The Creative Crisis and the Relentless Pursuit of Mediocrity.

We’re in a technological era like no other before. Yet, I’m not the only one who has noticed an opposite decline in creativity.

In 1958, E. Paul Torrance pioneered a creativity evaluation system. Though not without error, these tests have predicted and projected children’s creative accomplishments as adults with enough accuracy to remain the standard tests for the past 50 years.

Based on these tests, a recent article in Newsweek, titled ā€œCreativity in Crisisā€ shows that while IQ scores are up, Creativity is down:

Kyung Hee Kim at the College of William & Mary discovered this in May, after analyzing almost 300,000 Torrance scores of children and adults. Kim found creativity scores had been steadily rising, just like IQ scores, until 1990. Since then, creativity scores have consistently inched downward. ā€œIt’s very clear, and the decrease is very significant,ā€ Kim says.


The article goes on to say:

It’s too early to determine conclusively why U.S. creativity scores are declining. One likely culprit is the number of hours kids now spend in front of the TV and playing videogames rather than engaging in creative activities. Another is the lack of creativity development in our schools. In effect, it’s left to the luck of the draw who becomes creative: there’s no concerted effort to nurture the creativity of all children.


I think there’s more to it than that.

Fear and its equally evil sister, conformity, are the culprits.

Over the last while, political correctness has threatened, cajoled and belligerently permeated everything in society, working its way into school and home. The altruistic idea of cultural relativism - the belief that everything is equal, including ambition and talent - is flattening the world once again and distorting reality.

Technology is helping. It’s enabled all arts – from design, to music, to film making - to be democratized. This mass access has hood winked people into believing that art and ideas can come from anyone. That there’s no such thing as a ā€˜big idea’ anymore. That nothing is original. That ā€œgenius steals.ā€ And that the crowd is better than the individual.

The equality and validity of anybody and everybody’s ideas is promised without anybody having to possess a modicum of talent, or learn and practice to acquire skills, or be genuinely curious, or mature through the accumulation of knowledge.

Presto! Everybody is instantly creative because society says so.

But, societal conformity isn’t just wrong. The whole concept of creative equality is wrong. From the Newsweek article:

A fine example of this emerged in January of this year, with release of a study by University of Western Ontario neuroscientist Daniel Ansari and Harvard’s Aaron Berkowitz, who studies music cognition. They put Dartmouth music majors and nonmusicians in an fMRI scanner, giving participants a one-handed fiber-optic keyboard to play melodies on. Sometimes melodies were rehearsed; other times they were creatively improvised. During improvisation, the highly trained music majors used their brains in a way the nonmusicians could not: they deactivated their right-temporoparietal junction. Normally, the r-TPJ reads incoming stimuli, sorting the stream for relevance. By turning that off, the musicians blocked out all distraction. They hit an extra gear of concentration, allowing them to work with the notes and create music spontaneously.


But the conformists march on, regardless of the consequences. And even though the necessity of creativity should be undisputed.

A recent IBM poll of 1,500 CEOs identified creativity as the No.1 ā€œleadership competencyā€ of the future. I’d argue it’s always been that way, whether through the invention of the wheel, the light bulb, Martin Luther's famous speech, or the Apple computer.

Advertising and other professionally creative disciplines are now being abused by things like crowd sourcing, where ideas are bought and traded for a few hundred dollars. Where it’s less likely that truly great ideas can be produced because the ā€˜contestants’ do not have access to the client and the marketing information, just a brief. Where qualifications, passion and experience play no part. Where mostly non-creative people judge and decide what is creative and therefore effective.

I’ve always believed that creative people have soldered abnormal connections in their brains that serve to quickly unravel mysteries and discover solutions to problems. These connections don’t come without curiosity, ambition, hard work and years of practice.

For example, the way I go about solving a problem is to immerse myself in all the facts and relevant information and then walk away for days, or as long as I can. Leaving the problem in the back of my brain to more-or-less solve itself. Afterwards, I focus on the possibilities - writing them down for further exploration, or rejection.

This isn’t a left-brain, right-brain approach. It’s a whole brain approach as the article goes on to illustrate:

When you try to solve a problem, you begin by concentrating on obvious facts and familiar solutions, to see if the answer lies there. This is a mostly left-brain stage of attack. If the answer doesn’t come, the right and left hemispheres of the brain activate together. Neural networks on the right side scan remote memories that could be vaguely relevant. A wide range of distant information that is normally tuned out becomes available to the left hemisphere, which searches for unseen patterns, alternative meanings, and high-level abstractions.

