Exchange4Media

Modern culture is inconceivable without brands. The more brands proliferate and expand, the more the economic and socio–cultural model seems premised on brands being the engines of growth. There is often a co-existence of three types of brand marketing and consumer interactions because different brands have evolved at different pace and markets have embraced change at varying levels. The three approaches are: 1. The prescriptive 2. The identity builder that allows consumers to ‘architect themselves‘ 3. Abstracted and infused via a living culture platform Prescriptive When mass consumer goods became a reality in the late 19th and early 20th century, brands ensured standardization. Each consumer got the same product and equal meaning hence decision reflex was easy. The logic ran like this – ‘Z’ is a brand of face wash for oily skin. Jack has oily skin and needs face wash. Jack chooses ‘Z’. This direct neural connect should not to be taken lightly. The bulk of dominant global FMCG brands were born in exactly this mode in the first five decades of the 20th century. Marketers thought of their craft as a methodical informational and recognition building science. When Stan Resor arrived at J. Walter Thompson in the 1920s and began to apply scientific management to marketing he also simultaneously hired John B.Watson to establish how emotional stimulus could manage consumer actions. This project was co-opted in various ways by Rosser Reeves, Leo Burnett, and David Ogilvy. Whether they were USP advocates, or behaviouralists, the idea that consumer desires could be manufactured and then guided to closure via repetitive single point advertising flourished for a long time. In America, this began to fail by the 1960s. Brands as bricks to build oneself As the world of brands became cluttered and complex, the cultural primacy of dominant brands started to diminish. Owning cognitive territory was no longer enough. Mental recollection and physical distribution didn’t suffice anymore. Madison Avenue then collaborated with brand leaders to own the process by which the pursuit of personal architecture was done by choice of brands. No matter what you wanted to be, you had to make a branded choice. The logic ran like this – Jack is the type of person that he is because he chooses – amongst several other brands the brand ‘Z’ of face wash. Why ‘Z’? Well, because Z was a choice made by ambitious, extroverted, confident young men. Jack would meet with romantic success, pick up a job, race ahead of peers while at work or leisure and his skin would stay young till he left this world! The chorus from this world of brands blaringly evangelized only one thing directly and via circumlocution – that to be socially acceptable, valued and dominant you must possess a plethora of brands. Legendary campaigns and iconic brand identities got minted in this era. The Marlboro Man, The man in the Hathway Shirt, Old Spice, Commander Whitehead for example were about establishing a White Anglo Saxon persona of tough masculinity, self-assurance and charm. But the stance was always that the consumer was the boss. Each choice is made freely. There are emotional and rational reasons behind the choice. Always, the consumer is King with sovereignty over choice. This was a deception. The reality was the marketer being more like a string puppeteer doing his thing. The consumers were guided (some use the word manipulated) – You needed brands to define you. Brands were the means to complete your world view. The world is nothing but a mosaic of experiences with brands. ‘People like Us’ vs. ‘People like them’ could be defined by one’s choice of brands and one brand repertoire vs. that of another. You become You as brands got chosen, consumed and established as part of your identity. Once this governing commandment of socio-cultural life was swallowed and digested, the rest became easy. Omniscient and omnipresent brands ensured universally acknowledged meanings for themselves. Consumers saluted the authority of these brands to define them and organize their thoughts and feelings. From badge to social movement As multinational brands travelled across the world a few things happened. First the cultural norm got challenged. Western life was not the lens through which people saw their reality magnified. In fact, it became weird and distorted at times. This dissonance meant that reflection, rationalization, resistance and defiance grew on part of consumers. Branding could no longer cue tastes in authoritarian ways. Much essence was lost in translation. Again Madison Avenue pioneers saw this coming. Bill Bernbach, George Lois, Mary Wells began an alternate communication paradigm at DDB. This was extended and strengthened by Lee Clow, Dan Wieden (Los Angeles and Portland respectively – notice how the compass turns 180 degrees). They all worked to create authenticity. To indulge in brand – consumer interactions without commercialization. Not to be perceived as self-seeking but truly motivated. The higher levels of brand marketing became hereafter an attempt to create culture or to resolve intense cultural tensions. Cause and Purpose entered marketing language. Apple’s rebellious creativity and Dove’s campaign for real beauty are all fruits of the same tree. The idea of marketing inciting movements was derived from cultural source material. Life on the roads became the inspiration. This work goes on… It is amazing that marketers continue to dominate cultural and social norm. Their ability to mutate and survive makes them special. Expansion, new media, fragmentation, the contradictions of the new economy and rise of Asian alternatives in cultural dominance have weakened the marketers’ stranglehold. Therefore, the next 20 years will be about honestly contributing to culture and appealing to a universal human consciousness. Purpose precedes profit. Therein lies marketing nirvana. https://www.exchange4media.com/advertising-news/guest-column-marketing-absolution-build-culture-not-brands-shubhranshu-singh-89373.html

