Move forwards by working backwards

I once read somewhere that advertising is about applying 'logic' and 'magic'. First logic tells you X. Then magic helps you realise that Y.

In principle, this made a lot of sense to me. And it was simple enough for other people to understand the different stages of the process. You apply logic to make sense of a specific scenario and find the opportunity (the 'strategy'). Then you apply a bit of spark to explore that opportunity in interesting ways (the 'creative'). Simple. Useful. But incomplete once you start thinking about it.

Not because both those steps aren't necessary (they are). But because it suggests that they always follow a pre-determined order (they don't). This makes strategists sound like logical analysts, not creative thinkers. Which, if you're half decent at the job, is not true.

I prefer thinking more like the fine folk at Sword & Stone, who say that 'all strategy is creative'. Great analysis can be very creative as well. So we don't always do logic followed by magic; sometimes we do both in sequence. Sometimes we do it the other way around. And that's ok too.

The purists of brand strategy will say that great solutions follow great analysis. After all, as strategists we're 'the gatekeepers of the truth'. The "account man's conscience", to quote Stephen King. Except of course, 'truth' in itself is a slippery concept. And sometimes it does more harm than good when it comes to creativity. These days you can find proof to any 'truth' you choose to defend, which makes the whole exercise a bit pointless.

Logic before magic is why we see a lot of bland 'strategies' in this industry's media. "We know people want live streaming, so our strategy is to provide live streamed content". Which is like saying if people like quick service, our strategy is to provide quick service. Works wonders if you run it past a focus group, but good luck surviving the jungle reality of the market.

In reality, sometimes you only move forwards by working backwards. That is, you have a fucking great idea and then you use logic to test whether it's right. Different approach but often more effective. It saves you resources, time, wasted cognitive energy. It sure saves you on the number of slides 'to give context to the strategic thinking'). And it does make the job more fun. More imaginative. More about debate. Less about research harakiri.

Too much logic can lead you down an over-baked pie. Data sources are great to help you come up with initial hypotheses. Initial ideas. Stuff you can go and test for real. But that's not the same as saying that 'the data said this so we're doing that'. Data doesn't think; you do.

Don't get me wrong. 'Logic and magic' is a great way to summarise the work we do. It echoes what a lot of other great planners have said in the past. Heidi Hackemer says 'all planners are schizo', nerds and poets in one go. Martin Weigel suggests he as a planner is actually part of the creative team. We're all in this together. Logic gives credibility to your thinking. But it doesn't have to be the starting point to doing something interesting. Sometimes it's just a good way to test (and sell) a fucking great idea.