Bob Finlayson is the Futurist. Tanner Latham is the Executive Producer. They’re both storytellers, and with these conversations about Creativity and Culture, they share their ideas and what’s inspiring them.
Read Episode 1: On Brainstorming & Collaboration.
TANNER:
I’ve been thinking about spinning bikes, gin and “Chicken Wars.” The viral social backlash to the Peleton “The Gift that Gives Back” ad was fascinating. To summarize, a husband bought his wife a spinning bike for Christmas, and she painstakingly devoted herself to an aggressive routine. The Internet exploded saying it was sexist, dystopian and promoted body-shaming. (It wasn’t just a social slam. The streaming fitness company lost $1.9 billion in market cap.) There’s a whole convo about Peleton’s tone deaf-ness and absence of vetting for this ad.
But I’d rather shake us over to a martini...extra dirty, in fact. As Peleton was woozy on the ropes, Aviation Gin swung a round-house right with its “The Gift that Doesn’t Give Back” ad. They cast THE SAME ACTRESS who played the wife on the spinning bike, except she was now commiserating with girlfriends over gin cocktails because (we’re led to believe) she left her husband. KNOCKOUT!
According to Aviation Gin owner Ryan Reynolds -- yes, Van Wilder and Deadpool actor Ryan Reynolds -- it took their creative team only 36 hours to concept, script, shoot, edit and release the response ad. With lightning speed they capitalized on the viral conversation.
In Public Relations, we’d call this kind of quick response “newsjacking,” where a brand or company hijacks a cultural conversation and makes it all about them. Something similar happened during last summer’s famed “Chicken Wars.” The Chick-fil-A Twitter account threw shade at Popeyes new chicken sandwich, and within 15 minutes the Popeyes social team clapped back with a damning response that went ultra-viral. The result: All Popeyes franchises nationwide sold out of chicken sandwiches in less than a month.
BOB:
I love, love, love the Aviation Gin ad. They responded at speed and in such a poignant way. We both know the time, research and money brands and their agencies typically put into television ads, which makes Aviation Gin’s move all the more impressive. Popeyes’s response to Chick-fil-A was also brilliant, but then speed is critical in social media to tie into social trends and respond to competitive actions. Still, both efforts got me thinking about how creative cycles have sped up in recent years. We could have a long conversation about the impact of shorter and shorter creative cycles, but since it’s our new reality, it's more useful to think about ways to be creative quickly.
For complex creative projects, such as a video ad, collaboration is the essential element. Today we have many tools that facilitate collaboration. (Here’s a good list from PC Magazine.) But the real challenge is designing teams that can work together effectively across a complex creative project. There’s been lots of research about this topic, but surprisingly many companies and agencies still get this wrong.
A fantastic book on this subject is Adam Grant’s Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. The book was published way back in 2013, but it seems to me that Grant's recommendations are even more important today when the collaborative cycle must be sped up. In short strokes, Grant says the workplace is made up of three types of people: Takers, Matchers and Givers. His research showed that teams made up of Givers -- those who share without expectation -- tend to be more productive, creative and collaborative. It may seem counterintuitive in an age when some of our business and political leaders talk about life as a zero-sum game, but Grant backs up his ideas with solid research.
TANNER:
Adam Grant is the best! He’s so deft at articulating universal truths about organizational psychology. I nod along and note so many things while listening to his TED-sponsored Work Life podcast. I’d like to think I’m *mostly* a Giver, but I have to admit I get a little protective of my ideas because I’m constantly competing against other creatives hustling just as hard.
To your point about speedy creative cycles, one of my biggest impediments to that is Perfectionism. I’ve battled this nemesis my entire career. As a budding travel writer, I consistently missed deadlines because I wouldn’t let go of stories. I always wanted to tighten loose sentences or craft more poetic descriptions. I spun around in an endless loop, and I drove my editors crazy.