Across the leading economies of the world, economic nationalism is being resurrected and globalisation is being looked at askance. The sovereign right of a nation state to act, and its conflict with the obligations of various multilateral agreements, is at the top of the agenda for political action. Brexit to ‘Trump Tariffs,’ the world is in ferment. The topmost economic entities of the world are as many corporations as nations. These are large businesses that can withstand shocks across multiple national reversal and tide over downturns because of brand strength. Multinational, transnational, multi-local, global; call them by any name but they are dominant in world economic flows. They rule consumer minds and leverage their preference. India, given its emergent status as a top five world economy, with amongst the highest growths in the world, is an aberration. We have no global brands of any consequence. Legions of much-feted marketers who are amongst the best in the world have not made one global Indian brand possible. Certainly none with any immediate recall or recognition. Thinking Indian? Think of the Taj Mahal, Snake charmers and Yoga! Why is this the case? Indian talent has always served western brands. Our domestic market didn’t have strength enough to give sustenance to any international expansion for businesses and brands. Prior to 1991, we lived in a moribund economy where private businesses were fettered and starved for capital. But, I will come back to this later. Despite Indian talent ‘getting it’ and our capacity to export soft power; on the brands report card? a big cipher. Will we ever break away from the western brand building norm? Will our content, creativity, design and marketing services evolve enough to support an ‘India Outward’ brand building? Will our ‘engineer-MBA’ marketing armies surprise the world with flair, intuition, charm, creativity, style, taste and savoir-faire? At this point, let me address a contrarian point of view. In a global world should ‘Indian’ be important? For that matter, why wouldn’t a Range Rover or Tetley be deemed Indian? Why is provenance relevant? Is it not a mid 20th-century hangover? Does being “made anywhere” or “made as per global specs” not do the job? Why does a quintessential global brand like Apple have to say “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China”? Does Italian flamboyance, French finesse, German engineering, Japanese technology and American innovation really matter? Yes, it does. The irony is that the more we globalise, the more the rootedness and urge to belong becomes stronger. Sadly ‘West is best’ has meant stifled creative innovation and standardised product –centric or claim-centric communications steamrolled by Western brands into India, just as in 100 other markets. The scale is inimical to customisation. Sameness is a blight upon authenticity. Western brands and the Empire came hand in hand. They were the products of a mass production world enabled by the Industrial Revolution and fostered through the rise of affluence, media and literacy in Europe and America. Unilever, Colgate, P&G, Henkel, Nestle, Nabisco, Coca Cola, Pepsi, BAT – these were the creators of brands and brand cultures and the flag bearers of the Western way of life. Brands enhanced its desirability. When you opened a bottle of Coca Cola or wore Levis Jeans – you lived a bit of America. It will not be an exaggeration to say that even India doesn’t have many strong branded associations or attributions. Tourism, investment destination, Quality of industrial output – we have done little to build them. A bit of Goa-Kerala-Rajasthan and the Taj is not India. A bit of Bollywood is not Indian culture. Information Technology built wealth but not brands that could resist western influx. Little to nothing in textiles or fashion, nothing in foods or beverages, nothing in art or design although they all are large and flourishing. There are several global Indian businesses but no global Indian brands. Opportunistic expansion or being net economic buyers is not the same as brand creation, creative focus and domain excellence. Coming back – Why are we not a brand building people? We want the immediacy of profit: Brand stature or equity is not about immediate margin enhancement or jump in near-term sales. We lack a brand sensibility: It’s the concern of the entire organisation, even society. Instead, its left to marketing management alone. It demands discipline and persistence: Instead, we are whimsical, ad hoc and short termed. Inadequate knowledge and support system: There is no resource pool for the creation of Indian brands. Ignorance about India amongst global consumers: There is low awareness and low trust because of being unknown. Maybe, we ought to focus on one city, two industries and three brand categories. Maybe if we sharpen the nail, we can make do with even a light hammer. Maybe, within our subcultures are the resources for brands to build a myth of origin that claims authenticity. Maybe one day we will get a genuine "India mystique." To paraphrase Nehru; maybe, one midnight hour, an Indian brand will also make a tryst with its destiny and to India, the ancient, the eternal and the ever-new; it shall pay its reverent homage and bind itself afresh to her service.

