I dispute the idea that "Brainstorming Doesn't Work"

The Washington Post recently published an article titled "Why Brainstorming Doesn't Work." It feels like they describe a really drab approach with simply "boardrooms with flip charts at the front of the room and candy on the table." It is true that many brainstorming session can lead to nowhere. But I believe, properly planned and structured, they can be both fun and useful.

There are many different techniques to try in a brainstorm, but my favorite has become 'brain-writing' exercises. This is where everyone must work individually for several minutes and then pass their ideas to the right or left, where everyone must then spark or build off each others ideas. This tends to get those who are normally quiet to express themselves, generates a much larger volume of ideas and really encourages building off one another.

Other techniques that can stimulate the competitiveness of agency people or marketers, like pitting small teams against one another, working against the clock, etc, can also produce better results. A big part of it is making the exercises fun - versus a real chore. I strongly believe that good ideas can come from play and fun - letting go of our often rigid ways of thinking. If nothing else, brainstorm sessions, if run properly, can open some minds up to possibilities.

In the end, if all we end up with is a long list of ideas, the exercise is likely to end up in a big "so what." I like to take an additional step of not only agreeing to the ideas with the most potential, but breaking into teams again and listing the barriers to execution, then brainstorming against these, to develop a small number of 'better packaged' ideas. This does not guarantee success, but certainly improves the chances of someone actually using an idea.

Ultimately, I believe that creativity comes from friction - or bringing together different thoughts or ideas to build something new. Some people can do this by themselves, but under the right conditions (especially in small groups) magic happens. I like to thing of this from the metaphor of a jazz band.

Strategy Specialist vs. Generalists

A colleague recently lamented, or at questioned the concept that "specialization in account planning" (marketing and marketing communications strategy) has "gone too far."

As more of a generalist than a specialist, I identify with some of his thoughts. I believe that specialists get so caught up in their area that they lose sight of a bigger picture (I feel more often digital/social media/mobile 'experts' these days). Basic consumer motivations and behaviors (like a need for simplicity) are overlooked. Often some fundamental marketing principles or approaches that should be used a means of organizing a larger story or argument are ignored.

At the same time, having worked in multiple categories, I have found that I have needed to learn the both category and target details (pharmaceutical MOA's; electronic data interchange/integration lingo; childhood development/thinking patterns; specific food processing practices; financial services principles, practices, regulations and motivations; etc, etc) - that make me appear to be at least a 'pseudo-specialist'. I (humorously) like to use the phrase "I know enough about a lot of categories to be dangerous." For instance, I now know more about medicine and drugs than I ever thought was possible for me.

I believe good strategist should make it a practice to have a stronger than average understanding of many research techniques, practices and principles - ideally both qualitative and quantitative (segmentation and tracking in particular). I have learned these things 'on the job' versus formal training, but I think it is important that we are both grounded in the fundamentals and continuously learning about new approaches or ways of looking at things.

At the same time, the dramatically changing media environment, or more specifically the fact that our targets are so much more connected to an online world today, makes everything feel more complicated. The constant development/invention of new digital products and services and means of connecting is dizzying at times. While 'car/auto', CPG, fast food or other specialists have existed for a long time (and appeared limited to many of us in the marketing world), digital/social media/mobile specialists (conversely) feel like the have a lot more cache today. Sometimes the younger brain that grew up in an attention deficit world feels more adapted and at home with this - and we have still have a youth obsessed culture, despite the fact that Baby Boomers control all the real wealth.

Strategists/planners in the marketing world, by definition, should be agents of change. We must attempt to stay ahead of the curve on both societal and category trends. But we can help our fellow colleagues in the marketing communication world by sharing interesting developments while bringing a healthy bigger picture/potential longer term perspective. I regularly see headlines about the 'death of traditional media' - from people who are not seeing the statistics that more people are watching TV - and for longer periods than ever before. This is not to deny that media is changing. In particular, both 'what' and 'how' we receive all types of content. But as I have recently paraphrased (bastardized?) fellow Canadian, Marshall McCluhan "The medium is still the message, but more than ever, content is king." Strategists/planners often need to translate/simplify issues and formulate and deliver engaging stories, designed to be passed on in appropriate ways.

Perhaps there should be a stronger distinction in the marketing communications strategist/planner world between those that have chosen to focus on content delivery (connection planners?) versus content. But in my (not so humble?) opinion, good strategists/planners need to not only have the fundamentals down, but also focus on the specific needs of their target and the developments in their category at any given time - and 'know enough to be dangerous.' For me anyway, the variety - or breadth as well as depth of exposure to products, industries and target mindsets has been both incredibly interesting and fulfilling - despite the fact that our business drives me nuts at times.

