’s definitely not worth 300 dollars an hour.
As I said. Stealing pays off in the short run so probably it’s a matter of how you view creativity and how your agency conduct business in the long term.
“Rolighetsteorin” by DDB Stockholm. Inspired by this?
“Youtube Hits” by King. Inspired by this?
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:15
From an advertising craft perspective it’s really really low.
But for most people I guess it’s more like buying a fake eames chair – it’s cheap and doesn’t feel right. What makes me curious is why people doesn’t have higher expectations on themselves…
-
Max
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:48
We wrote a little something about the phenomenon on our blog yesterday.
http://anomalousness.posterous.com/post-endorsement
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:15
@Max: good point, and the fake Eames chair analogy is spot on.
@Alfred: nice to hear from you! Interesting article. I’m not too sure about a “royalties” scheme as a solution though. From a purely egoistic perspective, the ones that get hurt the most by idea theft are agencies – simply because I don’t think clients should be paying agencies to be middlemen.
November 3rd, 2009 at 13:57
If we continue on the Eames analogy, the really really successful advertising agencies are like IKEA and H&M, then?
Schumpeters creative destruction works in 99 cases out of ten by gradually improving ideas and build further upon them. Hence as long as the commercial has effect there is little problem in using international benchmarking and inspiration as tools to be more effective as an agency.
Advertising agencies both need to be craftsmen and artists. Herein lies the problem, you have to be both and not just the one or the other.
Both King and DDB use existing ideas, even further can be found below the anomalouosness posting, but through good execution (making it sometimes better than the original),by introducing them to a new market and finally by linking ideas and execution to their clients and their offer I’d say they’ve earned their pay.
November 3rd, 2009 at 14:15
@Anton:
The comparison with IKEA and HM is interesting. One could however argue that the competitive advantage (in terms of pooling strategic resources) are to “copy” original designers and brands.
Since we are talking theory (neither DDB nor King build their enterprises on stealing ideas), give this thought experiment a few seconds: What would happen if an agency builds its competitive advantage – in other words its external brand and its employees – on being an “efficient idea recycler”?
In the short run we know from DDB and King that it works, but in the long run I see three problems with idea theft as a business model:
1) WHO would want to work at this type of agency? Recruiting talent to an agency that does not have any core competencies in creative thinking will be tough.
2) WHAT client would want to pay premium for ideas that can be found everywhere and be made by anyone? Remember that salaries and rent still has to be paid, and the ad business today isn’t exactly a high-margin business.
3) You can’t build long-term brand equity on existing (and therefore generic) ideas.
November 3rd, 2009 at 14:42
Du är kritisk. Det är bra. Men är det verkligen rätt fokus?
DDB-exemplet är på sitt sätt väldigt bra, de har helt enkelt snott idén om att göra en trappa till ett piano (om de nu har sett den video du tipsar om).
Judith & Judith … tycker inte att exemplet är lika klockrent, men visst. Men att göra om saker är ju en sport på Youtube, det brukar göras som replies på filmer.
Men, två rätt träffande exempel. Men är det ett problem? En vanlig definition av kreativitet är ju att använda en idé eller metod på ett nytt område.
Det finns mer eller mindre kniviga fall, men i huvudsak påstår jag att det hänger på utförandet. Idéer finns i överflöd, vissa är bra, men oavsett om de är bra eller dåliga, beror deras genomslag på hur de genomförs.
I fallet DDB är det inte bara en pianotrappa och minska fetman-instrument, det är ett (mer eller mindre seriöst) experiment för att se hur rolighet påverkar folks beteende.
Angående Judith & Judith är jag själv inte övertygad om dess storhet, men att låta två reklamkaraktärer replia på kända Youtube-klipp är säkert bra på sitt sätt.
