Stop Trying to be Perfect

Stop trying to be perfect, start trying to be remarkable.

What a good provocation that is.

With a week off from work for the school half term last week, this slide from Paul’s presentation at Media360 that did the rounds on Twitter has really stuck with me.

Communications Strategists are a group of people naturally predisposed to introspection: spend any time reading the trade press and you’ll find no shortage of voices questioning the form and function of the discipline. From Richard Huntingdon’s series on the tools and techniques involved in his approach to planning, to Eva Grimmett’s recent analysis of the types of poeple that should be trying to hire into strategy roles, to The Drum’s article calling for Strategists to leave behind their ivory tower; the discpline of strategy is questioned, prodded and poked in ways which other areas of our industry aren’t.

Starting with a definition - strategy is as Martin Weigel tells us, the act of pointing imagination and resources at the tasks that matter. Another definition might be that strategy is ‘an informed opinion on the best way to win’. At no point do those definitions point to the need to be inarguably correct, or in the context of Gayfer’s words - perfect. But, all too often the work that I encounter from people, and indeed alot of the work I find myself producing, seeks to reach some idealised, inarguable and ultimately unattainable state of water-tight perfection.

Why?

Firstly, data. In a data abundant world, there are no limit to the inputs one can use to devise a strategy. There will always be another source, another datapoint. Someone around the table will have seen something else which can impact or divert the charted course of action. In parallel to the emergence of ‘perfect’ data, the Marketing Science movement, spearheaded by the EHB, the IPA and System 1 et al, has split the atom of marketing effectiveness… the formula of brand success has been laid bare and presented to us in the most incontrovertible way.

Secondly, in a commercial climate increasingly dominated by procurement, it can often feel like strategy - especially at pitch stage - will never be solely responsible for winning a client’s business, no matter how compelling it is. Conversely, a strategic recommendation that fails to land, can do significant damage to your chances of winning pitches.

Lastly, and perhaps more controversially, I think strategists consistently face a challenge internally at their own agencies or organisations to create and demonstrate their value. Most strategists are all too aware that if they didn’t show up, the world wouldnt stop turning. The work would continue to go out of the door. Media plans would still be bought and sold. Adverts would still get produced and aired.

The natural response to these challenges then perhaps is for those producing strategic work to strive for perfection.

To be 100% right. To be the smartest person in the room. Whatever that might mean.

But, what if this quest for perfection doesn’t help the work and in fact it does the opposite? Does it make work that is more generic, less useful and less provocative? Less remarkable?

I have no direct evidence to support this - but my feeling, as a practicing strategist is that this quest for ‘perfection’ is diminishing the quality of our work. At least, i’m not sure the work I’m doing is as sharp as it could be. For all the talk of a strategists role as simplifying the complex… if we’re just explaining the way the world works rather than creating space to ask difficult and interesting questions of the clients we work for and their brands then are we doing our jobs properly?

Thinking about this and how it manifests itself in my work, I’ve definitely noticed some trends, namely:

An over-reliance on a handful charts and references that serve to explain how advertising works. Charts which I tend to feel obliged to include, but if I’m honest, they represent absolute fucking basic hygiene and are things anyone worth their salt should be familiar with.

An over-reliance on beautifully crafted frameworks which feel like they simplify and lend order to the world around a brief. Whilst serving to simplify these are often removing colour, texture and emotional heft from my thinking .

An over-reliance on lazy language. The same, well-trodden words, the same jargon. Words which represent how we think about advertising and brands, but not how the consumer does. Hollow words.

In an attempt to overcome this - and to produce work which is remarkable, some resolutions:

Start at the end…. focus less on frameworks, but instead get to the way ideas will manifest themselves in the real world sooner…strategy is about imagination. It is a creative act. Be opinionated about ideas, context and how something will feel when it goes out to meet it’s target audience.

Learn to the love the appendix…. stick the important, fundamental stuff at the back. Focus on charts and content which drive the narrative forward. Try and communicate my arguments succintly. 9 charts or less. Stop feeling like the document is the delivery.

Acknowledge that the words really matter…. and spend the time to find the right word, rather than race to a word which will broadly do the job. Don’t use a word if you wouldn’t legitimately use the antonym… do we know any busy mums who love inconvenience, for example? Be specific. Say what you mean. Less techno-babble.

So….

Whilst the pursuit of perfection feels noble, maybe it might be more valuable and even more fun, to try something else for a while. To focus more on asking difficult questions of ourselves and our clients for once, rather than pulling together work which is practically correct, but intellectually boring.

There is no shortage of bright, opinionated people in this industry. We notionally champion difference, but in the pursuit of logical perfection in our strategy work, perhaps that gets lost from time to time.