As creatives, we fear being “tattooed” with something negative if it isn’t perfect. But holding on to something doesn’t make it better--it actually makes it worse. Some years ago, I ran across (and ultimately adopted) marketing guru Seth Godin’s mantra of “Just Ship It.” He says that when we publish or “ship” what we’ve created, we subject it to criticism--the thing we fear most. But the truth is we HAVE to ship it, so why delay the inevitable and indulge our fear? Why not get to criticism faster so we can get to revision faster so we can get to better faster?
BOB:
That’s such a powerful concept! Years ago during the dot.com days, one of my CEO clients used to say: “Any fast decision is a good decision; any slow decision is a bad decision.” The idea being: it’s better to be first to market, and stake out a position, and then make changes and improvements later. Of course we all know that didn’t work out so well for many of the dot.com companies -- and I wonder if the Peleton people wish they had spent more time audience testing their ad -- but in our iterative world where nothing is ever finished, it is an effective strategy for gaining mind and market share.
TANNER:
Exactly. And the key to that strategy is that it’s adopted by the whole team, especially when it comes to creatives. That makes me think about real-time online collaboration and the tools that have completely revolutionized the way I work. Every project I produce runs because my team is tagging and commenting and directing without ever speaking a word to each other. Literal conference calls help us clarify ourselves, but we minimize those by sharing and responding to ideas on the fly, which avoids wasting precious time in backs-and-forths.
That said, it doesn’t always foster a flawless creative space. Great ideas can be snuffed before they get a chance to form. Personally, I’ve always been more comfortable working solo because I could control the moment of judgement. In real-time collaboration, I get a little squirrely with someone virtually looking over my shoulder. I want time to work out a word choice or sentence structure multiple ways before presenting my strongest idea.
Overall, the benefits of real-time collaboration far outweigh the drawbacks. It’s like having a co-pastry chef with you while you bake the cake. She’s sticking her finger in the batter and recommending you add more cinnamon early in the process. She’s not giving feedback after the cake has cooled, which obviously wastes time and resources.
BOB:
Your cake analogy is so on point. It makes me think of superstar investor and entrepreneur Ray Dalio’s book Principles. Dalio credits the concept of “radical transparency” with driving the phenomenal success of his investment firm, Bridgewater Associates. For those who haven’t yet read the book or heard Dalio’s TED talks, radical transparency is designed to create a true meritocracy by empowering every member of his team to question any idea, approach or decision -- even when it comes from Dalio himself. There are tons of ideas in the book, which was recently released in a new, illustrated format, about how to enable and sustain such a culture, including some innovative tech approaches used at Bridgewater.
I bring this up because I used to think the creative world was different. After all, the act of creation, or rather sharing your creation, makes you vulnerable. The extent of that vulnerability is often based upon the depth of passion behind an idea and the amount of time spent on it. As you noted, it is the fear of being vulnerable that makes us hold onto our ideas, often for longer than we should.
If we can bring together Grant’s team of givers with Dalio’s radical transparency, then we can deliver a collaborative environment where ideas are offered up and quickly evaluated to deliver the best concepts at speed -- thus satisfying the need for rapid creative cycles.
Which leads us back to chickens! Or actually, super chickens. One of the best TED Talks I’ve seen was delivered by the organizational expert Margaret Heffernan. It’s called “Forget the pecking order at work,” and it’s worth the 15 minutes it takes to watch. According to Heffernan, the only way a Grant/Dalio type of team concept can work is if the team trusts each other and everyone is in it for the group’s success, not just their own.
TANNER:
Wow! We’ve gone from bikes to gin to chicken and back again. Sounds like the makings of some weird pop-up happy hour concept in L.A....and probably the best place to leave this episode. Great chat! Talk to you next time.
The Authors Bob Finlayson is a futurist, author and experienced marketing and communications professional specializing in working with technology companies. Tanner Latham is an executive producer, writer and creative studio founder who produces digital campaigns for food and tourism brands.