Driver detta reklamen framåt? Jag tror att Rolighetsteorin gör det. Det är en handling, det är ett öppet format, ett experiment som tillåter användarinput, det sker i tillgänliga medier, det kan ge ett resultat …
Judith & Judith påminner väl mest om Lokkos ”100 Youtube-moments”, eller vad hans listning hette. Och den fick ju Stora journalistpriset (duh?).
November 3rd, 2009 at 15:22
@Per, det var Strage som gjorde youtube-listan och det var inte riktigt samma utförande.
@Leon
WHO would want to work there? Highly talented persons without artistic integrity, perhaps?
WHAT client? Branded houses such as Unilever and P&G perhaps
Finally, brand equity. It depends on how you define brand equity and also on how fast you are adopting others’ ideas. Outside the advertising industry, a lot of companies are percieved as first movers in a category and then tend to define that category, I have no doubt that it would be possible in the advertising industry. It’s even possible in the Art world, where a swedish artist accused icelandic Olafur Eliasson for idea theft without any bigger success.
http://www.vilks.net/?p=755
November 3rd, 2009 at 16:26
@Per:
Det är helt ointressant om “stölden” i fråga har gjort originalet bättre eller sämre. Här ser jag ingen skillnad från t.ex. en låt (ta Bob Dylans låtar som gjordes bättre av andra). Som jag skrev i inlägget: på kort sikt funkar det utmärkt. Men det jag frågar mig är om det är en bra byråstrategi? Ska byråns kreativa strategi vara att ompaketera redan befintliga idéer, eller försöka hitta på nya? Om det är ok att sno/låna för en byrå/ett varumärke, då är det också fritt fram för andra byråer/varumärken att sno tillbaks!
@Anton:
Integrity is highly relative. A more relevant variable is creativity and your credibility as a Creative in the industry. Luckily, most creatives are against stealing ideas.
Unilever probably understands the economic value of uniqueness in creativity better than most companies. Not long ago they bought the Ben & Jerry brand – not because they don’t know how to make ice cream but because Ben & Jerry is truly a unique brand. Lynx/Axe is another example of creative brand differentiation – their campaigns made by BBH (one of the most creative agencies there are) are outstanding. The Dove Campaign for Real beauty (another great campaign) by Ogilvy is another truly unique concept.
In this case I would define brand equity as the economic value in terms of discounted cashflows from sales based on brand preference that’s a consequence from a unique association in the minds of people. The more differentiating the advertising, the more unique the associations. When it comes to speed of “adopting” ideas you are right. It is possible, but to me a possibility doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. On the contrary, a theft strategy is a risky strategy, because no matter how brilliant you are, you can bet your ass that someone is thinking of the exact same idea as you.
November 3rd, 2009 at 16:38
I’m all for creativity, but as Voltaire once said, “Originality is nothing but judicious plagarism”. Some are just more judicious than others, which ultimately defines whether something is more creative or just a tawdry imitation.
November 3rd, 2009 at 16:42
@Leon:
Not only does Unilever own Dove and the troo uniqueness behind its campaign, they also own Lux, Rexona and Vaseline. I think their steal-and-make-it-empirically-better-strategy is being executed by some brand managers.
Understand me, I’m all for creativity, but execution and context is also part of that idea.
Finally, another proposed measure of brand equity is the revenue premium, i.e. how much more you sell at what higher price than a benchmark competitor/a generic brand. (Volume and price, that is). An agency devoted to high insight/implementation/execution turnover could be renowned for just that. Even if they are stealing ideas.
November 3rd, 2009 at 16:58
@Anton:
It’s funny, your point about advertising that’s executed by brand managers and your theory about the high-turnover agency – that’s actually more of a non-creative-but-strategic production agency both address the issue that I’ve been talking about all along: the reason why creative agencies should exist at all.
November 3rd, 2009 at 17:16
@Leon:
I don’t quite understand your reply, however if I return to one of the issues – can stealing ideas be a long term strategy, isn’t creating ideas the only strategy possible in the long run?