Provocation is hardly one’s style but the truth needs to be inquired after. Can you mention five brands in India that have been built relying on social media? How about three? Not even one? Hmm. What a long time a decade seems to be in the frenzied rush of marketing. Recall how digital and social was the new gale force blowing us forward. The World Wide Web as a phenomenon itself was described by Sir Tim Berners –Lee as “an interactive sea of shared knowledge …made of the things we and our friends have seen, heard, believe or have figured out”. It was portended that a new breed of creative would emerge. Extinction seemed imminent for the legacy agency world. A suite of readily available technologies would come shrink wrapped and place your branded content throughout the social sphere for willing consumers to encounter. “And I said to myself…what a wonderful world!” The futurists said the future had arrived. Buzz without virality was deemed improbable. Every meme had the potential to create brand equity. And what is the report card we have in hand? A poor ‘C’ is quite fair per my reckoning. This is despite the boom in the digital ecosystem, hundreds of millions of keen young consumers, cheapest possible access via near ubiquitous mobile phones and steady support from brand builders. The issue emerged because of a noxious duo – expert-itis and department-itis. Expert-itis is wedded to legacy. They have a family of old breadwinner relics. Almost the entire brigade of decision makers who evaluated and opined on social media for brand building were of the generation born from the early 1960s to early 1980s and I am indeed no exception. Marketing was learned at a gentler pace. There was a network of peers – mad men and media men, strategists, business operators. They owned the apparatus. No outsider could come past the gates till these peers had signed off on admittance. Everything was Germanic in its pre planning and narrow as a needle in scope. Ah, and for the most part things happened one at a time. The arrival of any ordinary crowd into creative development and dissemination was simply anti –gravity. When regular consumers got this power all hell broke loose. Yet everyone was pretending to be in the know. Nobody had a good enough understanding. Vigorous nodding soon lapsed into a resigned shaking of the head sideways. The crowds were take over….we were all on thin ice. Time for the final goodbyes. But it never did materialise quite as claimed. Why? Because, when the new media evangelists broke the fences and became the most feted folks at the party, they forgot that brands need to entertain and inform with intelligence. Social was only a platform not manna from heaven. And as luck would have it the demographic explosion happened alongside lighting up of hundreds of millions of smart phones. The mix up was of Kumbh Mela scale. The consequence is that the old apparatus is pretending to know how to talk to Gen Z consumers who have lived their entire lives online. This is department-itis. Without exception, social media mavens remained the flock of the marketing department. This was a revolution that ought to have engaged HR, Ops, Customer Care, Sales and the CEO. But everyone was lassoing the beast to tether it at the marketing gates. What are the obvious manifestations of Expert-itis and Departmental-itis ? • Inability to grapple with new era story telling Short video and small screen is it. Long form needs a mutation. A constant refresher. Jung’s primal archetypes won’t change. The form has to adapt to the substance. Desktop, email, banners, textual advertising are paleolithic. • Thinking that Self-praise is content Brands without any polarity or opinion are like Tofu. Collective opinion discounts and reacts against self-advertisement even if individuals may politely suffer it. Listen actively. Think customisable chatbots. Think of solicitation for feedback. • Imagining that Community building will get done via gimmicks If it is something seen before and will live a small life span, just don’t do it. • Unable to do stuff Fresher and Faster Ephemeral imagery, video is what works. Make your audience collaborate. Let the story meander but let them own their story with pride. • Not getting that consumer clusters are creating their own magic The audience does most things better than the brands in terms of spontaneity and topicality. Social media is flat earth whereas traditional media is about privilege, control and commerciality. But that’s still where brand originated content comes from – the old media mindset. As ridiculous as a man wearing a parrot green three-piece suit for beach volleyball. Be with the culture. • Thinking that Influencer is Influenza Stars, sports icons, musicians, fashion models, rich and richer….they have following and evoke interest. Celebrity comes packaged with mass curiosity and craving. But it is Katy Perry and not the Pope and mass following doesn’t mean there is a rub off on the brand. It happens only with genuine resonance. • Treating Brand Purpose as a tactic Do it small if there is no grand purpose but don’t airbrush. Don’t put the right angle on every mugshot. Time is a stress variable when it comes to puffery and lack of authenticity. Show it as it is. As the consumer will have it. Brand promise cannot be on puppet strings. In conclusion, Experts and departmental men (Yes, mostly men !) have failed the test thus far. Engagement and stewardship cannot be euphemisms even for well-intended deceit. Manipulation is toxic. No matter how well your brand hypocrisy is camouflaged, it will be discovered. Till then all the department folks and experts can keep designing the Emperor’s new clothes.

