competition
In my first job each brief was given to several teams. That made complete sense, partly because there weren’t enough briefs to keep each team busy, and partly because it meant lots more work was generated from which the CD could theoretically select only the creme de la creme.
But it also served another purpose, that of fanning the flames of endeavour with the bellows of competition. When the brief came in the starting gun went off and the object was to be as collaborative and friendly as possible on the surface while doing whatever you could to get your idea to the top of the pile: colluding with account people to harpoon that lead idea they think the client would never buy; telling the other team you love their idea then waiting for the final meeting to casually let slip that it had already been done by the agency across town; keeping your best idea back so no one has any time to try and beat it; having a special quick chat with the CD just when everyone else thinks the decision is done and dusted… Stuff like that.
Which creates a testy atmosphere, but does it create better work? You might think so, after all, the need to bring your A-game and the pressure of the other teams’ possible superiority would surely breathe down your neck to make you put in the extra hours.
Then again, the multiplicity of ideas makes it harder to just choose the best and go with it. Instead the CD and important account guys can make sure there’s something safe in the back pocket just in case the crazy-but-excellent top idea falls upon stony ground. Shit ad gets bought and made and nobody wins, particularly the good team whose best stuff gets harpooned by a turd.
But what’s the alternative? When I started at AMV in 1998 my AD and I were stunned to discover that it was one team one brief. How could that produce better work? Well, AMV circa 1998 was unusual in that it was stuffed to the gills with unbelievably good teams, and that meant that if you gave a team a brief they would respond with a very good ad. No need for competition, no need for dodgy shenanigans. We also presented just the one ad we thought was right. Oh, and the creative department had the last word in what that idea would be. Oh, and I almost forgot: the client would almost always buy that ad. Happy, happy days.
But that set up produced some of the best ads in history. As David Abbott said, ‘Flowers grow best in the sunshine’, and it was like Tahiti at 151 Marylebone Road.
I haven’t been in many places since where it’s one team one brief, but that’s probably got something to do with the current need to give clients quantity rather than quality. The idea that a single team would churn out the volume that clients currently ‘enjoy’ is a bit far-fetched and certainly requires going wide and shallow rather than narrow and deep.
I guess we’ll never really know if competition definitely helps or hinders, but I would say that it certainly fosters a atmosphere of friction, and that can go either way.
What does your agency do, and does it make the ads better or worse?
What’s the prize?
Happiness.
Or misery!
A one in a million shot at a 50/50 chance of happiness. Now there’s an analogy for life. 🙂
i think it depends on the stakes. If you’re feeding a beast like Nike or Budweiser you need a pool of competitive tykes battling it out to keep it fresh. that probably entails a quantity of ideas.
and if you’re any good you’ll probably work your way through that competition.
but it does get old. it’s nice to have things that are purely all yours too.
reliably good people are rarer than you might hope though.
Did Webster or Abbott ever do a shit ad? It might be as enlightening to see some of their duds as well as their hofmeister volvos.
Not many stick their balls on the line these days. It’s the ‘Adam eating the apple’ analogy. Could it be that in yesteryear they were all oblivious and now everyone is so painfully aware of the consequences of going out on a limb. Everyone is shit scared of upsetting someone.
“An Englishman’s greatest achievement is to go from cradle to grave without ever making a fool of himself.” – John Cleese.
During the years our agency tried different (probably all possible) approaches. They used “one brief to all people” model during my first year. The whole process was captured by the only extrovert in the creative department… an evangelical preacher type of person – pushy, and loud so 90% of the time it was his ideas that were made.
Because of that we tried “two teams-one brief – and the ideas are presented in front of a panel” – which worked the same way but with more aggression.
Then we tried “two teams-one brief – and the ideas are presented in front of a panel that chooses one idea by each team – so at the end the client decides”
Then we tried “one-team-one brief” – and that was the time I produced the best ideas, because I just clicked perfectly with my AD, and the whole process was easy, and satisfying.
