Creativity may suffer as advertisers play it safe

By Lesley Springall

What turns you on? Or more importantly, what turns you off? Are advertisements going to become less creative in the drive for effectiveness?

"It's a massive subject and it all depends on where you put the fulcrum," says Rob Sherlock, creative director at Foote, Cone & Belding (FCB), who was recently promoted to the company's worldwide creative board. "Per capita, we (the New Zealand advertising industry) really rank up there as one of the best in creative terms. But with tighter parameters, it gets harder to be creative."

According to Mr Sherlock, it is more difficult to be creative when dealing with fast-moving consumer goods such as soap powder, where brand values and consumer triggers are more understood and can be researched with greater confidence.

Different categories, he says, have wider opportunities. The Aids Foundation for example, allows for much greater creative interpretation than fabric conditioner. "The subject matter alone can allow more breakthroughs." When a breakthrough works, often a whole industry can change its advertising outlook and adopt a new tack.

Mr Sherlock cites the Bluebird Potato Chip campaign of a few years ago - when instead of just concentrating on crunch and flavour, the advert showed a penguin dancing around a bluebird. "Purely because it had the likeability factor, it increased market share considerably and it broke all the rules to do it."

To break those rules the client and agency need to work together. But what the advertiser expects from an ad is crucial, says Jeremy Irwin, executive director of the Association of New Zealand Advertisers. The needs of the advertisers in terms of effective product messages should be balanced against the risks of eye-catching innovation.

"With products, you know if the ads are working or not at the end of the day but with brands you can't measure it so easily or so quickly," says Mr Sherlock. "It's all about a partnership of trust between the advertiser and the agency that can push the parameters."

David Innes, executive director of the Advertising Agencies Association, says research has shown ads that are highly creative are often particularly effective. For example last year's Land Transport Safety Authority and Arnott's campaigns were both highly placed in the creativity and effectiveness awards which are run jointly by both associations.

"The effectiveness awards", says Irwin, "are to strengthen the role of both sides and ensure that money spent is used most effectively for the set objectives."

Agencies have traditionally been driven by creative awards and clients more by those measuring effectiveness. But, as Rob Sherlock points out, even if you are creative in a restrictive category, that is an achievement for which you earn recognition. One area the industry does agree on is that it should not be a case of creative or effective - in an ideal world it should be both.

"Over the last five years as it has got tougher, everyone is looking for the holy grail - stuff that is both creative and interesting," says Mr Innes. "And one of the biggest impacts on television advertising in this area has been the remote control."

Rob Sherlock agrees, but believes that consumers do recognise what the ad is about before switching over. Consumers do not necessarily switch over because an advert is boring. With the current driver safety ads, for example, viewers turn over because of the gore factor.

There is no definitive research comparing and contrasting the two areas, though many have tried.
It's not what's right or wrong, those in the industry point out, it's what works - and that is controlled as much by what the clients are selling as where they are planning to sell it.

For example, Toyota's "bugger" advert broke the mould in New Zealand and it is now being shown in Australia, with similar results. But would it work in the United States? "I don't think it would. I think it really is a unique ANZ thing," says Mr Sherlock.

With continuing globalisation of the market and the mass appeal that is needed, multinational agencies are finding it harder to be creative. The more formulaic, less risky method of advertising, as demonstrated by the fast moving consumer goods market, appears to be winning when it comes to international work.

Rob Sherlock says that New Zealand is lucky at present as it is less regulated compared to the US market, allowing for more spontaneity. Australia is following the US trend of "safer" advertising, bringing in much greater testing and research. But that also can bring problems. "[Formulaic] ads do work, but everything is moving on all the time and if you stay where you are, you will stagnate," Mr Sherlock warns.

As more ads are made for international audiences, there will be more pressure on agencies to look for triggers that work in all countries. By their very nature these are restrictive, he says, but the cost savings can be significant.

"I think we're going to have to get safer. International ads might be cost-effective but they inevitably dilute creativity. To use that old phrase - the enemy of great advertising is good advertising." Or as Viscount Leverhulme said all those years ago: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The trouble is I don't know which half."