I’m sure you’ve been put in the situation before. An RFP or a project arrives on your desk that just doesn’t feel right. Maybe it doesn’t take into account fundamental human behaviours. Maybe it ignores market realities. Or maybe it’s just trying to solve a tactical problem rather than dealing with what really needs to be solved. Either way, it creates an uncomfortable situation – are you a going to tell the client they’re wrong, or are you going to do what’s asked.

The NAA Interactive Briefing

In the interactive division of the National Advertising Awards, entrants were asked to submit an innovative creative solution to the the following business problem for Sympatico.ca:

“Drive adoption of Sympatico.ca’s various assets by convincing our target audience to make Sympatico.ca or one of its sister sites, like Best Health or Auto, their homepage. The site is currently competing with U.S. and international sites like MSN and Yahoo.” (for more details, download the full briefing here)

Of the teams that responded to the challenge, half developed creative advertising campaigns consisting of a mix of traditional and social media forms. Some came up with clever campaign concepts that successfully focused on strong calls to action that supported the stated business objectives.

And the other half of the entrants told us the portal model is dead.

Dear Client, You are Wrong.

Now I don’t want this to turn into a debate around whether portal models like Sympatico.ca are dead. What I do want to ask is, if you’re put into a situation where you don’t believe that a brief is responding to the right thing for a client’s business, do you follow it?

In the past, I’ve been on both sides of the coin before. Perhaps it comes down to the difference between taking client work to get paid and taking client work to make a difference. Here’s a quick summary of your likely outcomes:

Partners Vs. Working for Approvals

A lot of agencies don’t break the brief. The hope is that once the ability to execute is proven, there will be the opportunity to show strategic worth on something else. In my opinion, this is the wrong approach to design. This is working for approvals instead of working to achieve a result.

The benefits of not working at an agency is you’re not boxed into agency scenarios. As a strategic innovation and experience design firm, clients come to us with a recognition (and expectation) that in order to strategically differentiate, you may need to go outside your comfort zone. Questioning long-standing assumptions is part of our value proposition, and as such, every brief gets broken to some extent. If your job is to solve problems, then articulating the right problem is step number one. It’s the difference between a partnership and a paycheck.

Now obviously not everybody has the opportunity to work like we do. So what do you do when the brief is wrong?

Idris wisely notes that “as the pace of innovation accelerates and expectations rise, executives are experiencing two other kinds of crises, 1/ declining bottom line results caused by the credit crisis and 2/ declining consumer attention as customers become increasingly desensitized and unresponsive to traditional marketing. The ones that are smart will look for ways to improve their innovation capability and process; within their organization, externally with specialists in the field of innovation and even with their consumers who can help them to detect early trends.” In this way, companies can manage this double-edged sword looming over them.

The becomes – “What types of innovation activities can and should companies partake in? The answer is – it depends. The most common types of innovation are differentiated by distinct characteristics:

1/ Innovation activities that are based on improving the underlying the process of producing or delivery of products and services that sometimes appear to be invisible to customers. The manufacturing world is rife with examples – think Toyota in the 50’s, Dell in the 90s. A great example today is Spanish retailer Zara’s “fast fashion” supply chain – with the ability to design and distribute current fashions in just 15 days.

2/ Innovation that encourages the adoption or co-creation of a new customer behavior through new technologies, new interfaces and new connectivity. Apple’s iTouch technology in conjunction with the App store epitomizes new technology driving customer adoption and usage.

3/ Innovation that focuses on radically rethinking the whole business eco-system and re-designing its role in the value chain. Generally this leads to business model innovation. A great example is Netflix which turned the traditional video rental industry on its head, changing the way consumer’s pay for and consume entertainment. Another example is Amazon’s Kindle – changing the way consumers purchase literature.

4/ Innovation that allows an introduction of a second or third bottom line – initiatives that are socially oriented, sustainable and ethical. Take Clorox Greenworks – the company’s first new line of products in over 20 years. It’s a shift away from traditional chemically based cleaners to products that are certified by the EPA through their Designed for the Environment program. American Apparel, by selling a simple collection of basic items being produced domestically in the US, also in some way creates a second bottom line.

