The pursuit of newness: Advertising, creativity and the ‘narcissism of minor differences’

What I read

In this paper, the author explores advertising in the late 1990s, focusing on how the advertisers themselves viewed their career goals and views of creativity, as compared to the actual job of advertising. The examples he provides through discourse show advertisers are focused more on winning awards and elevating their own careers than actually serving clients, and this is often supported by the pursuit of newness, as compared to appropriateness.

First, the author describes a brief history of the perceived value of creativity in business and culture, by citing various sources of criticism and description; he indicates that some have viewed a “new moral imperative in which to be creative is seen as the highest achievable good.” This is evidenced through popular music, which, quoting Negus, he explains “what is usually at stake… is the combination of both newness and familiarity… it is this slight different-ness, rather than absolute novelty, which is usually at stake.” The author explains that that this article will focus on advertising, specifically, and an exploration of the goal of the pursuit of newness.

The author begins by showing some examples of advertisers building extremely different campaigns in order to draw attention and attract commentary about their work, where “producing new and original work was the central goal of advertising creatives.” A distinction is made in the minds of advertisers, that advertising could be like assembling a vehicle through rote and unexpressive means (where “‘all cars look like Austin Montegos, all homes look like Barratt homes, and everyone dresses in denim”), or it could be about building something extraordinary. The author uses a number of quotes from various advertisers to show their focus on this extraordinary differentness or authenticity, as compared to second-rate creativity. One source of the second-rateness might be blamed on the distinction between education from a “fine art” degree, as compared to training from an “applied arts” degree. A fine-arts background was where “ideas of romantic individualism were encouraged,” while the other focused on commercial craftsmanship to solve externally set problems. This was discussed as far back as 1960, where this question was posed by the IPA: was an advertiser a “mere executant of a client brief?”

Next, the author describes how and why the advertising industry focuses on newness, and not just newness in messaging—newness in medium and media type as well. He views advertisers as establishing a line between older generations of advertisers, who see only one vehicle for creativity, and newer advertisers, who want to explore. Youth was considered more creative. Clients are grouped into the conservative context, and the author quotes an advertiser as explaining, “We get knocked back so often. Sometimes its clients and sometimes it internal. People are not ready for change.” A large emphasis in the industry is placed more on personal fame and notoriety than on these client engagements or fulfilling a client brief; many advertisers are quoted as focusing on how a brief can lead to an award or a breakthrough, which seems to then lead directly to a successful career. A breakthrough is considered something new or something that impresses other advertisers; “’safe’ advertising—advertising that repeated well worn techniques of selling and promotion—was unlikely to win awards for a team.”

The author concludes by describing the way commercial art has been framed negatively, and frequently positioned as a way of fulfilling a client brief, but not as a way to win awards or to do something that has notoriety and, eventually, lead to a long career.

What I learned and what I think

Such interesting parallels, from between the late 1990s and now, and advertising to design, and “great/commercial” to “interaction/ux”, and on and on. We’re just going in circles. I have that thought over and over; I know I’m not unique in that respect, and maybe it’s a tired observation, but it’s so obvious.

I love the idea that advertisers are more interested in being great than in following their client’s needs, which would never fly in design strategy. The frustration around it is the same, though—"if they would just let me…” or “why are they being so…” is reallllly familiar.

One thing I can takeaway from this is the view of creativity as novelty, and how it shows up here. Novelty seems to be framed as all-in, blow-it-up differences here. The example at the beginning of the ad campaign that ends in “fuck you!” to the viewers is a pretty good example, that it’s really about being shocking or awe-inspiring. If we are going to take a view that creativity has to be new, that’s certainly a way of identifying newness, and incremental new doesn’t count. Winning awards is kind of interesting as a way of assessing if your “new” was “good new,” and the quote from the award team leadership was equally interesting—that they are both awarding the newness and the ability for someone to get it through the machinations of a corporate client. That definitely has some resonance to me, as design is always about helping clients get out of their own way (and, by proxy, my way to do the job I was hired to do.)

The educational juxtaposition here is interesting too, although not an exact parallel to the one I see happening in our field. In this context, being trained in fine arts is a sign of exclusivity and is positive, because it gives someone a sense of “romantic” grandiosity. The alternative isn’t seen as being light or thin; it’s seen as being subpar in terms of creative spark or largeness.

There’s something more recent that sort of blends “UX” and advertising into microsites and micro campaigns and social media, where the interface and usability and comprehension and whatever else user experience is becomes integral to the “activation” of the advertising itself. I’ve never been a part of that sort of joint activity and really don’t ever want to, but I can only imagine the designers trying to do their best in an environment that is, as far as I can tell as an outside, exactly the same as described here.

One letdown on the paper itself; the title doesn’t match with the content, or at least the interesting part (to me) didn’t. It’s definitely about “The pursuit of newness” but there’s almost nothing about the “narcissism of minor differences”, which is why I selected it in the first place. It’s entirely about the narcissism of major differences.