Yoni Block, CEO of Interlude, Israeli rock star, Member of Y&R's Spark Plug program

Yesterday you may have read this AdWeek piece on Spark Plug, Y&R’s internal/external initiative to “embrace innovation in the digital space.” It’s a progressive idea, bringing outside companies inside the four walls of our agency. I’ve had the opportunity to play a role in this project, acting as a sort of liaison between the outside companies and Y&R and the Y&R account teams.  As you can imagine, such a proposition isn’t necessarily an easy thing to pull off. It’s new and different and scary for some (because it’s new and different), but at the heart of it, it’s an acknowledgement that things move quickly and providing new, innovative ideas to our clients is our number one priority.

As Y&R’s global CEO, David Sable, says in the article, [advertising has] “always been an innovative industry. It’s [all about] understanding that that’s in the industry’s DNA.” Today, innovation is coming at us faster than ever. The role of the agency partner is evolving and only those agencies that can adapt to, and harness, innovation will have a future.

The agency’s role then becomes how to understand these innovations and marry them to creative storytelling through the filter of the client’s brand. No easy task and not something that a small, specialized agency, no matter how good at their discipline, is likely to be able to do.

One of my favorite sayings is: “Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick two.”  It’s something most associated with design and is a pithy way of saying ‘Please respect what we do.’  But it could go for just about any creative or production job.  It makes a great venn diagram too. I particularly like this version which adds ‘free’ as an option as well:

All you need to know.

Another one of my favorite quotes comes from noted author/journalist, A.J. Liebling, who said:

“I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write faster than anybody who can write better.”

Thinking about these quotes the other day, it occurred to me that the former deals with absolutes while the latter has more wiggle room. Liebling, in this one line, has positioned himself as a solution to a problem, and a flexible solution at that.

But really, in order to get the flexibility of the solution, it might be better expressed as:

The notion of faster and better has a fluidity that ‘fast’ or ‘best’ does not. It’s not a fixed point, but rather a space in which to manoever. Liebling’s not saying he’s the best or the fastest. That’s not only a difficult standard to uphold, but it’s hard to defend as well. And ultimately, it removes a large part of the customer base from the equation. In a world of wild claims, Liebling’s positioning just sounds more reasonable.

So, is it possible to apply ‘The Rule of Liebling” to the ”Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick two.” model? I’d like to believe the answer is ‘yes.’  It would require a change in thinking from the ”Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick two.” crowd. It means shifting to a more fluid, flexible business model, dare I say agile? It means accepting that there are many shades of ‘good,’ ‘fast’ and ‘cheap.’

Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of Liebling’s death, yet his style and wisdom remain relevant today. If you don’t know the man of his writing, read this Slate piece, The Church of Liebling from a few years ago.

The classic "Hard Power" symbol of advertising agencies

I’ve been digging in to the December / January issue of Monocle magazine which includes their 2011/12 Soft Power survey. As always, the issue is absolutely stuffed with though-provoking insights.  The Soft Power survey looks at how countries behave as global actors outside the “Hard Power” tools of military might. The notion of Soft Power was first put forward by Joseph Nye in his book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power.

In my job as Creative Culturalist at Y&R New York, this notion of Soft Power is quite intriguing. Soft Power and culture go hand-in-hand. I began to think what Soft Power (and by extension Hard Power) would mean for an advertising agency. Hard Power, as I chose to define it, would be things like the clients, the talent, the physical location, the awards. Those are the elements agencies most frequently wield, compete on and measure, to judge themselves against other agencies.  Ironically, these are probably the types of things that would classically fall under the Soft Power category when viewed through the lens of nations but like traditional Hard Power these often require the largest ‘hard costs’ as well. This of course is a dual-edged sword.  Once culture is affected by idealogical (or economic) change, Hard Power symbols can become an albatross. A Madison Avenue address doesn’t hold the same meaning today that it did in the time of David Ogilvy and Bill Bernbach. My own agency recently announced plans to move to Columbus Circle.

Agency Soft Power is probably something that has also been around for a while, but it’s been harder to define and measure. Like so many other things though, social media helps to add some depth to this notion. It would be easy to measure agency Soft Power by things like Twitter followers, Klout scores or positive mentions on AgencySpy. But just as in the more traditional definition of Soft Power, it’s not just about the agency, but how the agency helps support the needs of others. This could include pro bono work, hosting industry events, supporting educational programs for the next generation of ad execs, or trying new and innovative things that help move the industry forward.

Ultimately these sort of Soft Power activities may not show up on the bottom line, but they can help to change perception of the agency among both potential clients and perspective employees. Viewed in this light, one might see agencies with Ministers of Culture and Foreign Affairs in the future. In 2012 the notion of Soft Power is one I hope to explore more as I look to help create, shape and promote the Y&R agency culture.

Could this go to an Ad Agency someday?

I just finished reading Jane McGonigal’s terrific book, Reality is Broken. It’s a great read if you are interested in game mechanics, psychology and human emotion. But she also wrote something else in the book that caught my attention. On page 312, when speaking of the game World Without Oil that she designed, she said:

“It’s the project that inspired me to define my biggest hope for the future: that a game developer would soon be worthy of a Nobel Prize.”

Now, back when Donkey Gong was the apex of game development, that notion probably would have seemed pretty silly. But if you read Reality is Broken, you won’t dismiss the notion quickly. McGonigal makes some pretty convincing arguments for the power of games. But the reaction I had to her audacious goal was: What would it take for an ad agency to be worthy of a Nobel Prize?

It takes a bit of a cognitive shift to get your head around the idea, doesn’t it? How could people responsible for these gems be mentioned in the same sentence as Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King, Jr.? But that’s a false argument. The Nobel Prize is awarded on the merits of the candidates, not against a benchmark of selet former winners.

