Understanding Creative Strategy, part 2: model walkthrough and footnotes

Get email notifications for this series and beyond by signing up here

So, to recap – last time I had the cheek to suggest a unified model of creative strategy. This time, I’m going to get a little bit nerdy to unpack that model and the thinking behind it.

That model (name pending I guess, any ideas?) didn’t come out of thin air. I have complained in the past about our industry’s tendency to present models as orphans. So on some level part 2 is me being the change I want to see in the world...

I could have tagged all the people mentioned, many are on LinkedIn, but I’d like to think I’m not THAT kind of LinkedIn user. :-)

Notes on the shoulders of giants:

Layer 1: The Market through my preferred variation of the three Cs (Company, Customer, Competition — the latter extended to Context)

1.      The original 3Cs model is credited to McKinsey’s OG Kenichi Ohmae, ‘The Mind of The Strategist’s English edition came out 1982, which means the method was in the market before.

2.      I believe the roots are even deeper – in the way our psychology and cognition work and we perceive the world and interpret its signs on a deeper level (me-you-others / a thing-like some-unlike others). But that’s for another time.

3.      Context over just competition is a personal preference. Others add more Cs. I prefer staying with 3 not just for the minimalism of it but because more Cs would make the shape of the model less meaningful (alignment would break) – turning it into more of a framework/checklist. There are already too many of those in marketing.

4.      Note how triangulation overlaps with Roger Martin’s Where to Play+How To Win (a paradigmatic idea in itself, there aren’t many of those in business. Especially good ones).

Layer 2: Marketing win conditions ('The paradigm' — adding Integrity on top of Relevant Difference)

5.      Yes, I do believe the second triangle represents win conditions and not merely success factors. It mirrors the predominant definitions of marketing so closely that I can’t imagine a highly effective scenario which doesn’t hit all three to a degree. That's why I like referring to it as 'The Paradigm'. If there's a more prevalent paradigm for marketing, I'm yet to come across it.

6.      Additionally, the win factors can be used to inform both WTP/HTW and to qualify your strategy as well as to further hone it. ('Can we target this opportunity space with I+R+D?' 'How can we improve win chances by increasing/optimising I+R+D?')

7.      The concept of relevant difference is exceptionally prevalent, even outside marketing. I plan a post soon sharing my ever-growing collection of examples of the paradigm ‘in the wild’ so will refer to more examples then. In my own career, I met it everywhere. Ohmae himself discusses aspects of it in his book. I believe it’s also quite central to Aaker’s discussion of brand strategy (thus quite central in some of Prophet’s earlier thinking) but I have come across it across WPP, Landor, Y&R (and their BAV), Kantar (and their Brandz), Stephen King, Steve Harrison, Adam & Eve, and many more. I promise – a dedicated post is coming.

8.      Putting integrity at the top of the 2nd triangle is a choice I made around a decade ago. For a few years before I had ‘credibility’ there (as the element aligning with ‘company’), which worked quite well, but then felt the factors ‘closest’ to the company/brand go beyond simple credibility which is more of an effect. I believe integrity in the wider sense works well as the engine that drives an offering built on core competencies towards its audience. It’s at the heart of a successful brand/company.

9.      Relevance isn’t always what people think. There’s some lucid discussion of it in the fabulous ‘How Not to Plan’ by Binet & Carter. It is also underappreciated and underused by many creative people, who naturally lean towards difference, missing the fact difference isn’t the sole driver of fame. Peter Mayle says ‘One of the most fundamental principles of advertising is if you can take the main benefit of the category and make it the property of your brand, you will have a massive and enduring advantage over your competitors.’ (I don’t think it’s always enduring, by the way. In fact, it is often generic relevance factors that make category leaders vulnerable to differentiated challengers.)

10.  Choosing Difference as a way to heal the rift between Differentiation and Distinction (Byron Sharp et al.) may seem like a cop-out, but it isn’t. It is a mindful ‘bothism’. On a strategy practice level, you work with what you have, and that can be either or both.

Layer 3: win conditions for successful creative ideas, particularly in marketing communications (adding Truth to the top of Recognition+Surprise)

11.  Moving to the creative leap… The interplay between recognition and surprise is discussed by McAlhone & Stuart in the introduction to the first edition of ‘A smile in the mind’ probably The Partners’ greatest contribution to design’s body of knowledge. They discuss it mostly in relation to ‘wit in graphic design’ but it works well outside design and into branding, advertising, brand strategy and marketing.

12.  They develop ‘Recognition’ and ‘Surprise’ out of Bergson’s philosophy of Humour. He calls it ‘The familiar’ and ‘The play’. McGraw & Warren describe humour as ‘Benign violation’ – a similar construct. Familiar things are typically perceived as more benign than ‘strang(er) things’.

13.  When they McAlhone & Stuart discuss the effect of ‘wit’ they write ‘Some witty ideas provoke a laugh, some a smile. Some an inward nod of respect, some a feeling of awe.’. I believe this applies to good ideas in general and points to the importance of ‘cognitive engagement’ (which digital marketing amplified to obsession, while often emptying it of actual meaning).

14.  By way of apology to bundling wit and humour with all other ‘good creative stuff’. I’ll offer this thought – when you think about how crucial and prevalent humour is in many examples of successful marketing (sadly in decline together with much of creative advertising) it makes sense to see humour as a go-to short-cut ("cognitive/behavioural hack") to hitting a mixture of truth, recognition and surprise – which are not only something our brains like (laughter probably predates language) but also consequently hit the aforementioned marketing win conditions.

15.  The gap at the top of the third triangle is filled by the word Truth. Why? Because it works with the other triangles, obviously. After multiple versions, the inspiration came from that same introduction to SITM that quotes Dorothy Parker as the quintessential wit when it comes to language. It reminded me of her quote ‘Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply callisthenics with words.’ which pointed the right direction to completing the three creativity win conditions in a way that fills the final gap in the model in a pleasing manner. Also – Just how much mediocre marketing is simply wisecracking without truth? That’s what happens when you abandon integrity. It’s a bit of a throwback to McCann-Erickson’s ‘Truth well told.’ which is good advice.

16.  Why truth and not authenticity? Because I like the idea of something that is deeper and unchanging. And true rather than merely perceived to be so.

And as to my own work as a strategist – It’s just as much about building bridges between the triangles as it is about uncovering and devising the answers that go into them.

Those are the fundamental ‘footnotes�� to the model. Let me know if they spark any thoughts or if I missed any other references or examples.

Get email notifications for this series and beyond by signing up here