So it pains me to write that I managed to find myself at the whim of fickle fortune only this week. Developing creative work without a clear brief for a company where the key decision maker felt unable to explain exactly what was expected – I think the notion of "something abstract" was as far as we got. Juniors were sent to review progress on the decision maker's behalf, each of whom had only a limited handle on their manager's expectations. And, of course, we had barely enough time to crack the idea.
To make matters worse, we weren't actually the first team to get this non-existent brief. We were the fourth. But no one had thought to consider whether the way in which the relationship was being handled was the real issue, not the quality or character of the creative work.
Unsurprisingly, it seems we didn't crack the idea. Although, I think it would be more accurate to say that we didn't crack the relationship.
To use a sporting analogy, developing any solution for a client is always a combination of playing both the man and the ball. The world's finest sportsmen are not only incredibly skillful but they are also well versed in the nuances of their opposite numbers. And they will not only play to their own strengths but also to their opponents' weaknesses.
It's slightly different in our arena in so far as we need to play to our strengths and then also to the strengths of our clients, ideally with a cumulative effect rather than one where they cancel each other out.
All of which points to the simple fact that you need to understand your client in as much detail as you understand their brief.
No comments:
Post a Comment