Having glimpsed such a connection, the left brain must quickly lock in on it before it escapes. The attention system must radically reverse gears, going from defocused attention to extremely focused attention. In a flash, the brain pulls together these disparate shreds of thought and binds them into a new single idea that enters consciousness. This is the ā€œaha!ā€ moment of insight, often followed by a spark of pleasure as the brain recognizes the novelty of what it’s come up with.

Now the brain must evaluate the idea it just generated. Is it worth pursuing? Creativity requires constant shifting, blender pulses of both divergent thinking and convergent thinking, to combine new information with old and forgotten ideas. Highly creative people are very good at marshaling their brains into bilateral mode, and the more creative they are, the more they dual-activate.


Finally, I’m not saying that everybody can’t participate in adding to ideas and making them better. It’s just the hatching, nurturing, design, aesthetics, steering and judgment of ideas where I don’t think everybody is, or can be equal.

Lets not confuse amateurs, hobbyists and tinkerers (in other words ā€˜the crowd’) with talented professionals. Else we’re all doomed to mediocrity.

Agree, or disagree? I’d love to hear your thoughts and comments.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Meet Flipboard. All Your Social Data in a Magazine Type Format.

Billing itself as a "social magazine," Flipboard, developed by former Apple iPhone engineer Evan Doll and Silicon Valley entrepreneur Mike McCue, gathers are your "social" data from Facebook, Twitter and your Twitter lists into a magazine-like format on the iPad. The app takes cues from the print world to transform social media data into a streamlined reading experience, even including a "cover," and T.O.C.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

User Centred Design Infograph.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

A Useful Guide About Brand Utility.

A roundup on how brands create useful, free apps, installations and tools in order to engage the audience more often and longer - thereby building goodwill. Success is based on the intrinsic value, in other words, would people pay for the effort?

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

GeoLocal: The Rise of Consumer Location-based Services.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Something For Brand Marketers to Remember: The Internet Doesn’t Forget.

Despite the rosy picture enthusiasts paint, social media can be a fast track to brand disaster. Even if a brand doesn’t participate.

Ā 

There’s a good article titled, ā€œThe Pocket Guide to Defensive Brandingā€ that delves into the dark side of online conversations and what it means for brands:

Ā 

Beware exuberant social-media pontificators bearing gifts. This stuff is hard, and often it blows up in our faces. The digital landscape is littered with social-media roadkill. I've been in the brand-monitoring business since 1999, witnessing what the late Dr. Carl Sagan might have referred to as "billions and billions" of online conversations. It's not all good.

Ā 

Internet as complaint desk


The era of friction-free feedback is turning Twitter into a 24/7 anywhere and anyplace complaint desk. Facebook pages for raving fans often morph into frying pans. Paid-media gains are getting erased by "spurned media" (earned media gone negative) pain.

Ā 

Related: Are You Allowing Lunatics to Control Your Brand Message?

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

This month, the Separation of Tongue and Speech Award Goes to Sara MacLean.

The world is increasingly becoming populated by nosy, pompous, arrogant tattlers. Exactly the type described by George Orwell. These self-appointed defenders of "newspeak" believe they have the right to inflict financial damage and doll out punishment on anybody who has a differing opinion from theirs and dares to think it, let alone say it. In their world, any opinion different from their own is typically labeled "hate speech," even if logically it isn't. But then, logic is something bereft in their lives.

I recently had the pleasure of responding to one such person in an email exchange.

But first a little background. In a hotly contested Mayoral race in Toronto, one contestant accused another of being bigoted and hateful for having commented, some years ago, that AIDS ā€œis very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn’t get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line.ā€ A strategic planner at our agency tweeted, ā€œSmitherman should spend less time attacking Ford for telling the truth about AIDS, more time coming up with actual policies.ā€ This tweet was done on his own personal twitter account and on his own time. The tweet was RT'd by somebody working for the candidate and the story was picked up in today's Toronto Star.

Unaware of any of this, because, frankly, who cares? I received this email:

Good Afternoon,

I'm a Torontonian who was alarmed by the following development in the news, and it upset me enough to contact you directly.