It depends on whether you limit your sphere to avertising or not. Re-using advertising ideas will probably not be good, but using phenomena in your surrounding, is that also stealing?
New frame of reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyYy1VMB_Cg
And then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wAjpMP5eyo
November 3rd, 2009 at 17:24
Okay, my first comment was in Swedish, apologies for that, but:
@Leon, do you really believe that any agency can have as an idea to only use original ideas?
If so, start proving it, because today, you don’t.
November 3rd, 2009 at 17:52
The car market is mature and it’s hard to stand out. I celebrate the ambition to do new things. Volkswagen have been brave enough to try, and they have succeded in terms of communication effects. Love that.
I’m not sure they have succeded strategically when it comes to brand ownership. Having fun is a great promise. The problem is, it’s an open area for many brands to operate in. If you want to own “having fun”, I think you have to show the meaning of “having fun” in a more specific way. Our own way of having fun. I’m not saying it is easy.
This might lead to a situation where other brands get inspired by the Volkswagen campaign and imitate their general way of having fun. Ownership is lost. A nightmare, at least for marketing managers. Because in the end it means lost business.
November 3rd, 2009 at 18:30
@Per: everyone who has worked in a creative agency knows that creatively you always have a choice between stealing ideas or being original.
@Anton: sorry for being unclear. But main point of argument began out of pure self interest and consequently from an agency perspective. And from that perspective there are no proofs that stealing ideas is sustainable.
November 3rd, 2009 at 19:11
In that case, what’s stealing? When do you borrow in a creative way, and when do you steal? And if you reuse an idea you’ve come across sometime but isn’t aware of it, is it still stealing?
I completely sympathize with your standpoint in that you should always try to find great, original ideas. I obviously don’t realize how big a problem it is with “stealing”, re-using, transferral of ideas or methods or whatever, in advertising.
November 3rd, 2009 at 20:56
Great discussion!
The issue of originality vs fake will be more apparent in coming advertising awards, I think.
November 3rd, 2009 at 23:43
Hollywood keeps on relaunching concepts over and over again. The success isn’t measured in originality – it’s measured in success.
I can definitely agree that we should strive to innovative but we cant ignore a great opportunity for an idea to resurface.
Honda Cog by weiden. Great TVC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qUjrMtMec
The way things go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U82eWptFxSs
Not very different yet great ideas…
We shouldn’t turn advertising into something it isn’t – it’s just sales.
November 4th, 2009 at 03:03
Yes, success is fine, but branding is also about who the success belongs to. As marketing experts, I don’t think we should forget that.
November 4th, 2009 at 13:44
Few dilemmas on this issue:
?
, not theirs…
1. From the “moral” point of view: you’re saying the stolen ads “will win awards”. Does it mean the industry values stealing
2. From the business point of view: is creativity (in its purest sense) the only way to deliver results?… is creativity the only strategy to reach effectiveness?
3. From the consumer point of view: how much do consumers care if the idea has been done before? spending countless hours on youtube is the advertising people’s hobby
4. From the creativity point of view: French people say “les grands esprits se rencontrent” / in other words “great spirits might reach the same solution to a similar problem”. It might happen (:D). Or it might not?…
November 4th, 2009 at 17:20
I’d like to introduce a line from Jeremy Abbett’s post awhile back: “…look to the artists, academics and makers for innovation and wait a few years for it to go commercial. Great ideas don’t go away, they spread.”
This was in quote was in reference to the Nike/Livestrong Chalkbot idea. Did the idea come from somewhere else? More here: http://www.suture.com/2009/07/bikes-chalk-and-graffiti/
I’d love to think that all the fine people i work with holds to a grand ideal of thinking, creating, producing ideas never before seen. Realistically though, [perhaps call it an excuse], budgets, and timelines are the most likely culprits of turning us into just “efficient idea recyclers.”
or are we “spreaders of great ideas”?
great discussion you have started, Leon!