How far will creatives go to avoid your briefs?

In a recent posting I argued that as clients we get the advertising that we deserve. And that when we point a finger at the agency we are probably pointing at least 3 at ourselves.

One of the points I made is that unless you are a client that gives clear and very tight briefs (with no room for ambiguity or to move), and then buys work that is dramatic and bold, you are unlikely to have the best people working on your business and get the best work.

I was, therefore, amused by a "best of the blogs" section in the UK Campaign magazine called "playing to lose" from the scampblog

The posting talks about the lengths that creatives will go to in order to avoid working on rubbish briefs for clients who will only buy average and safe work.

The point made, which I thought was absolutely key, is that it is too risky for a creative team to work on bad briefs for clients who will only ever buy so-so work. It may kill their career as their show reel will be terrible. A bit like marketers only ever working on and launching products that they know will fail - it is a career suicide.

I loved the anecdote where they spoke about creatives trying at avoid P&G Oil of Olay by writing ad about a woman who is dead but no-one realises as her friends keep applying the product. Inspired by the Weekend at Bernies film.

The point of the posting: creatives are not wanting to play to lose. Give them a really tight brief where the only way out is to be creative - and then have the guts to be bold.