Today we are back at the gangbang phase – because we sell massive amount of quantity, “and this is what the clients want these days”
It’s still one team one brief at AMV Ben…
People behave in accordance to the system / culture of the agency.
If a competitive atmosphere is created with reward and punishment then people will behave accordingly and cheat or be political where need be. Them’s the rules.
If their is an atmosphere of trust, continual improvement and collaboration then people will behave accordingly.
I like David Abbots quote – flowers grow best in the sunshine.
Every fucker gets a crack at every brief.
And every team is expected to if it’s a big one.
Tends to leave teams over stretched and exhausted.
A previous agency had a mix of this and gave teams their own brief which they are responsible for. Much better way of working as nothing drives a teams ambition than making stuff. Plus to you point, the account man doesn’t get some safe shit to hide behind.
The people I know who actively favour competition tend to be political snakes of moderate talent.
The highly talented people I know seem less fussed about it.
My opinion isn’t worth much, I’m sure. I’ve been in both situations before and I can tell you that I prefer the one team one brief method. Competition doesn’t always bring focus – sometimes it breeds distractions. It hasn’t mattered how big or small the account is in my case.
Also, in my experience, competition breeds prima donnas and their counterparts, the ever-annoying “creative” lamprey. Not everyone produces good ideas. Some people steal them – or just enough of them to get by.
When I get a brief and I know that it’s on me and my team to fulfill it, the responsibility becomes the crucible of my/our thinking. If we don’t do it, and do it well, it won’t get done. Can’t have that.
But that’s just one not-terribly-well-traveled creative opinion.
Good to know, Al.
During GGT’s most creative period we worked in series rather than in parallel.
So one team got one week, and if they made progress they kept the brief.
If they didn’t make progress it got switched to another team.
So by the end of 4 weeks, 4 teams might have each had a go, or one team might have kept it for 4 weeks.
The only exception was juniors.
After they’d done their trade-ads they could work on anyone else’s TV ads if they wanted.
That way they got a break if they wanted to work for it.
Quick – the D & AD judges have been announced.
Nice and early, gives us all enough time to try and actually find out who they actually are.
I work at a pretty big agency and it’s about 8 teams for 1 brief, even for a 15 second promotion ad, why? So they can charge the clients lots of hours. I can tell you one thing, it doesn’t produce great work, doesn’t even produce work you’d want to show any one…you get about 8 teams handing in say 5 routes (they are just happy as Larry to make any old shit as long as they are making something) so cd has 40 ideas to choose from! And then they present about 8 ideas to the client. Giant fucking lottery, even worse for me as I’ll only hand in an idea I want to make not just any old shit. I’m sure I’ll be worn down after a year of not making anything though and start handing in any old shit to join the other 99% of shit on tv. I reckon only 50% of ads on tv would be shit if it was one team one brief..but then the people at the top wouldn’t be minted by charging out 8 teams per brief.
It comes down to motivation. If teams are motivated to give their best, one brief per team works well. If complacency sets in and motivation is lower, a little competition re-adjusts the balance.
I think it’s the same with agency-client relationships, which is why rosters have become so popular with big clients. It keeps agencies on their toes if there is a challenging upstart in the mix.
That said, introducing competition in any way means people have to pay more attention to politics and pitching than nailing the work, which is the major downside.
The problem I often see with loads of teams on one brief is that no one takes responsibility for that brief. Most teams put less effort in as they know other teams are working on it. I think the pressure of one team HAVING to crack it makes for better work and more work.
Angry Creative.
Have you ever thought of, you know, leaving your current agency?
Angry Creative.
Don’t bother leaving. All agencies are the same.
My first job was “One brief, One team”. It was still very competitive – you were just competing with the last ad for that client, the last decent ad from the agency, the last ad from BBH etc. Which seems a lot more reasonable that what I’ve been through recently.