No matter which public or private enterprise you work for, I can confidently claim that you are spending a good portion of your working life in meetings. The very concept of formal organizational work is unimaginable without the central presence of meetings. This centrality has been strengthened despite everything that ought to have logically weakened its stranglehold e.g. globalization and emergence of multinational teams, technology and its ability to enhance efficiency and communications and the recognition of the individual contributor. One reason is that humans have survived because of an ability to socialise and collaborate. I imagine that roaming on Africa’s plains, our evolutionary ancestors must have rushed to a huddle every time a predator or prey appeared on the scene. Meetings are in our evolutionary encoded behaviour. Members of the subspecies of corporate homo sapiens are also hierarchical beings where those at the top of the totem pole gain comfort and self-esteem with the modern day version of the durbar. But this is not to dilute the belief that those who are involved in something together must deliberate and decide. And whilst there may be several options to do so, its most manifest form, despite mutations, is what we call a meeting. Personally, I do believe that one-half of meetings that do get convened, waste time. Meetings and their prescribed quorum also have a way of perpetuating themselves. Meetings serve as testing grounds for political sentiment, rubber stamps and echo chambers. They allow individuals or groups to put diversionary tactics into play, operationalise dilatory manoeuvres and excuse evasion of responsibility. These are but a few amongst their many value destroying ends. I concede that a meeting serves to unify and align the quorum. The College of Cardinals, a Parliamentary Committee, the group of G-8 Nations, Army Commanders, Members of Parliament and many more such affiliations are actually derived from being in respective meetings in permanence. Their affiliation is their entitlement to meet and their being in the quorum. In a business, role separation makes inter-functional co-ordination essential and surely meetings do serve to get the different units represented together or apart. But even here, one notices the form and ceremony of the meetings often substitutes for any real decision-making capacity, this is the essence of my critique. Meetings are camouflage for the intentions of those who are powerful. Let us consider decision processes as an example. Have you encountered situations where the presentation of facts, forceful opinions or even an epiphany has resulted in a vote? In the brute majority of cases, the chair gets to decide while the others merely opine, substantiate and debate. Thus the assembly is, in fact, an auxiliary and the words are cheap. Another way to confirm the futility, as well as value destructive nature of routine meetings, is to ask if there are folks who would actually like more meetings. Tell me when you find them. The burden of meetings is that it completely throws your day job and deliverables off track. All you do is what is required for the meeting. Let us imagine a divisional boss who calls a meeting with 20 odd managers attending a meeting for half of the day on every Monday! That’s almost 100 hours of productive work time bled away on the first day of the week. The bulk of this time will be inevitably spent listening to things where you were neither expected to contribute and whether your opinion, if any, matters. Yet the assumption is that everyone is aligned and immersed on a weekly basis. Open your mouth “Ha Ha Ha !” Another patented meeting is the public inquisition. Here, the target is some unfortunate karmic accident victim of the week who is picked upon by the boss and the quorum is present only to make the spectacle genuinely awe-inspiring and later becomes the breaking news of the office. Did I mention the data feeder meetings? Here every point made is suspect and a platoon of data persons are at hand to cross-check, verify, corroborate or dispute as the case may be. Sigh! the impossibility of vetting the data as a part of a pre-read because after all, meetings are important and the platoon is there to service the exclusive data drawing prerogative of the boss. Then there is the staged meeting with a contingent of the better-dressed consultants. Their arrival and entrenchment announce career ending finales for many with “It must’ve been love but it’s over now…” playing in the background. Sins of meetings: 1) Unstructured accelerators for confusions because of the absence of any agenda or clear pre-work 2) Presentation Bias: What is said must look good and sound good and ideally resonate with what is in the mind of those who can decide. Any business utility is secondary. 