Innovative Product vs. Innovative Marketing?

An AdAge article titled "Is P&G's Biggest Innovation Old-Fashioned Functionality?" has me saying - I've been saying that for years. But I almost missed the light typeface subhead "Its Viral Hits Are Cool, but Focus on Fundamentals Is What Moves the Needle" - and I would agree with that thought as well.


P&G ads and marketing communication used to be very boring - but people bought the products/brands because the company did a good job of continually improving the products - or giving us the perception they were being improved.

P&G marketers - perhaps without even realizing the nature of functional-to-emotional brand life-cycles, consistently chose to lean into functional messaging - which often led to somewhat informative, but not very exciting advertising. I'm not sure if sales of Tide have plateaued, but at some point, many consumers probably said - enough with price increases that come with the so-called-"NEW"-special-ingredients as they switched to less expensive brands.

At some point Tide, probably at the incessant pleading of their ad agencies, experimented with more emotional messaging (remember the ad with the baby covered in spaghetti?). But I'm guessing the ad testing they normally do did not show strong scores or the types of responses they were used to seeing. Which I chuck at, since it feels like they assumed their target actually consumed ads in the manner in which they were tested.

These days I don't see many Tide ads. I suspect the media planners and buyers are doing a much better job of targeting women. But the residual effect of continual product improvement messaging still has its effect on me. But this is an emotional versus a rational effect. I believe that Tide probably has the best product in the market. Right now, I'm not willing to pay the extra cost - but I suspect the emotional belief is what continues to make this brand a leader - despite the lack of emotional advertising.

In the meantime, P&G has experimented more and more with interesting emotional based advertising - ranging from talking stains to Old Spice spokesmen - often turning to creative hot-shops like C&P for this work. A new way of thinking at P&G versus the last few decades. A very welcome one from my perspective.

New Creative Approaches to Focus Groups?

Interesting article in the NYTimes the other day about how Focus Groups are being treated more creatively these days.

Like at least one commenter said, I was using some of these techniques (music, food, adjustable image boards, symbolic objects, etc.) over a decade ago. They were both fun and revealing in many ways, since projection techniques often get people past the traditional responses one often gets in focus groups.

Some are saying these days that focus groups should never be used. Focus groups still have a place, but most often from an idea generation or concept exploration perspective in my experience. More importantly, especially in focus groups, respondents often need to be challenged in some ways because they will (often unconsciously) tell us what they think they should say, versus the real truth. The trick is often to create disruption. (I have some interesting case studies around this). There are different ways to do this depending on the objective and the respondents. For instance it may be finding ways to trip-up or catch respondents in a contradiction - and explore this with them to find where the real truth lies.

Very different techniques that some people advocate, like hypnosis or working with the unconscious mind, are approaches likely to continue to be limited to really brave clients. There are other less threatening ways to work with both respondents and clients. But what these techniques point out is the importance of the actual interpretation of interactions with consumers - or not always taking things at face value. This can be the difference between a good moderator and a bad one, or useful versus simply check the box results.

An Energy Leap Forward for Humanity?

Wow - it's been a while - but here's an "energetic thought" I am transferring and slightly adjusting from my response to a TED discussion post:

Energy and the issues around this, will be the most important issue (especially when it connects with overpopulation) to this planet for the foreseeable future. While I am not a scientist, let alone physicist, an incredible leap in my imagination would be harnessing the concept of energy transfer from one place to the next. Hopefully this would not only solve the incredible thirst mankind has for powering all our activity - but reduce pollution and waste of all kinds.

For example, many human activities generate heat - which is then dissipated. Electrical currents bleed off wires and are all around us. A quantum leap will be in understanding how to harness the energy all around us - rather than shipping fossil fuel from the far reaches of the planet.

This may already be in existence in small ways, like solar collection panels on individual homes, or geothermal heating and cooling systems in particular. And I heard of someone who has developed a process that mimics photosynthesis - but which is many times more efficient than how plants do it (on NPR's ScienceFriday) - which will potentially be commercial with a decade, changing the concept and nature of solar energy. But as a larger concept - I suspect there may be scientists and perhaps mathematicians studying this. Perhaps there is a follow-on equation to one of the basic laws discovered - "energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Battery science might be either an important interim step - or potentially a distraction from the real goal? But one thing that could help get us there - which in itself is also a 'far out' idea is the concept of quantum computing - which is being studied by think-thanks and mathematicians in places. This will make current computing power look like the invention of the wheel or the stone age.

Now - shall I keep blogging here or transfer my energies to a new, blogging approach with more random - and less 'deep' thoughts?? Hmmm...