So some more on what I talked about at VCU. As the previous post talked about, I believe planning is broken as all the data suggests that more often than not the work isn't working. And that's our primary responsibility as planners.
Before I post on some thoughts on working better with creatives, I think there's three things about us and what we do that we can address.
The first is to break our laziness and challenge some of the ways we think and do. Whether or not we like it, most of our thinking is based on archaic assumptions about how the world and communication works that are wrong (this is at the heart of what Mark and I talked about at the planning conference). The truth is our models of thinking and doing are based on an anomaly in the era of communication, the TV era. Our job is to be inquisitive and find the truths about what approach might best solve a problem, not default to a way of thinking and doing that has been passed on from generation to generation like sacred manuscripts. And as every business, brand and problem is different it is incumbent on planners to blow up the 'one size fits all' proprietary methodology that has become so commonplace in our industry.
Second, we need to remember the real reason why Stanley Pollitt invented planning. It was not to be simply 'the voice of the consumer'. Rather, it was to apply some controlled friction to the development of advertising. If the job of the creative is to make the work 'good' and the job of account management to make the work happen, the job of the planner is to make sure the work works. And we do this by providing informed inspiration. This inspiration can be informed from a far broader range of inputs than just the consumer. It can come from the company itself (what it believes, why it was formed), culture, media, technology, even tangential areas like learnings in the social sciences, etc. This also means this is the lens we should primarily use to develop and 'judge' work.
Third, we need as a discipline to become more humble I believe. As much as I hope none of us believe it, there is a lot of talk in the marketing press as planners as 'rock stars'. The truth is we are one cog in a machine, one part of an ecosystem that produces the one thing that matters - the work. So we may think we've done some smart analysis of data or found a really interesting point of view but unless it's useful in making the working better it really is of no use.
I'll post some more stuff on what I later talked about in terms of better ways for planers to work with creatives.
Love this post, Gareth -- especially your first point. Funny isn't it, I've always felt the best planners constantly brought a refreshing clarity to the enterprise -- now planning itself is in need. And thanks so much for following up "is planning broken?" with thoughtful ideas. That question, left unanswered, is one our worst cliches.
Posted by: Roger Baxter | August 18, 2007 at 04:40 PM
A somewhat different point of view...
http://povfromindia.blogspot.com/2007/08/future-of-strategic-planning-published.html
Posted by: Mythili Chandrasekar | August 18, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Great article. I think however the context should be wider, in Pollitt's/King's day ads drove the business. Now, they do not. Therefore the planner should be more a business planner, but then how does this type of person inspire work? Are they two skillsets? Having worked at Ingram, I can say yes, but there are solutions.
Posted by: Duncan James | August 20, 2007 at 06:33 AM