The Week: Best of the blogs - Creative vs Planning

by Rory Sutherland, www.brandrepublic.com/campaign, Campaign 22-Aug-08

This was the debate at the IPA (Who make better planners? Planners or creatives?). David Golding vs Dave Trott. And, my sweet Lord, was it good!

I, however, have a slightly odd take on this argument (if I were a
planner I would probably describe my stance as being Feuerabendian). My
position is that I completely accept the value which planners and other

specialists can add to the creative output of an agency - and I believe

that varied groups of people are a good thing. But I believe our
current, sequential approach to using different talents is not the way
to get the most from our mix of talents.

In a single sentence my view is: "Planning + creative = good; planning
> creative = bad."

In short, I believe that the way our business now tends to make "being
interesting" subordinate to "being logical" is the single greatest
reason why a lot of advertising is awful (and explains why the number of
people who "believe the ads are as good as the programmes" has been in
constant decline for more than 20 years).

So, in a sentence, I think both disciplines are equally valuable. But I
think creativity needs affirmative action more than planning does. In
particular, the assumption that planning always gets to work on the
problem first shows an inherent bias in our thinking which is not only
uncreative, it's also downright unscientific.

As one creative remarked to a planner: "You and I both drink from the
same well of inspiration. The difference is that you get to piss in it
first."