5/ Innovation that allows the redefinition of players and co-creation of value among those players in the system, including the consumer. Streaming video platforms like Joost and Hulu are changing the game of quality media consumption. By cutting out cable networks in favor of direct to consumer delivery supported by shifting ad spend creates value for those players that remain relevant.

I’ve excluded marketing innovation and channel innovation as they are some tactical elements of the above. I’ve also excluded technological innovation as it refers to the advancement in R&D. What are the core values that support the development of a corporate culture that can be typified as innovative? Values such as room for play, the ability to look outside of traditional sources for inspiration, being future oriented, teamwork, respect, the ability to be self-critical, dedication, initiative, trust, open mindedness, the aptitude to view with multiple lenses, collaboration and most importantly, strong leadership that drives the organization to a common vision.

These values can often be found in companies that have a good innovation track record like Apple, Google Nokia, and 3M. In addition to embracing these values themselves, innovation leaders should always look for creative ways of embedding these values in a meaningful way in their organizations from HR policies to operations to front line customer service reps. Through my experiences working with large enterprises, including big Telco’, has taught me that it’s difficult to alter a firms DNA to move at the pace of innovation if the roots of innovation haven’t been planted. While that seems obvious, I’ve found that organizations often will begin to use words like “innovation” without any understanding of how to institutionalize and end up wondering why it doesn’t take hold. To make this real, they need to fully understand their current corporate culture through constantly asking questions such as:

1. How important does senior management think innovation is to the future of our company?
2. Are there clearly defined mandates for innovation?
3. What common behaviors do we see around us that would both support and detract from innovation?
4. How do we compare to other innovative organizations?
5. How well do we handle external shock?
6. How good of a picture do we have in terms of our different futures?
7. Which are the core values that drive our behavior?
8. What are the dogmas / unwritten rules of the organization?
9. What behaviors encourage innovation? What behaviors hinder it?
10. How open are we working with outside partners?
11. How much tolerance do we have for risk?
12. What are our expectations from innovation efforts?
13. Do we have a process for innovation?
14. What is the make up of your human capital?
15. Is there support from corporate finance to fund innovation-based projects that may have longer paybacks with larger ROI?

Ask these questions and it will become obvious whether an organization is “innovation ready”. Those firms that are, will be able to overcome the crises – those that cannot will continue to be at the mercy of external market forces.

The collective work of the Frankfort School (Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer and their classic 1944 piece “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”) provided the intellectual foundation for a consumer critique.. The imperatives of the production side were central, and in both consumption and production consumers were relatively powerless, even “manipulated” and victimized by advertisers. In these accounts, the powerful and active agents were corporations, not individuals. Today, we can see that this changing, with an over abundance of almost everything and the growing influences of social media and networks. Finally, the power is switching back to the mass – powered by social technologies.

The “de-legitimization” of modern liberalism, paternalist state policy and Keynesian economics continued to undercut the consumer critics. The growth of corporate power was accompanied by an ideology that posited the reverse—namely that the consumer is king and the corporation is at his or her mercy.

Even though as consumers we are all trained from the earliest ages to be consumers, and though our identities are deeply bound up with consumption choices, social networks are gradually becoming the medium that define our identities. This is the world we are living in. A TV campaign can only go so far in building a brand. In fact, it doesn’t build brands, it merely build awareness. Social technologies and media enable advertisers to cultivate brand engagement where interactions are take place. Time to reinvent advertising and if you have any of the following on your bookshelf, it’s time to put them away:

Confessions of an Advertising Man by David Ogilvy, 1963
Bill Bernbach’s Book By Bob Levenson, 1987
A Technique for Producing Ideas, by James Webb Young, 1940

Throughout my career, I have constantly been amazed that people believe brainstorming is a serendipitous process. Get a dozen people in a room, bring some post-it notes, and you’re guaranteed to leave with an industry-shattering idea.

Brainstorming is easy. And so is coming up with really bad ideas.  Brainstorming well is much, much harder.

