The Brief!
The one word that scares any ‘Client Servicing’ person in the ad agency. It is the eternal ‘Damocles sword’ that hangs over his/her head. One that easily invites ‘creative’ mocking, judgement and lectures about ‘thinking out of the box’.
The Brief!
It is the perfect platform for ‘servicing’ and ‘creative’ to take each other on:-
When the requirement is urgent, “there’s no time to write a Brief” thunders ‘servicing’; when important details are missing in the creative, ‘servicing’ gets to do a “you don’t even read the (painfully prepared) Brief” reprimand.
‘Creative’ often hides behind the ‘Brief’ when the dark clouds of deadlines loom in. Just when Client Servicing people have that slender chance of knocking them off their feet, they’ll get back with a “the Brief wasn’t clear; or the Brief was wrong; or the Brief didn’t say that” retort.
Picture a tennis court where a lob is perfectly placed for the smash; only for the smash to land into the net! ‘Servicing’ teams often end up having to succumb to this ‘unforced error’! Both sides share the spoils.
The Brief thus strives to balance between a weapon and the perfect excuse.
Sporting and ‘creative’ teams with grace also at times commend the ‘servicing’ team - “it was a very inspiring Brief”.
What is a ‘Brief’? It is nothing more than a document which details out the task, addressing questions like what is to be advertised/promoted, why, when, where, how and to whom? And importantly, what should they that read/see a communication understand and believe, and why they better go to the store, pick up the phone, or open a url and see… in short: why must they respond?
I always believed, there can be no single format that can cater to every brand or product an agency handles. Each of them are different in their own ways - products, perceptions, presentation, history, current societal background and the like. ‘Briefs’ likewise, have to ‘adjust maadi’ (simply adjust) a little.
In the context of ‘Tanishq’, ‘Fab India’, and ‘Dabur’, and a growing list of hapless brands, would the classic format for the ‘Brief’ remain, or will it now begin to change? Will ad agencies be forced to start thinking ‘within the box’?
The father-like figure at the ad agency I worked at, used to advise us to look beyond the directly intended target audience. His take was, including non-buyers - influencers and opinion makers - in the ‘target group’ would perhaps ensure them take note, make a comment, even recommend, and thus result in an indirect push for a product / service (even when it came to media planning). This was said much before the world of social media, and the phenomenon of “influencers” began to burst onto our screens. This is now more relevant in India today, than 15 years ago when he mentioned it. Just that, the canvas of this audience may be much wider and different than originally thought of. A canvas that represents those who await the slightest provocation to get upset, get offended, create a ruckus, secure their 5-minute fame, and “stay relevant” when their existence otherwise wouldn’t have mattered.
If the social media that represents only a fraction of India’s population (and an even smaller fraction of actual intended customers), can increasingly dictate terms to films, dressing styles, eating habits and now the world of advertising, we need to think.
In an ideal situation, this may not be needed. But we stopped living in ideal times a while ago.
So today’s target audience for advertisements may have to also include:
a wider net of non-buyers
irrelevant onlookers (for the brand) but waiting to get offended
whose intention in looking at an advertisement may be to tick the boxes regarding ‘certain non negotiable’ aspects
where, the feedback they generate online (or even otherwise), have the power to create ill-repute for the brand or drag it into a pit, from which crawling back out may be difficult and will leave the brand severely muddied
they may be sensible and embrace modernity in their looks, but behave otherwise
Creative departments and clients have to deal with the question: do you want to risk the brand getting into awkward positions* and invite the wrath of the above mentioned, and risk physical damage and loss to client and agency property.
Simply put, that new bullet point should be: Current Social Background. But how much responsibility do clients and agencies have, in avoiding such situations?
Though no where comparable at all, let me recount two instances from my early days:
I remember during one of our early interventions for a south Indian brand, a Dasara festival advertisement was designed, where the heading sported the word: “Dusshera”. The client jumped out of his seat, and admonished us saying: “in Karnataka we say Dasara, not anything else. We don’t say Dusshera here”. Needless to say, never again did the Bangalore office use the other term.
Similarly, an exhibition poster for a travel brand was designed; the year was 2002. The lead image was a fascinating one from the Kabini river banks, with the unmissable highlight on a herd of elephants enjoying a playful time. The poster was taken for approval - those days printed and ‘mounted’, and not on a laptop screen! Here, the client, while rejecting the creative, said: “We should never use this image for anything”. The problem was the foreground of the image… dozens of tree stumps clearly visible to the eye. He continued: “imagine we show this on an international platform… how will those attuned to environment issues perceive our brand and state? It will be negative… we don’t want that”. I remember it took quite a lot of convincing for the creative department to finally agree to withdraw the image. It was never again used.
Both the instances are about nuanced technical matters, and not even remotely connected to the current controversies. If such nuances mattered then, and continue matter now, how much more as we live in these times must everything else matter today! ‘Servicing’ / ‘Creative’ departments and clients better understand the times we live in (not ideal), and pre-empt an ugly situation instead of having to react with the back to the wall. Well, if the intention of advertising by the brand is to ease into the headlines on television, newspapers, and generate a sumptuous help of ‘blogomentary and vlogomentary’, and get more than a lion’s share of mentions, then none of these matter. Just simply go on ahead with the “enticement”.
That said, it is also absolutely unfair for the other side to lie in an ambush and pounce on brands to ‘nip in the bud’ anything that challenges their stubborn beliefs.
*this doesn’t include selection of models or their demo/psychographics