I read Matt Herman’s article this week lamenting the (downward) creative spiral. Having been trained that imitation was once the basics of all art by my wizened classics teacher in University, I think that not all imitation can be a bad thing – changing the context or the audience of a campaign can add a layer of meaning that wasn’t there before.
But could all that imitation not be down to wanting to cleverly change the original meaninng of campaigns but just down to creatives and planners not having the time to really think any more?
Payment of creative agencies by the hour means that we have now put a timeline on the germination of an idea, and a price for every mind you have on the job. Are these the kind of conditions that breed creativity?
But then payment for a project leaves the client trying to justify their costs without any indication of why their campaign costs the price it does. Sadly since the recession there is more and more pressure on those who use agencies to justify why their fees total up as they do. The per hour model allows them to do this with ease.
So are agencies who go for the per hour model delivering to their clients’ needs? Or are they avoiding a deeper question; what is their idea truly worth? Is it a groundbreaking piece of creative that is going to deliver their client with a changed world at their feet? Or is it just a case of reuse and revise, which may have taken 400 hours to produce but is just going to go unnoticed once the 15 seconds and the twitter campaign have gone silent.
If we start asking to be paid for the intellectual property we create then that idea has to be worth it. It’s not the sweat, late nights and caffeine that went into it, it’s the pure result at the end that counts. And that, is a true challenge to us all.
(Image courtesy of pasukaru76)