But back to the question: What would it take for an ad agency to be worthy of a Nobel Prize?

Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about winning CLIOs or Cannes Lions or other ad agency industry gongs.  We’re speaking of the actual Nobel Prize.

What would it take to get into consideration? Interestingly enough, I think ad agencies are perfectly suited to do something like this. Here’s what we know ad agencies are good at doing:

• Telling a compelling story
• Getting people to take action
• Coordinating global efforts
• Changing people’s existing perceptions about an issue
• Delivering an emotional impact
• Using a variety of channels in a coordinated effort
• Leveraging passionate, motivated people deeply invested in their work

That would seem to be a pretty good list of traits for getting global attention, and action, on behalf of an issue. Surely there are people in the advertising industry with the clout to launch such an ambitious venture.  So what’s keeping this from happening? Maybe it just needs to be said out loud for starters. It’s easier to imagine something once you see it on paper (or on-screen as the case may be).

Now, ad agency types aren’t always well known for their largesse, so I’m under no illusion that this will be easy. But there is hope. CP+B and Hyper Island just launched this effort, called 72 Hours for Peace. What is it:

Hyper Island and CP+B launches a creative commons database of ideas for positive global change. During 72 Hours, all Hyper Island students join forces to generate ideas, create solutions and explore ways to leverage technology to encourage peace within their communities.

Ok, that’s a start. But let’s think bigger, aim higher. What if we kept the idea of winning a Nobel Prize, but set the goal to win it in 10 years. That completely changes the optics again. Now how might that work?

Perhaps this initiative is driven by the AAF, 4A’s or some other, global, advertising organization. Each year a different agency would be chosen to lead the initiative, with employees volunteering their time. Each year the torch would be passed to another agency. The 10-year time frame gives the idea an epic scale beyond a one-time, focused event or even a campaign. This would be something much bigger.

From disarmament to racial tolerance to political detente, there are plenty of topics to tackle. Perhaps the best part of this is that success is assured. Even if the Nobel Prize proves elusive, the effort will still have made an impact of some kind. Perhaps this is all wishful thinking. Ad agencies have plenty to keep them busy without tilting at windmills. But maybe just thinking this way would change an agency’s approach to tackling a client’s challenge. It’s worth considering.

Savvy readers will recognize the title of this post as the title of the legendary book by David Ogilvy.  But this time the Advertising Man in question is not Mr. Ogilvy, but me. What do I have in common with the Madison Avenue legend? Well, mostly nothing (accept this I suppose), other than I too, now work at a Madison Avenue ad agency, Young & Rubicam.

And so now I, with apologies to Ogilvy, will offer my own confession. Yesterday we had an “all hands on deck meeting” for the entire NY office. Without divulging the details, I will say that I was absolutely blown away by some of the work that was shared. It was, as was the entire meeting, really energizing. I’ve never worked at a “big ad agency” before but have always held such agencies in high regard. Yesterday those feelings were justified. Y&R North American CEO Carter Murray and Y&R New York Chief Creative Officer Jim Elliott both spoke passionately and eloquently about the people and the work of Y&R, and what it means to work at an agency such as this.

I found myself thinking, “I want to do good work, better work. I want to do work that these people, my new colleagues, will be proud to be associated with.”  Maybe that’s corny, or maybe that’s me with a new job, but I was truly inspired by the people and the work.

Y&R New York is an agency in transition. There’s new leadership and an energy pervades the building. I’m extremely excited about some of the projects I’m going to be working on, some client based, some agency based. I’m looking forward to sharing some of them with you when the time is right.

One of the issues I had to deal with in taking my new job at Y&R was that of title. This was going to be a new role for the agency, so there was no precedent, no legacy to step into. As an acknowledged disciple of Grant McCracken, Chief Culture Officer was certainly appealing, but not appropriate as I’m certainly not a member of the C-Suite.  We finally settled on Creative Culturalist, though there was a moment when I balked at that title. This recent Ad Age piece by Lars Bastholm titled (no pun intended) The Trouble With Titles makes my hesitancy understandable. Here’s another interesting piece by Daniel Banks, whom I stole this image from.

But maybe the problem isn’t with the titles themselves, but with the way people are, or rather aren’t, embodying those titles. A few years back I did a little search on Twellow looking for some key words relating to popular titles or self-descriptions:

• Guru – 6,630 results
• Diva – 3,555
• Rock Star – 968

That’s a lot of awesome out there. And there was, and is, some (a lot?) of push back and ridicule for these titles. Here’s my issue: If you’re going to call yourself a Rock Star, then act like a Rock Star. So many of the people using that honorific have sensible hair cuts and wear mom jeans, or are sporting suits you might pick up at The Men’s Warehouse.

Why not fully embody the term, really own it. If you want to be a Rock Star, then dress like Lady Gaga or act like Keith Richards. Make a dramatic entrance, give wild proclamations, do theatrical presentations. Are you calling yourself a Guru? Then read the definition and devote yourself to bringing that to life (hint, tweeting a lot ain’t it). If you are a ninja, then you better be decimating your competition in full stealth mode.

I think we resent people with these titles not because they’ve gone too far, but because they haven’t gone far enough. They’ve broken the unspoken contract by not living up to our expectations of those terms. Would truly behaving like a Rock Star turn some people off? Yes, but others would appreciate your commitment. Right now people just think you’re a douchebag.

So, for me being the Creative Culturalist at Y&R has to be more than handing out a business card and having a nice conversation starter. I have to embody the title, at least in effort even if the execution may fail. That’s why I wanted to do an infographic about being a Creative Culturalist. It’s a bit different, and in a culturally relevant way. It’s now my job to continue to find creative ways for me to engage with culture not just as an output of my job, but as an integral part of the raison d’etre for the job itself.