If Creativity Pays, Why Can’t It Get Paid?

If creativity pays, why can’t it get paid? My experience of the past 30 years lines up with the analysis of Peter Field: the shift to short(er)-term thinking devalues creativity’s unique power to create long-term brand growth. Clients are like farmers and a farmer who intends to sell in one year makes very different decisions from a farmer who intends to pass it down to his children.

Of course, creativity can also have powerful short-term effects, but they appear smaller and less certain than more direct and ‘rational’ activation appeals. It seems as though rising numbers of people are eager to chop down their cherry trees for firewood before they have a chance to bear fruit. Yes, the wood will burn, but cherries are much more profitable than firewood.

The febrile metabolism of finance capitalism is not yet under control. But in the meantime, I would like to modestly (both humbly and in a limited fashion) suggest that we might help ourselves in the branding and getting paid departments by reconsidering the near-ubiquitous use of the word ‘creativity’ to describe what makes great advertising and the added value that clients are paying for.

Creativity is what goes into great advertising. It isn’t what comes out. And just as farmers have a hard time charging more for the extra effort they put into organic, sustainable produce, it’s increasingly difficult to charge more for the extra effort of creativity. The client-consumer looks at the lower-cost-per-pound, plumper-looking alternative right next to it and asks “Which one should I buy for dinner tonight?” not “Which one will I wish I’d bought five years from now?”

To my mind, we might do better to sell the *effect* of great creative--what viewers (and, in turn, clients) get out of it—rather than our assessment of what we’ve put into it. (I suspect this problem is exacerbated when creativity is charged for in person-hours.) I suggest that the main (though not exclusive) effect of great creative work is the generation of *sustained interest*, leading to greater mental availability and the kind of ongoing willingness to try amongst infrequent buyers that drives brand growth.

I’ve been told that this is linguistic sophistry, “We all know what good work is, what does it matter what word we use?” But of course, it does matter (Kiwi or Chinese Gooseberry?), not just to how clients choose, but to how we work, how we measure effectiveness and what we reward. Because award-winning work often is a better value, more effective client investment. But without the right branding, it’s kind of like the old office meme about doing exceptional individual work within a bureaucracy: “It’s like wetting your pants in a dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling, but nobody else notices.”