3) Decision forum which becomes a discussion forum only to end in an exhausted capitulation to what is, in fact, pre-decided. 4) No recap or reading of minutes in the end. The minutes come massaged or altered away from the spirit of the discussion. A resolution has then to be taken offline, gets enmeshed in emails and has to wait until the next meeting with lesser progress than expected in the interim. 5) Idea and decision killers: The trained gladiators let loose, these are the praetorian guards who then line up for succession roles on the corporate ladder. 6) Deference to hierarchy: No contention of ideas. Allowance of time by rank. The decision by the highest tax payer. 7) Respect for time and agreed duration – Huh? 8) Certainly, the number and duration of meetings cannot be in the linear proportion to the increase in business, therefore, even when the institutional mandate is to rejoice in holdings meetings, surely greater efficiency can be hoped for. No topic should be brought before a meeting of business leaders which has not been discussed and circulated with the functions and departments concerned. 9) Interdepartmental angst must be settled inter-departmentally. 10) Unfortunately, meetings become occasions for ambushes,

In the purposive development of consumer facing communication, the role of the brand owners and marketing managers is exalted, whereas the credit due to a larger network of associates is often not in the spotlight. All communication works, at once, at several levels – the literal, metaphorical, allegorical and symbolic. The networks of people that shape the communication also work with a shared context and aligned perceptions. Perception presumes shared experience. Even in the ‘best in breed’ marketing enterprises, the marketing function cannot consist of creative teams alone. There is always a cadre of efficient managers with no original ideas but the ability to manage operations and superintend the process funnel. The concern I address is on managing the right assembly of resources externally and internally for the alchemy to proceed and magic to unfold. Almost without exception, corporations and their functional sub-organizations operate as vertical hierarchies whereas, by definition, networks are entirely horizontal. Of course, formal or non-formal networks may differ to a degree whereby formal networks are injected with role definitions, formalized contracts, retainers, incentives and prohibitions. However, for every such ring-fenced network there is a vastly bigger and superior informal network outside. The only way in which network can be evaluated is to see the density of connections at any given node and to see the number of affiliates in any hub and spoke. But that’s also only a volumetric assessment. The network is flat, in a continuum, and traditional thinking doesn’t reveal the map. Creativity, when well done, must naturally militate against stratification. Yet, corporate verticality and officiousness and network horizontality and informality do come together and work. The indignity of verticality is in its non-optionality. The beauty of the network is that they are co-opted, collaborative and continuous. You can leave an organization and a hierarchy, but you still remain in the same network without loss of continuity. Any attempt to bracket associative networks into contractually obligated silos is self-defeating and value destructive. It seems ludicrous that a management consulting firm does work with multiple automotive majors and proudly calls it a ‘practice reflective of its expertise whereas when an advertising agency signs up one, the others must all be out of range. When a free range external network is drawn into a creative process, what may one watch out for? A few prescriptive points auto suggest themselves- Dialogue within the network: Let the conversations happen freely and to begin with, interminably. Everything is subject to scrutiny and challenge. Attitudes, ideas, insights, policies, consumer understanding, the intent itself – let these be beaten or celebrated, as the case may be, till there is shared conviction and not merely an operating consensus. Creative networks need to see output: It does little good to be fractal about network output. If 20 ideas are to be generated, four syndicates with five each as target will result in one – fifth the urgency and a sense of whole. Everyone must have the boots in the same trenches. Continuity of input osmosis: How does one have shared inputs as we go along? How can a larger network share a learning process whereby facts are internalized and duly factored in? How does one keep dispersed networks culturally switched on, eloquent and thought inspired? Autonomy: How does one ensure autonomy and creative freedom, bigger creative challenges, better resources, global access? Does the network help mitigate constraints? How does the network bring in new ideas from concept to development to fruition? How does the network bring in culture immersion, sociology, technology into its mix? Criticism and failure: How does one approach creativity with discipline when working with a large network of associates? How does criticism and feedback get communicated and absorbed? In a network of established merit, how does one reconcile