5 Misconceptions About Social Media

As the head of Digital for an advertising agency, with 15 years industry experience and having been involved in countless brand campaigns, I have seen a classic agency argument unfolded time and again. This type of argument is one that most people working in marketing, advertising or creative industries will recognise immediately.

When you work to a deadline, such as building a pitch presentation (with limited time and resources), which more often than not has a great deal riding on the outcome of the presentation, a way in which many agencies try to take the number of available hours to work on this pitch, and turn these in to more, is to work in two separate teams (half the team on one idea and the other on another, you effectively double your working time).

While both of these teams are trying to solve the same problem, and have the same goal in mind, a massive disagreement regularly occurs around a simple question… How do we best tell the story? One group (the creatives) believes the presentation should open with impact. Their approach was to lead with the high-energy, visually engaging creative and set the tone. The idea was simple: hook the audience immediately, create an emotional response, build excitement and make the audience care about the brand before getting into the strategic detail.

The second group (the strategists) took a different approach. They believed the audience needed context. Start by establishing the problem, explain the opportunity, build the strategic rationale, show the connection and then, once the audience understands the thinking behind the work, reveal the big creative idea and allow it to land with maximum impact at the end of the presentation.

THE REAL PROBLEM

The clash of ego’s between the two approaches became heated. Arguments were made, work slowed down, frustration grew, words exchanged, and for a brief moment, the biggest threat to meeting the deadline was not the amount of work that needed to be completed, but the amount of time and energy being spent debating “how” the work should be completed and presented.

After the dust settled, the real issue became glaringly obvious. The problem wasn’t the idea. It was the language. To the Creatives, “setting the tone” meant creating an emotional response, it meant energy, excitement, visual impact and the “wow factor”. It was about making the audience feel something from the moment the presentation began. To the Strategists, “setting the tone” meant something entirely different. It meant establishing context, creating alignment and making sure the audience understood the problem before presenting the solution. It was about making the audience understand something before asking them to believe in it.

What is important is that neither interpretation of the problem was wrong. In fact, both are essential. The problem is that creatives and strategists, each speak from the perspective of their own discipline, they use the same words, to describe completely different outcomes. A disagreement about presentation structure quickly became a disagreement about whose approach was better. This is where this friction becomes particularly dangerous. Not because a disagreement is bad.  Many of the best ideas and great work comes from disagreement. In my experience, creative teams need people who challenge assumptions, question decisions and bring different perspectives into the room. The danger comes when people stop listening to understand, and only listen long enough to wait their turn to respond.

SEMANTICS KILL MOMENTUM

In fast-moving agency environments, we often assume that everyone in the room understands the language being used. But words like impact, engagement, strategy, creative, storytelling and even something as simple as tone can mean very different things depending on who is using them. Here is one example:

·       A creative might define impact as an emotional reaction.

·       A strategist might define impact as behavioural change.

·       A client might define impact as sales.

None of these definitions are necessarily wrong. But if they are not unpacked, teams can spend valuable time defending positions that are not actually in conflict. Before debating the solution, it is worth making sure everyone agrees on the problem. Before arguing about the structure, define what the structure is supposed to achieve. Before defending a word, ask what the person using it actually means. Sometimes the fastest way to solve a disagreement is simply to translate the language being used.

BRIDGING THE EGO GAP

Of course, language is not always the only issue. Agency environments are filled with experts. People are hired because they have experience, opinions and specialised knowledge. That is a strength, until expertise becomes attached to ego. When deadlines are tight and pressure is high, it becomes easy to defend your solution instead of looking for the best solution.

The challenge is recognising that collaboration does not mean everyone has to agree immediately. It means being willing to step back and ask whether two seemingly opposing ideas could actually be connected. A bridge between strategy and creative is useless if nobody is willing to walk across it. Sometimes the strongest idea in the room is not one person's original approach. It is the combination of two approaches that initially appeared to be competing.

THE BEST STORIES NEED BOTH LOGIC AND EMOTION

The reality is that hype without direction can feel shallow. A beautiful creative idea may grab attention, but if the audience does not understand why it exists or what problem it solves, the impact can disappear quickly. On the other hand, strategy without energy can feel dry. A perfectly logical presentation can explain every insight, opportunity and rationale, but still fail to inspire anyone.

The strongest narratives need both. They need context and emotion. Logic and impact. A reason to understand and a reason to care. Perhaps the answer was never about choosing between the “impact approach” and the “logic approach”. The real opportunity was finding the right sequence that allowed both disciplines to do what they do best.  Because in the end, friction is not necessarily a sign that something is broken. Sometimes it is a sign that different expertise are colliding. The key is making sure that, in the process, people are listening to what is actually being said. After all, two experts can both be right. The real problem begins when neither one is listening and egos get in the way.