An individual named Josh Somers, who claims online to be employed by Reason Partners, just made the news (as I hope you're already aware) for referring to Rob Ford's offensive 2006 comments about AIDS as "the truth about AIDS" on Rob Ford's twitter feed. The same individual (Josh Somers) publicly has posted these disturbing statements on his own public twitter feed:

> So-called "feminists" are showing their true colours. It's not about saving women's lives, just about killing as many babies as possible. 1:07 PM May 4th via web
> Proud of the Tory government for refusing to give taxpayer money for murdering babies in poor countries. 10:02 PM Apr 26th via UberTwitter

What led me to you was another tweet of his...

> I am pleased to announce that I just agreed to join the team at Reason Partners @reasonapplied Expect some great things! 5:43 PM Apr 20th via UberTwitter

Do his statements reflect the views of Reason Partners? He certainly has made your company look rather disgusting today by association. I see @reasonapplied follows his twitter feed, so one assumes you're well aware of the hateful sorts of statements he makes online.

What say you to this, do you not worry about the reputation of your agency when you lend implicit endorsement to this type of ignorant hate speech? More simply put does Reason Partners also stand for homophobia, anti-abortion and anti-feminist views?

Thank you for your time, I hope you will see fit to fire this individual promptly if you haven't already.

Sincerely,
Sara MacLean


To which I responded:

Dear Sara,

In response to your email, I shouldn't have to tell you that Josh Somers posted his opinions as a private citizen on his own personal twitter account and as such, his personal opinions do not and in no way represent Reason Partners.

Given the above, the tone, insinuations and outright accusations you have made towards Reason Partners are not only alarming, but possibly libelous and defaming. Because of this I have forwarded your email to our lawyers.

Furthermore, I would like to know who appointed you head of HR at Reason Partners?

Sincerely,

Peter Holmes
President
Reason Partners, Inc.


Apparently, Sara got the message:

Ā Hello Peter,

Thanks for your reply.

I'm glad to hear he wasn't acting on your behalf, it was not immediately clear whether he (and Reason Partners) were part of Rob Ford's social media team, the comment gained media attention on Rob Ford's page, not the poster's individual account. It appears indeed this was in fact a passive retweet of the original comment. Whether or not that distinction will be clear to the public or not will remain to be seen, but as you point out it certainly removes you from that picture.

My questions were posed to you privately, so I'm not sure how they'd constitute defamation or libel, but perhaps your lawyers will clear that up for me. While I'm sorry to hear that my questions about the hate-speech in question constitute the alarming element in my message (as opposed to the awful comments themselves), I had no intention of causing any sort of trouble for your company and regret bringing this to your attention. Needless to say you won't hear from me again.

Best,
Sara


Good enough. However, as you can see, Sara felt she had the moral authority to attempt to intimidate myself and the company into complying with her demand to fire Josh Somers. I wonder how many companies would have pussy footed around this incident? I wonder how many would've cow-tailed to her demand?

Regardless of which side of the fence you stand on with regards to Josh's personal opinion, he has a right to speak it. Having said that, Isn't it time speech bullies like Sara were called out as rude and nosy spectacles, rather than taken seriously? I certainly hope so.

Ā 
To clarify his tweet and the incident, Josh posted a blog summary "A Statement on the Smitherman / Ford controversy" that's worth a read.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Facebook's Open Graph: A Work of Good, or a Work of Evil?

In case you haven't seen this speech by Mark Zuckerberg, you probably should. Facebook is planning on becoming the dominate player online and with the introduction of their Open Graph API, they may just do that. All websites can now be connected and social - with "like" buttons and so on. You will be able to leave comments, see what your friends have done, what they think of the content on any particular site, which friends are currently on the site, and connect with them. It will change the way you interact on social platforms and websites, linking them all into one big social experience with Facebook as the glue.

It will also change how brands can target consumers based on actual behaviour.

I find the idea of your information being shared in order for a site to ā€˜personalize’ your experience based on your tastes and your friends tastes interesting and relevant – but also a little creepy. Facebook wants to own your digital fingerprints.

Robert Scoble has this to say:

What we’re really scared about is another very powerful company is forming. One that we don’t yet fully trust. Heck, just a few years ago Facebook erased me from the web for 24 hours. I can’t forget that, even though now I’m good friends with most of the Facebook execs. Let’s say Facebook wanted to kick you off the system, it could, and that could have deep implications for your business, career, etc.

