Why I'll never hire a full time creative director

The centre point of most advertising agencies is their creative director. They seem to drive the agency brand, the client's brand, the internal culture and the agency processes for workflow too. Some have said that this creates an ego at the same time. The way that work flows through the business is that once the creative director has made a decision on the way the work should go, then the entire agency is required to support this position without question, even if it is strategically NOT in the client's best interest. This blind following for the sake of agency process is something I will never fall into in my business, ever.

I've been in both agencies and client side, and seen enough times the creative director being plain wrong, serving themselves, in pursuit of the next award, or to support their network of friends; and definitely not always with the client's best interest in mind.

I've seen a female, senior, creative director rest her boobs on the meeting room table and lean forward to flirtatiously plead for the (male) client to approve her concept, which was off brand, off strategy, and from a completely different brand palette than the rest of the work being produced for that campaign, all for the sake of how important it was to work with a world renowned film director* and her own likelihood of a craft award over it.

I've seen the creative director recommend a film director that certainly did not have the skills or the work on his reel in order to do the job at hand and the budget suspiciously loaded with excessive costs. Their friendship obvious to me, but no one else it seems, and the ethics of this stinking at the core to me. Mysteriously, the agency team was 4 days late in delivering showreels or budget breakdowns to the client, and giving the client only 10 minutes to approve the budget. In case you don't know, an agency should be able to provide a breakdown of any budget they do within 5 minutes, and if not something is up. If it wasn't approved on the spot (despite $300K too much in the budget) then they'd pull the whole job, saying they were not able to meet a critical deadline if it wasn't approved immediately. Funny that. For those that haven't experienced this - this is what professional manipulation looks like, and 'having your back pinned against the wall'.

I've seen the creative director support the lesser experienced creatives over a supplier choice even when the skillset was not there, for the sake of 'giving the young ones a go'. This was only ever to be at the expense of the brand, and as it turned out the work was substandard and just as I expected; the brand compromised. The producer was forced to present the work as if fully supporting it despite fighting hard to stop it. (Note that I'm not saying young people can't do great work - just not this one!)

Junior creatives are often stacked onto jobs they don't really need to be involved in for the sake of their professional development and to feel good in the internal culture and their doubled up or tripled up time sheets being presented to clients as if a valid cost of creating the campaign. This makes the creative director a hero to their own team, but it certainly isn't in the business or the brand's best interest. Just because a time sheet exists, doesn't make it right. A more appropriate path is to give them tasks within their ability and let them grow in their roles at a pace that allows them to be autonomous, and not too soon for ego fluffing. If the agency wants to give them professional development opportunities then let the agency pay for it.

The rest of the agency in these instances is typically silenced by the expected protocols of agency life and everyone is forced to, or is blindly, supporting these decisions. This makes the rest of the agency look as if they support this work and process even if they don't really believe in it. In many cases it stops them from looking deeper and asking the more important questions - like whether it is strategically sound, it will work within the budget allocated, or that it is free of unconscious bias, or is likely to perform at it's best. Clients have no clue this is often going on behind the scenes because everyone came with a 'united voice' (which is the term used to make everyone comply). Silence at least condones these decisions at the very least. The fake certainty projected by the agency's 'united voice' creates social proof that plays on the clients' psychological instinct to believe what is being presented.

Of course there are good agencies that allow their people to have a voice and to have robust conversation to protect the brands they serve, and what I've described is not everyone... but truthfully, it is most I've ever experienced from every angle of the industry. I've worked across big agencies, from a supplier perspective in a film company, post house, VFX house, as a business coach, client side and in research. The same flaw in the system is evident anywhere I've been in this industry.

Not every creative director suits every brand, but in an agency the people in the chairs are the ones that an agency sells to the client. They need to cover their overheads and they need to support their internal team regardless if they are right or not. Many times they're innocently thinking their people can work on anything and everything too. If that were true, then how come we have so many campaigns being produced without appropriate alignment with the true target audience? One example I wrote about recently is the standard representation of family. Creative directors still show families as the typical 2.4 children with heterosexual couples but in actual fact Australia is made up of 68.7% NON-traditional families. So how come creative directors still approve or generate this work? It is on auto-pilot, perpetuating bias and failing their brands.

Some of the best creative talent no longer in agencies today are actually many of these former creative directors. I'm not at all bagging the individuals, and I rely on them in fact. But, for me is it the agency process that we need to break, and diffuse the inappropriate balance of power. We need better strategic thinking driving better performing content that is more customer focused - the true customer that is, not the one from the past or embedded with individuals' unconscious bias.

We need creative talent chosen appropriate to the actual brand's strategy, with category understanding, and a deep understanding of the true customer ....and with a conscious focus on breaking everyone's own personal bias.

We need a culture of openness and collaboration from all in the marketing process where everyone's input is considered, and only the right work for the brand, and the customer at home, is created.

I wonder sometimes if we even need to stop craft awards altogether and only have effectiveness awards? This is a little like benefitting from a commission structure that rewards excessive cost. This means that we are not negotiating best price because of a vested interest. Same thing. I'm not saying that all award winning work is ineffective at all and I know there is a valid link between effectiveness and creativity#, but there is much work that creative directors push hard for in the hope they will win, and it is at the expense of the brand's they serve in the process. Those that misguidedly think they have a chance of winning an award can also have poor judgment about what is right for their client too.

Amazingly creative and effective work is more likely driven by a commitment to brand performance, driven by insights^, and the award achievement may be the offshoot of that as a bonus in fact. It is the rest of the industry we need to worry about.

If someone thinks there is a strategic problem, they need the freedom to raise it and stand up on behalf of the brand or the customer, and no longer be silenced by the egotistical process agencies foster. By NOT having an in-house creative director at all, this circumvents this process completely. The best talent is then chosen for the right job, and strategy drives the results. And dare I say there is less ego.

Anne Miles is Managing Director of International Creative Services, winner of the Westpac 200 Business of Tomorrow. Anne is a brand strategist who is passionate about unconscious bias and strategic performance of marketing creative and works with some ethical and incredibly talented senior creative talent every day - with respect and appreciation for effective work.

*details changed to protect the identity of someone acting unprofessionally and still employed

#Gunn Report regularly demonstrates the link between effectiveness and creativity, including creatively awarded work. The question here is what came first, the cart or the horse? More HERE.

^ The Communications Council case studies are a great resource to show that the most effective campaign is based on research insights and the creative is therefore a result of being strategic for the purpose of brand performance. Here's an older one I can find in a hurry.. HERE