Permission to fail - Really it's fine.

Flying in to Shanghai

Welcome to Shanghai

Flying into Shanghai for the Creative Social in November last year, you’d never have guessed that the talk round the table would be of failure in the digital market. As we sat there in our sunny loft space, looking out on a country pulsing with new opportunity, we were coming to the end of another great year as an industry, and despite looming economic concerns it was definitely digital’s day.

So as we took our seats it was somehow refreshing to be considering the topic up for discussion – ‘Digital has failed”. The idea, prompted by a provocative article accusing the industry of having failed to take a commanding enough role, and of producing nothing more than a web full of ‘ghost sites’, was welcomed by those of us round the table, largely because we disagreed with the absurdity of the sentiment so much.

Failed? No way. So let’s think about this. Maybe there are things we could have done better, sure, but we are still a very young sector and like any infant industry we are not only trying to innovate for our clients but to define who we are, with few points of reference of our own.

But big ad agencies have stolen a march on digital groups, haven’t they? Well hang on a second, that’s a tricky one to substantiate at a time when traditional agencies are struggling not to lay people off and the digital world is expanding. There are crossovers, but not all of digital is about advertising or the advertising mindset (far from it). There was broad consensus that a lot of people in digital, if that is still the term to use, don’t actually want to be associated with the aspirations and creations of traditional TV advertising.

Are relations between advertising agencies and digital groups strained? Yes, probably more than ever actually. So who’s to blame? Well, blaming people isn’t going to help anyone, so who cares? The question is what to do about it and how to collaborate better.

Part of the answer must be for us to understand where the old agencies are coming from. The shift from advertising to branded content for instance is something we can all learn from. There is still a lot to do.

I mention digital being the appropriate descriptor for our industry because some of us have all but stopped using the term. Digital is confusing and problematic because it refers to a specific meda when what it should be about is having conversations. Using the term ‘interactive’ brings what we do back to the way our clients engage with people, experiences and technology. At the end of the day it’s about consumers not about digital for digital’s sake. This already sets us apart from the old school because it is something we fundamentally understand and work with. One thing that was conceded was that the digital/interactive world likes a good moan, though we probably don’t benefit much from doing it.

There was a general feeling among us that there is room for upping the stakes. Yes, perhaps we should all do more to challenge briefs from time to time. Perhaps we could all do more to persuade clients to challenge themselves and take more interesting ideas forward too. Perhaps we should all push clients for more innovation as well as invest more in our own R&D. Perhaps we are not trying hard enough with our limited budget pennies to put up a good enough fight?There was at least a germ of truth in all of these things. But let’s not forget that we are where we are as a result of pursuing a route that was appropriate at the time we took it. Hindsight is a wonderful dream.

Of course we should all be pushing ourselves, and maybe it’s time to have the belief to shift up a gear. Let’s start with the top table shall we? Have we got their ear? We thought about it and agreed there is still an important job to be done elevating what we do up the food chain. Projects are still too often commissioned as a bolt on around a dull or dead plan conceived in the dark. Work produced this way can never be effective and we should always have the courage to refuse briefs that are ill conceived. Top table is where we need to be working from. Have we let go of it? If we have, we need to stand up for ourselves and show clients the benefits of correct engagement.

As we got towards the end of the session, we pondered over the big questions that need to be asked, like does the industry model need changing? Are we trying to do everything when we should be doing what we do well? Should we invest more in our own businesses and our own industry? There was a feeling of ‘yes-in-part’ to all the above.

No we haven’t failed – far from it – we’ve only just started the journey and there’s a long way left to go yet. Let’s stop acting like the underdog that nobody ever listens to and be confident in our unique and timely position. Also let’s slow down a bit, before we rush from Web 2.0 to 3.0, stop for a while and think not how we should be creating work but why.

A little failure is fine. We’ll only carry on making progress by getting things wrong now and again. In fact, it feels good knowing we’re grown up enough to give ourselves permission to fail once in a while. You should try it….

Something I wrote a while back on The Digit Blog. Thought i'd post it again!

Dave

Dave: I Make, I Sleep.

 

 

The pseudonym Dave has been given to Daljit Singh's sleeping activity - portrayed through different forms and materials. The favoured forms of expression manifest as clothing sculptures or the emulation of a whole host of animal species.  There are however many sub-genres of activity including regional comical accents and character portrayals; brutalist kitchen sculptures; spatial fruit arrangements based on repetition and occasional street walking with bespoke bags packed for each dreamt-up trip.

 

Dave is particularly drawn to animal behaviours and mimicry.  Amongst a gamut of species from the animal kingdom some of the classics he has performed include a grass snake - emulating the movement of the tongue and long slender body; an eel - awaking with a long sock pulled up over both arms writhing on the floor; a monk fish gaping for oxygen and more complex - a flutter of moths around a light. 

 

Though Dave’s activity is often perceived as outlandish it is often logical in its own way: one very visual enactment was a troubled duck quacking away - starving because ‘someone had put a doughnut on (his) bill.’   

 

Alongside animals, one of Dave's preoccupations is to create figurative or styled pieces. He draws on favourite props and tools from the wardrobe - especially high heels that are often found hanging on doors in the morning. Though the actual styling itself is questionable he is always thorough in ensuring all the elements are present from underwear to outerwear.

 

The very existence of Dave was threatened for a period after a concerned call was made to The London School of Clinical Therapy who were confident they could ‘mop up the patient in just a few sessions’.  Happily, it was concluded as long as the more edgy activities were tempered – those that saw him leaving the home and crossing certain thresholds then Dave is just harmless and endearing fun. Dave would be missed by a lot of close friends and family if he were to be banished from the night.