business need and bottom-line with ideas and craft? These answers are important and must be found to ensure laissez faire creativity. Since they remain non-proprietary with multiple stakeholders active at once, creative networks are relatively open access. The creative catalysis is furthered by technological advancement which allows for real time synchronous collaboration. Unlike organizational movement which is ‘inside – out,’ external networks connections have a continuous dynamism. Hierarchies have phased changes and rigidity of structure whereas networks can form, coalesce and disintegrate rapidly. They are consequentially more efficient. When a vertical hierarchy plugs into a network the question it grapples with is how to give direction and ensure orchestration. The manic frenzy that appeals becomes a management task to grapple with. Finally creative judgment, after all tests and previews, is about trust. Hierarchies are implicitly low on trust. The reason for verticality is also that supervisory scrutiny becomes, of and by itself, an important function. As opposed to this, networks are capable of self-organization, self-regulation and auto-mutation. Vertical hierarchy presupposes the junior-most to be at the bottom and the wisest to be at the top. It therefore gets trumped by networks where flatness permits a node to access and circulate without undue emphasis on experience and credentials. The primacy of the idea prevails to a larger extent. The future is network. Complexity of organizational structures is not a solution to the inevitability of embracing external networks. Many terrifying corporate dinosaurs will meet this inevitability tragically. Darwin is about to catch up! A few, only a few, will laugh to their network nirvana. https://www.exchange4media.com/marketing-news/guest-columncorporate-dinosaurs-will-be-extinct-without-the-holy-matrimony-of-internal-and-external-networksshubhranshu-singh-88638.html

Over the past couple of long weekends, a couple of conversations prompted me to think about the profound impact that globalisation has on our conscious mind, particularly as we relate to things as consumers (and of course, as marketers!). Two of my team members from my earlier jobs called to seek my advice and help in enabling a job change for ‘furthering their careers’. Both were insistent that they had “MNC experience with global brands”. Given my philosophical mood over a monsoon soaked weekend, I got into an interrogative conversation on how exactly they could substantiate the value of such an experience. Needless to say, we had a short conversation, but promised to reconnect soon! Not their fault. Globalisation is a multi-faceted construct. I have little or no expertise in international economics to discuss its effects in various dimensions, but will perforce stay within my vocational domain – marketing and communications – to build an argument. The first and obvious derivative of globalisation is asset/ resource allocation and the second derivative is marketing conduct and outcomes. For the purpose of this argument, ‘globalisation’ refers to the process of increasing social and cultural inter-connectedness besides economic, environmental, financial assimilation and dependencies. It is driven by competitive urgency, advances in communication and transportation technologies, and trade liberalisation. Its most manifest form is the emergence of global markets for goods and services, labour, and financial capital. Globalisation’s most profound implication for marketers is that it drives people to change their ways of living. How so? Marketing confluence driven by globalisation has its clearest theory in the study of signs and sign processes (Semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication – namely, the revealing answers lie in Semiotics. It is acknowledged that the semiotician’s priorities are to study signification first and communication second. To that extent, marketing communication again is a derivative. Nonetheless, semiotic profundity can make a towering brand. Culture codes strongly influence the ‘desi flavour’ so loved in marketing. If the company is unaware of a culture’s codes, is unlikely to put wheels on a global brand on local roads. The reasons my ex-colleagues were entitled to their pride in having worked with global brands, I feel, are as follows: • Global marketing is shaping a global consumer culture • Therein, associations are primary, but rational attributes are subsidiary and often just hygiene • Just as human emotions are universal, so can be brand-linked associations • Validation and congruency creates a sense of the larger world • What needs a specialist’s lens is why, almost always, these validations and common codes are transferred from more economically developed to less developed economies? When will India be a net exporter of brand codes? • Global marketing prompts corporations to change their ways of conducting business, and events transpiring in different parts of the world can have dramatic consequences for other parts of the world at a faster pace, thanks to technology and media. Therefore, marketers must understand globalisation, appreciate it in the right sense and adapt to/ leverage it for more than making richer resumes.

