Many times clients have asked us to change fonts, change colour shades, change layouts, even highlight lines.
Small adjustments get deemed important. After discussion they become more and more important as people entrench themselves in a position. It allows people to think they have made some impact on a project. We had some devious techniques to handle this.
It is hard for anyone to step back and think objectively at how minor their own comments might be. We get embroiled in the social conflict and the protection of egos. Humility is hard to come by.
Advertising agencies tend to roll over on these minor requests because it isn’t worth the fight – to give a little to gain something. The client has bought a dog and decided to bark themselves. The clients want to show they are in charge and this is one way of expressing it. It is also a way for the client to feel they are, in some small way, a creative force. Few have the humility to know they don’t have much creativity.
And at the end of the day, do these changes make absolutely no impact on the effectiveness of the advertising. None. Nothing. Nada.
On the other hand, small differences in product or product delivery can be magnified by advertising attention. Whether the new improved product delivers a meaningful difference is not as important as being able to claim it is new and improved.
The old product loses value. Whatever magnified new benefit in the new product, no matter how small, can be trumpeted and be the focus of compelling advertising.
Does the new cellphone provide improved communication services or not? It is version 12 so it has to be better than version 11. Just like Spinal Tap’s amp which went up to 11 had to be louder than one that only went up to 10.
There is amazing leverage in whatever small difference is enough to claim “new and improved.” I have worked on many “new and improved” product relaunches. Was the old product bad? No. Was the improved product better? In some way, yes. Was it demonstrably better and noticed by regular users? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.
We advertised fax machines with some amazing benefits. The benefits were real, but they were only relevant to 5% or 10% of users. (Sometimes, I didn’t even understand what these functions did.) That didn’t stop a “new and improved” label and a new product number, higher than the old one.
Product improvement announcements allowed us to attract new users through “news” and a permission to recover lapsed users who may have had a bad experience with the product.
Even if the change was minor, the advertising could magnify its impact through a dramatic presentation.
Sometime the new improved product is improved for profitability, a new formulation that saves money for the manufacturer. These would be tested against existing product for parity. A 5% decline in rating could be offset by a 5% savings in production cost. A 5% quality reduction would hardly be noticed if it weren’t pointed out.
By putting a spotlight on a small improvement, advertising can differentiate products and services and distract from other issues that might exist. We covered some of this in Overcome AD-versity.
As an example, the Frambix Pumpjak (that doesn’t inflate party balloons) can be advertised for the excellent job it does on Zodiac inflatable rafts and pool toys. In doing so it can make claims about its amazing ability to get air into things.
While the Acne Pumpjack focuses on happy kids with their party balloons and ignores your flat tire. Both can claim universal wonderfulness at inflating through their inflated claims. The viewer may come away thinking either one could do their inflating job.
That is not to say that some small changes could totally change the impact of a piece of communication. But we are talking here about the minor changes that create self importance in the change request. As an agent for the client, we will honour such requests, especially if we are being paid by the hour and don’t think the change matters at all creatively.
Focus on these kinds of small difference are what Freud called “the narcissism of small differences.”
Tiny things that get magnified in the minds of the participants as their perception overwhelms objective judgement.
Think about a set of identical twins you may have known. To almost everyone they were virtually identical. But to each of them, the differences were huge. Each had an ego that needed recognition. The point being that differences seem larger the more invested you are. But to the rest of the world, it often makes no difference at all.
My advice to those making minor comments on creative presented to them is – “Which is more important, your ego or inspiring confidence in the folks who do the work?” Making those folks feel more invested in their work will probably create the greatest return. The manager who makes little changes, over time, discourages the worker from being careful and becomes the owner of the work.
It happens everyday. We all carry some obsessive trait that makes us want to see things a particular way. Recognize that each of us has different ways to expressing ideas, and that is an advantage for you.
We employ art directors for their eye. They have the training and talent to see things others do not. We employ copywriters because they are good with expressing ideas efficiently and memorably. Challenging a creative team to explain an idea is one thing, and it is fine. Suggesting solutions is another.
We all have slightly different makeups and different perceptions. Take advantage of this, but stick to the bigger ideas.