Now go further, we’re all going to be very addicted to Facebook’s new features very quickly. The website that doesn’t have Facebook ā€œlikesā€ on it will seem weird in a few months. In a few years? Almost every site, I predict, will have them, and the other components that you can check out above (and more that will come soon, both from Facebook as well as other developers).

My fears are that Facebook might turn evil and use its position against organizations, the way that Apple locks out organizations from shipping apps (do you have Google Voice app on your iPhone yet? I don’t). Imagine if Facebook wanted to turn off the New York Times, for instance. It could. And that’s a LOT of power to give to one organization, even one that’s earned my trust like Facebook has. This is why I keep hoping Google has a clue (so far it hasn’t).

Is Facebook turning the online world into one gigantic high school social, including the possibility of bullying?

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Are You Allowing Lunatics to Control Your Brand Message?

The lunatic is on the grass

The lunatic is on the grass
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs

Got to keep the loonies on the path
– Pink Floyd


On Facebook, a friend recently posted a picture of herself fishing and got into an email spat with somebody who took offence:

Just got into a full on email fight with some DOUCHE who decided that this FINE picture of myself Fishing in Catalina is a display of "cruelty to animals" and that I should take it down as it’s promoting killing etc., etc. WTF? Get off my page ASS!


This type of busy-body nosiness and self-projection is worse for brands. Somehow brand marketers are being held to an impossible standard in the rose coloured world of the lunatic.

I’m getting questions from clients wondering how to handle negative comments on socnet sites. Worse, I’m finding some clients fearing backlash for the good products they provide.

Unfortunately, social media allows everybody to post pretty much whatever they want. In this environment, often the PC, condescending, sense of entitlement fringe is the loudest.

But however loud and obnoxious, they are far from the majority. And even further from reality.

There’s a good amount of cognitive dissonance at work that marketers have to deal with as well.

We know people buy leather goods to look and feel good, but don’t ever say the leather came from a cow. We know people buy seafood to eat healthier, but don’t ever say it came from fish. It requires too much rationalization.

It’s sheer madness. But it’s more mad to cater to absurd opinions.

Better to be congenial, while remaining unapologetic.

Explain to the toddlers that seafood actually comes from fish and let them deal with the epiphany. Let them know that people enjoy eating fish and that it’s healthy for them. And let them know that although you respect their opinion, they do not speak for everybody. So, would they please have the courtesy to allow others to live their own life, by their own values, as everybody else allows them to do.

Better yet, let somebody else do the work for you. It’s not often irrational opinions go without comment and a good public dressing down.

Forrester Research says there are 33.5 billion online brand conversations every day in the US alone.

With everybody chattering at once and so easily, a new goal of marketers is to have more people speaking positively and fewer people speaking negatively about their brand. A study by the London School of Economics states that brands with the most recommendations in their category grow four times faster than the average. Increasing recommendation by 12% doubles sales growth.

As the above study suggests, it’s important to know how to get people not only speaking positively, but recommending your brand.

By the same token, it’s important to know how to stem, if not avoid negative comments. However, there’s a caveat: Avoid watering down your message to appease a non-buying and irrational minority. Speak to your customer and don’t apologize to non-customers for the business you are in.

A famous quote from Bill Bernbach sums it up:

Stand for something and some people will stand with you and some against you. Stand for nothing and nobody will stand with you, or against you.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Top Blogs and What You Can Learn From Their Success.

Interesting and useful blog information via seomoz.org:

  • Of the 100 proven blogs in the sample, 66% were self owned. This leads me to believe that blogging is still dictated by ability rather than budget.
  • Although there is a remarkable amount of popular independently owned blogs, the ownership of popular blogs overall is heavily consolidated.
  • 76% of the top blogs titles contain only one or two words (not including 'The'). This reinforces the idea that when it comes to marketing it is best to keep it simple.
  • 86% of the top blog TLDs were the traditional dot com.
  • The interesting insights come from diving into the niches. Every subject has many niches. Success can come from any one of them.
  • 80% of the top blogs have more than one primary writer.
  • The reason why 43% cater to men and only 13% cater to women is because of supply rather than demand. Blogs catering to women will likely find audiences much more easily than the over saturated male-oriented market.
  • 95% of the Internet's top blogs are based in the United States. Yet, the potential audience abroad dwarfs the current American audience. Why?

 

Filed under  //

Comments [0]