Many argue that the ‘creative urge’ is an individualistic calling. Surely there is evidence of this from the commencement of civilization to the present time. However, the steady ascent of commercial (corporate) interest as the moving force of social change has led to the presently dominant model where, perhaps, no significant achievement can possibly happen without extensive collaboration, co-ideation and co-creation. Any idea, any creative content which shows promise needs disciplined partnerships to grow to its full potential. At first, let us recap the obvious points… • Creativity needs inspiration • It is not subject to a job title or department • It is immune from the diseases of expertitis or hierarchyitis • It needs intelligence primed up by inquisitiveness • It demands boldness and a risk appetite fired by grand ambition • It dies when it turns boring Let us then summarise the commandments of collaborative excellence… • It’s a game of people and ideas playing hide and seek • Skilful application gets perfected through practice • Originality is the key Hungarian-British author and journalist Arthur Koestler has said, “The principal mark of genius is not perfection but originality, the opening of new frontiers." What is the agency dharma? Being in the superior ideas business. In the artistic expression business. In the evocative writing business! Not to be in the commodity business (‘Cheaper and OK’ is never equal to ‘expensive but great’) To take pride in the work – the sofas, carpeting and interior décor is wonderful, but let’s please see the work. Comfort with change Challenging the mediocre but pretentious in any part of the external world Being ready to opine and critique The ultimate litmus test is if you are with interesting people. Folks who touch and interact with the fabric of everyday life Only alive minds can tell great stories What is the client dharma? To begin with, shut up and listen Don’t wear a false ‘professional marketer’ persona. Talk ‘regular’ Don’t let your ego delude you. Biases must be surgically removed; else even a small directional drift can take you to another continent altogether When you speak, articulate the idea. Remember this is the ideas business – Mind can move matter Appreciate and reward. Walk the talk Train and externalise your skill building A man with talent may not get his due perchance, but a man who gets elevated / rewarded must not be devoid of talent / merit Think audience before the message ‘Congratulations’ and ‘complacency’ and often siblings The consumer is the net client. Meet him / her along with your agency and spend time

Perhaps, one day it will be possible to formulate scientific laws for generating effective creative ideas, but till then, we have got do better than cross our fingers and pray. In my opinion, the most important pre-requisites for excellent creative output are creation and sustenance of high performing creative groups and collaborative success with chosen partner agencies. “All happy families resemble each other,” says Tolstoy in ‘Anna Karenina’, “each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. So it is, with most things in life. There is only one kind of good health, whereas there are many kinds of diseases. There is one kind of victory, whereas there are many types of defeats and so on. In my experience and observation, all great creative groups are also alike/ congruent. What is the clear and evident pattern that appropriately delineates successful creative groups in marketing? Empowerment and leadership The creative group doesn’t come about by itself. It is created by a highly empowered and creative leader starting with a small nucleus around him/her. There has to be a leader of ability and stature. “You may choose to put two armies under the command of one general but you shall come to grief if you put one army under the command of two generals,” Napoleon had said. This unity of command is essential for smooth and successful operation. Within the group, there is unity but with diversity. The common inspiring purpose acts as the cementing glue. This coalescing and focused detachment usually makes these groups a bit unpopular since they may appear to be deliberately exclusive and have strong shared convictions. Output and its significance Creative groups must generate output. Their success is in proportionate to the demands made upon the group. They expand, as stretched. When they are not stretched, they shrink.  