It's time to drop these myths about creativity

Many people in this village of ours are cheering Karen Martin’s creativity agenda as the new President of the IPA.

At a time when commentators are predicting a wholesale reconstruction of the advertising industry and marketing practices because of artificial intelligence, Karen has committed to celebrating human creativity and placing it at the heart of everything.

In this turbulent time, the industry cannot stick to the old and familiar practices of creativity.  The nostalgia that some still hold on to for a supposed golden age of advertising is largely irrelevant now. Conventional thinking and practices need to be uprooted and challenged.

Here are three examples of conventional thinking that need reconsidering for effective creativity in business. 

The problem with brainstorming

“No idea is a bad idea” is one of the sacred rules of brainstorming. The concept is based on the theory that ideas are like young plants. Rain too hard on them and they will wilt away. Don’t criticise. Warm them in the greenhouse of sunshine approval.

This is one of the founding rules laid down for brainstorms by BBDO’s Alex Osborn when he coined the term in 1948 and is still widely employed today, (together with the other rules which are to emphasise quantity of ideas, to allow freewheeling thinking and to build on the ideas of others). While other techniques for the sessions will vary, these rules usually prevail.

This is despite a relatively little-known study conducted as long ago as 2000, which seems to prove the opposite of what’s normal. Criticism does not deter ideas. In fact, it encourages it.

In an academic experiment, ‘The liberating role of conflict in group creativity’ by Charlan Nemeth, individuals in small groups were given the problem of solving traffic congestion. The research was conducted in San Francisco and Paris. The rules were the same as usual, except for a test set of groups who were told to feel free to debate and even to criticise each other’s ideas.

Most creativity coaches and moderators would predict that allowing criticism and challenges would lead to fewer ideas. In fact, in these carefully controlled conditions, the reverse was true. Allowing debate led to more ideas, significantly more.

These results may seem surprising. However, given the following two requirements for creativity, they are no surprise.

The first requirement is diversity of thinking. The second is authenticity, to be yourself.

If people in the brainstorm are similar in how they think rather than diverse, which may well make for an easier, perhaps a happier, session, then there will be fewer different ideas.

Furthermore, if the people in the brainstorm are not similar in how they think but have been asked to follow a rule that they must not debate or criticise, then they may well be self-censoring to ensure a happy and obedient session. The effort required in worrying about not offending others by a spontaneous negative reaction to ideas can suppress creativity. This doesn’t mean criticism is required, just that people don’t have to stop themselves from being critical. The “don’t rain on ideas” rule can be replaced by a “don’t take criticism personally“ mandate. Everyone should be free to be themselves and to say what they really think, with courtesy and kindness, but also with the courage of their convictions.

Meaningless Creativity

In my latest book, A Year of Creativity (with co-author Kathryn Jacob OBE), we examine the problem with the idea of creativity purely for the sake of it, which can seem, in the more analytical left brain mindset dominant in board rooms to be frivolous and without meaning. 

In fact, a worthy desire to celebrate all forms of creativity may unintentionally exacerbate this issue.  A quick survey of some recent ideas (take a look at TikTok or the social media of your choice) demonstrates that there is a general assumption that anything new is better than before. Many people, and we think especially in our sector, are neophiles. They love the idea that there is something different that they can originate that will save the day or save the business model. 

Change is certainly necessary, but it needs the balance of experience and insight, or it is easy to get lost in the process. Schopenhauer, one of the last century’s most renowned creative talents, pointed out that artists must have technical skills first and foremost before giving themselves up to innovation.  

Meaningless creativity comes from a sense that any change is good change. It's the perception that doing something/anything new will change your current trajectory. I can still recall the flipcharts from senior leadership team awaydays in the past where initiatives were brainstormed to solve a company-wide problem, milestones were identified, and a clear set of OKRs (Objectives, Key Results) was designed and owned. And nothing changed. Creativity is meaningless without results.  

Elite creative teams are not the answer

When I started out in adland, there was a very clear distinction between the creatives and everyone else. At my current agency, there is no such distinction. And in the real world, if you pay attention, there is no such distinction anymore either. 

Across digital media channels, there are myriads of creative expressions, some of which are attracting the attention of millions, even billions of people. YouTube celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, with the announcement that there are 20 million videos uploaded daily. 

Certainly, you might not regard all of these as examples of creative genius, in fact you definitely will not and neither will I, but a lot more of them will be gaining big audiences and driving revenue than was possible in the old era where there were huge barriers to creativity from the gatekeepers of taste of old media platforms. 

The number one form of content is now user-generated, and many people are giving credence to influencers over advertising. What users say about a brand is more important than what a brand says about itself. Whilst it is certainly true that not everyone who paints is Picasso, I am convinced that everyone has creative instincts and potential. 

In a good culture, there is no talent moat, and if you insist on one, then you will miss out on ideas from outliers and frequently end up with a team that largely looks and sounds the same. Too much homogeneity and too much consensus will deliver atrophy.

All of us need to exercise our creativity muscles if we are to meet the challenges of an uncertain world.

A Year of Creativity by Kathryn Jacob OBE and Sue Unerman was published by Bloomsbury last year.

Sue Unerman is Global Chief Strategy Officer at Brainlabs

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and were submitted in accordance with the IPA terms and conditions regarding the uploading and contribution of content to the IPA newsletters, IPA website, or other IPA media, and should not be interpreted as representing the opinion of the IPA.