Too many cooks ...

Without compromise, nothing can be achieved in many areas. Think of diplomacy: We would likely be at constant war with one another if it weren’t for the wise, experienced people who, time and again, try to negotiate solutions that all parties involved can live with. So it seems obvious that teamwork and the ability to work well with others are at the top of the list of desired skills for most companies and their HR managers. And that meetings have become a hallmark of our business life. After all, what’s wrong with teamwork, collaboration, committees, and the seemingly noble intention of wanting to consider as many different ideas and opinions as possible and integrate them into a project? Viewed objectively: quite a lot. Especially in marketing and advertising.

One Message Too Many

It all starts with the message we want to convey. Even at this most basic level, there is often a great deal of confusion because different parties want to get different messages across to men and women, respectively. The product management team wants to highlight a new feature they’ve been working intensively on for three years and of which they’re understandably proud. The sales team wants to promote a limited-time sales campaign because they need an «immediate increase in revenue»; top management wants to «communicate our entire product line so people know what we do,» the CMO might have the idea of communicating the company’s «purpose,» while the agency, in turn, suggests a different message—and so on and so forth.

Those who didn't understand disappeared

As early as the 1960s, advertising expert Rosser Reeves (who, by the way, became famous for his USP concept—which you’re surely familiar with) warned advertisers that communicating multiple themes at once would dilute their message and render their advertising largely ineffective. Many who heeded his advice went on to create famous, successful brands. Those who did not gradually faded into obscurity. «The more messages you try to communicate, the less likely it is that even a single message will get through»—that was also the finding of a large-scale study conducted by the market research firm Millward Brown (now Kantar) a few years ago. Nothing has changed in this regard—and it never will. There are a few timeless truths in marketing and advertising that have to do with what advertising expert Bill Bernbach called the «unchanging human being»; this is one of them.

«Great advertising ideas always look so simple, so the job must be a piece of cake, right?»

Where there is no criticism, there is no creativity

But compromise isn’t just about conflicting messages. Even if your ad contains a single, strong message or idea, it’s still at risk. A good advertising idea is often somewhat polarizing. This means that a good idea is often an easy target. A bland idea, on the other hand—which should actually be the easy target—often gets through because (to the untrained eye) there’s nothing about it that could provoke opposition. It was Bill Bernbach, once again, who said the following: «If you stand for something, you’ll always find some people for you and some people against you. If you stand for nothing, you’ll find no one against you and no one for you.» It’s a hard truth to swallow for many who make their living in marketing, but when marketing decisions (or advertising messages) are filtered through too many sieves, it’s no wonder that often only dust remains. The result is then lackluster, uninspired advertising that no one objects to, but to which no one will react either.

Big Teams, Small Ideas

In my experience, that’s why larger teams simply can’t create good advertising. Sure, several people can contribute to or improve it, especially if they’re the right ones (that is, experienced, talented professionals), such as a good creative director, a savvy client, an intelligent product manager, experienced copywriters, art directors, planners—and so on. But the more people who try their hand at an advertising idea, the less interesting and less effective it will generally be. And the more opinions and «ideas» you try to reconcile, the weaker and less convincing the end result will be. That’s why I’m deeply convinced that while compromises may sound nice in meeting rooms, they jeopardize the creation of great ads. My credo is: «If you want to create good advertising, you have to get rid of everything that harms it—including compromises.»

Groupthink is group idiocy

A unique, brilliant idea is usually conceived by one or two people who know what they’re doing. In any case, over the past 30 years, I can’t recall a single instance where truly good ideas were brought to life by a larger team. I’m not alone in this opinion, by the way. The famous art director George Lois said: «Groundbreaking creative decisions are almost always made by one, two, or perhaps three people who are in harmony with one another. Broader, collective thinking usually leads to stagnation or worse. […] Groupthink and collective decision-making inevitably end in chaos.» The same applies to committees of decision-makers, whether at an agency or on the client side. The more people have a say, the worse the result will be. I’ve been through presentations where, after discussing an idea with his staff, the client asked for «just a small change to the headline and a different image»—which, of course, would have rendered the entire idea absurd. And I also remember how I once presented a truly strong idea to a client, only to later find that, after so-called «minor modifications» by their marketing and sales team, I no longer even recognized it myself.

A Glance Over the Shoulder

It’s no coincidence that David Ogilvy insisted that when you hire a professional to create a masterpiece, you should «keep the students away from him—the ones who look over his shoulder and offer suggestions for improvement.» I believe there’s no other field in business where more people feel called upon to «contribute» than in advertising. After all, «everyone is creative,» and great advertising ideas always look so simple—so the job must be a piece of cake, right? I can only quote the advertising pioneer Claude C. Hopkins, who said: «These men would not dare to dictate the next incision to a surgeon. Or tell a lawyer how to win a particular case. Or tell an artist how to paint a picture. They recognize technical expertise in such professions. But not in advertising, which seems so simple to them […]. They don’t realize that, in truth, a lifetime isn’t long enough to learn much more than the basics of the art of advertising.»

The more, the worse

That’s why the rule is: The more people are involved who really shouldn’t be meddling, the worse it gets. That’s why I’m firmly convinced that you don’t need a «meeting» to create advertising; instead, you simply need the right (usually very few) people to develop a strong idea. Once again, George Lois: «Teamwork might work when building a barn, but it doesn’t create a Big Idea. […] Only once you have that Big Idea does teamwork come into play—to sell it, produce it, and implement it.»

Still not convinced? Then listen to what advertising legend David Ogilvy had to say about group creativity: «In my experience, committees can criticize, but they can’t create. Search the parks in all your cities. You won’t find any statues of committees.»

If you don’t trust either him or me, you might be interested in what advertising veteran Mark Aronson (formerly Vice President and Creative Director at BBDO) wrote to me after reading the first draft of this text. If his story doesn’t convince you, nothing will: «I once found myself in a terrible situation where, during a »creative’ meeting attended by over twenty people, the person in charge set up a series of committees to develop creative concepts. After a certain amount of time, each group presented its ideas, all of which were duly noted on a giant whiteboard. We were then all given stickers to place in front of our favorites; that’s how the winner was determined. Needless to say, it was the most boring idea of them all, and no one ever heard anything about it again. The meeting was nevertheless considered a success. Not by me. But what I think of meetings is a whole other story; let’s not even get started on that.”

Thomas M. Braun He is a marketing and communications consultant and gives lectures and seminars on these topics. Previously, he was the head of marketing at a leading global packaging company and owned his own advertising agency with an international client portfolio.