Deadlines don’t deter them. Resources don’t matter beyond a threshold. What matters is that ideas must spring forth and come alive. Inspectorial supervision, inquiry and scrutiny over routine (these are what they think of as hygiene parameters) doesn’t work with creative groups. They respond to encouragement and enthusiasm. The leader of the group is the pin in the grenade and no matter how much resource is furnished; the group is no longer the same if the leader changes. At times, with generational change, groups may even need to be disbanded and regrouped. Never ‘more of the same’ after more of the same! The urge is to create afresh, to raise the bar, to exceed previous performance. Regular catering cannot make great Chefs. Monotony is an enemy of creative flourish. The output of the creative group must be linked to the most significant business driver(s). Else it is ‘bonsai’, that is, art without fruition. The true liberator of the creative spirit is the conviction that the output will be significant, that it shall change the course of things for the better- An objective, a purpose, the chance to build something- that is what excites creative groups. Bear in mind that, historically, great creativity and innovations have been trivialised because of being pressed into service for insignificant ends, for example: The Byzantines invented clockwork but used it only for levitating their Emperor to impress visitors The Chinese invented gunpowder but used it only for fireworks The Tibetans invented Turbine mechanics but used it only for rotating prayer wheels The challenge to the creative group must be that they are tasked to solve the most critical issues which will be propel the business, society in epochal ways. Centralised decentralisation There must be federative decentralisation, that is, good centralisation needs to be accompanied by good decentralisation. The more you do the latter, the more you can afford the former. Creative groups must be tightly pre-soaked (even indoctrinated!) – The Romans didn’t have mobile phones, email, webinars, video conferencing or air travel but even the farthest outpost of their Empire ran the Roman-way (customised to local reality, of course). They were firm on the generics but flexible on the specifics. Smart! This was possible because they ‘centralised’ the man who manned the ‘decentralised’ post through a long apprenticeship in a highly trained and well organised central pool before running the show elsewhere . As we move into an era of technology enabled simultaneity in marketing and brand communications, perhaps this fraternal covenant of creative groups needs to be revived, retained and encouraged ever more. Only when bonds are strong, does concern mutate to criticism. And criticism from loyal followers is essential. A cabin with obsequious ‘yes’ men surrounding an autocrat can’t be a center of creative good! Leading a creative group, seeing ones work flourish and grow is heady wine. But the adulatory vapours that surround one, if inhaled, lead to dulling of the vital nerve of feedback. The sensitive, easily wounded ego, once numb, instantly leads to mediocrity. Therefore, externally focussed leadership and partnership with external entities that keep on the osmosis of ideas always on, is also an equally critical aspect of generating creativity and innovations. I hope to focus on these aspects in my subsequent submissions.

The Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity in its 60th year has commenced! What a grand show it promises to be. Seven days, thousands of professionals, glorious sunshine, a sea salt kissed crisp breeze, fashion parade on the promenade, an endless procession of vintage cars which makes you ignore the numerous Ferraris and Lamborghinis, sea food, champagne and much much more…such is Cannes as I see it. An annual ‘Maha Kumbh’ of marketing, advertising and communications where inspiration, technology and innovation co-exist under one roof; a place where the blue skies and blue waters kiss at the horizon. The lion of the Piazza San Marco in Venice did well to make Cannes home! My impressions of Day One: Unceasing activity, superb organisation, near flawless execution, informality without imprecision. The use of technology in content curation and attention to detail seem more Germanic than French! Walk into the grand Auditorium and one instantly feels the scale of the ambition. The audience is eager to learn and generous in its applause. Things are warming up at Cannes. This is a marathon that will be run at a sprinter's pace! On your marks, Set, Go!!!