One of those days means one of these posts. There are two topics that intertwine here, so hear me out.Originally called ‘Does compromise win awards?’ I then rewrote it as ‘Compromise equals mediocrity.’ Then yet again as I settled on the current gem. They’re all related.
You heard the stories of players who hated each other, yet still won a championship together, (like Kobe and Shaq). Thing is though, they’re also talented as well. That never was the issue. The little day-to-day bullshit was.
Applying that scenario to the creative world, I wanna hear from anyone who’s won their share of awards or been in a shop that places a premium on them, and then please reinforce what the voices in my head are telling me:
There will always be some degree of arguement or discussion en route to producing great creative, and that not everyone will get along with everyone all the time. Which is ok, this is normal. Just as long as everyone’s focused on killer work, and has the chops to pull it off.
But not when they don’t.
Sorry, but I can’t let go of the idea that compromise equals mediocrity. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that the whole team getting along with each other is more important than making the actual creative the best it can be.
Not saying either that we should have knockdown dragouts 24/7 – that helps nobody – but I have to know that if I say X is better than Y based on my experience, your hurt feelings won’t become the issue.
Likewise, I will always defer to the better idea in the room – if it’s better. I may hate that I didn’t come up with it, but I will still admit it’s better and support it.
Compromise waters down the strength of an idea, and ultimately it also means while everyone can sleep at night knowing their contribution was not only heard, but implemented, it also leads to the death of that idea.
Don’t get me wrong, two people can have a heated discussion over the appropriateness of something. I expect some passion there. But not on little things like typeface selection.
I want to know if in your experience, creating work under compromising situations has worked for you or not. For me, little by little, stuff like that eats away at the edges of a project, and your sanity.
(Post anonymously if you need to on this to safeguard your current jobs, but I want to hear your horror and success stories.)
Tags: advertising, brands, viral
9 comments:
I personally don't like disagreement as it takes time, and time is our only resource
also, a couple of days later something usually happens that renders the whole argument meaningless
I definitely think better ads come when you get along... but then for that to be true, you also have to be good. probably not both of you, but it helps :)
I don't like working with people i don't get along with (or just don't really-get-along-with-well... with) because I'm less likely to want to spend time with them. I'm also less likely to throw stupid ideas out there, and that's where the best concepts often come from.
Good feedback scamp/rikki. I need to want to be with them too, but just not at the expense of the work.
Are you talking the whole agency or account team or just the creative team? My own experience is that the best creative work gets produced when the whole agency/account team is on the same page. But the best creative team I ever saw was one where the writer and art director never really agreed. They got along but would bitch about each other in private. The writer was always out there, a little too wild and the art director always reined in their thinking. The result was pitch-perfect, award-winning work for which I still respect/hate them. And no, they're not together anymore.
ID - whole agency but also curious about team dynamics.
The only thing i hate is when more than one team is briefed to beat the deadline. Thats when worst shit happens.
I don't work on the creative end, but... in general, "compromise" implies that way too much discussion has gone into a single subject (think hours of talk). As one of my account people always says, "Can't we just put a stake in the ground?"
Great work, whether it be in creative or media arenas, requires risk. Compromise squashes risk, and vanilla mediocrity follows.
There are two kinds of arguements. Honest disagreements over what is best, and petty disagreements that are just proxies for personal issues.
The first is good for teams, and can push everyone to create better work. No idea should ever just be accepted, it needs to be tested and torn apart and put back together again. That kind of creative friction leads to greatness.
The second is poison for teams. Because two or more people don't get along, they will purposely find flaws that aren't important, and then drag everyone into a giant arguement over them to attempt to score points against the other person. That wastes everyone's time, and a compromise doesn't help. The problem the compromise is solving was never the real problem anyway, so you end up with a weaker piece of work and a team that still has personal issues boiling under the surface.
I agree hundred percent on the argument part.
Sometimes I have had people coming up to me to ask why I replaced the indefinite article with a definite one. I used to goggle in disbelief over their ignorance. Now I simply tell them that the change brings it into the W3C rules for content publishing.
I hate to compromise, but often I end up helplessly begging pathetic seniors, to change a word. Their excuse: It's been that way. That's usually my cue to shut up.
Often, the changes are rejected not because they are not good, but simply to prove a point - their seniority. But, the reason given, is always the former.
A feud in a team/company should be restricted only to professional levels. Like ID mentioned, they do a great job when they have opposite ideas. But when it gets personal, there can only be bad blood and not good work..
Too much of me rambling here... Hope I made some sense.
Regards,
Anonymous Coward.
Post a Comment