The technique of brainstorming, first penned by ad executive Alex F. Osborn, is meant to unlock the hidden creativity in individuals to identify new opportunities. In many organizations, however, brainstorming has lost its luster.  Regardless of the socially accepted rules of brainstorming – generate quantity, remove criticism, combine through association, there are no bad ideas – the process has been bastardized  by many organizations who compound the bad behaviors of looking for shortcuts,  and allowing power differentials to influence outcomes, and sucking the fun out of an enjoyable experience.

Looking for Shortcuts

In many of the brainstorming cultures I have seen, the ideation process stops after first ideas. First ideas are those that sit at the surface – the ones that are often an elaboration on what you’ve seen before, the ones that rehash old ideas that have been thought a million times before.

In a past life, I watched a client accuse an agency of not pitching a new idea in five years. That’s the result of lazy brainstorming.  When five people show up to a brainstorm with ten “first” ideas, there is very little time for good ideation. And with the usual “rush-to-make-a-decision” that we all feel, teams usually settle on the best poor idea.

While most of the folks at Idea Couture can draw on their renaissance interests and learning based discovery through future scanning and ethnography, we can’t all be so lucky. The goal of brainstorming is to unlock real creative power through the formation of lateral connections.

In order to accomplish that, you need lateral stimuli.

Power Dynamics

The hippo effect (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) is unfortunately a major influencer of the brainstorming process. When ideating with senior management, the dynamics can easily swing to a game of “guess what the boss is thinking”. If the book The Wisdom of Crowds has taught us anything, it’s that dedicating a brainstorm to pleasing one person is not the way to great ideas. Divergent thinking generates new ideas – pleasing behavior creates the Zune.

And even when divergent thinking is accepted, the loudest person in the room can often rule a brainstorming session. There’s always one of them – the person who believes their ideas are the best and isn’t interested in the opinions of others. A brainstorm doesn’t suddenly turn introverts into confident contributors, so getting others to contribute while muting that individual’s voice is one of the greatest challenges in facilitation. The goal of brainstorming is to harness the dynamics of a group by allowing everyone to be heard.

In order to accomplish that, you need to break down power differentials and give all voices a chance to be heard.

Brainstorming Isn’t Fun Anymore

When I was first introduced to the process of brainstorming by an expert facilitator, I felt like I was stealing. Getting paid to participate in this type of activity seemed criminal. My Commerce courses at Queen’s University never prepared me to play in an office.

When you brainstorm effectively, the event is magical, seamless, and incredibly productive. But when done poorly, brainstorming is a painful best. It’s like a grade 8 dance – everyone walks away disappointed after experiencing conflict, fighting and judgment. I went to an all boys school by the way.

Brainstorming sessions are supposed to leave criticism and debate at the door, but only a great facilitator can ensure that this happens. But few corporations appreciate the impact of expert facilitation, leaving the role to a brave few that aren’t given the opportunity to practice as much as they would like to. The goal of a brainstorm is to generate great ideas, and a fun process ensures a greater number of those ideas.

In order to bring the fun back to brainstorming, we need to help our facilitators curate the brainstorming experience.

The Answer – Gamestorming

Brainstorming needs some innovation. I believe the answer is gamestorming.

Gamestorming is a competition-based facilitation technique that several of us here at Idea Couture have been playing with for some time. Designed to deal with the issue of shortcuts, power dynamics, and the lack of fun in brainstorming, gamestorming is a structured process of play-based facilitation that uses tools and rules to break brainstorming complacency.

All games have two core elements – tools and rules. Tools are the things required to play, like cards, tokens, or pieces. Rules are the laws that define how a game is played, like order, responsibilities, and desired outcomes.

By introducing tools and rules into brainstorming, I have witnessed lifeless brainstorms come alive. I have seen how introducing a points system into the process has generated hundreds of ideas from a group who used to produce only dozens. I have experienced HIPPO’s support new hires in delivering creative concepts. And I have watched rookie facilitators run a room with the confidence and composure of a seasoned veteran.

Over the next few months, ideacouture.com/blog will be the place to learn about gamestorming. In this series, I hope to show you how you can harness this technique to rediscover the power and benefits of brainstorming in your organization.