← The Marketing Architects
The Marketing Architects
Creative Effectiveness in 2026 with Steve Babcock
00:37:56
Only 21% of creatively awarded campaigns actually drive business results. But when ideas reach the very top of creative excellence, effectiveness doubles to 44%. So what separates the winners from the rest? This week, Elena and Rob are joined by...
Loading summary
Transcript106 lines
- [00:00]
A
Real creativity isn't about just serving up exactly what you think someone wants, but it's being able to understand to serve them up something that they didn't know they wanted or something that they maybe will want in a year from now or whatever. Right.
- [00:15]
B
Marketing Architects. Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Lana Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects. And I'm joined by my co host Rob Demar is the chief product architect of misfits and machines.
- [00:33]
A
Hello.
- [00:34]
B
And we're joined by Steve Babcock, our chief creative officer at Marketing Architects.
- [00:38]
A
Hello. Hello. Glad to be back. This is my sophomore episode.
- [00:44]
B
Yeah, thanks for exciting.
- [00:46]
A
I didn't think you would invite me back after the last one, so I'm.
- [00:49]
C
Very, I mean the freshman year. Freshman year is the toughest. Now it's just. Now it's easy.
- [00:55]
A
No, I'm excited to be here.
- [00:57]
B
Happy to have you back. We are back with our thoughts on some recent marketing news. Always trying to root our opinions and data, research and what drives business results. And today Steve is here because we are talking about creativity. But I'll kick us off, as I always do, with some research. And today I chose an article by Stuart Mitchell. It's titled Highly Awarded Creative Ideas are Significantly More effective. New work research reveals work recently analyzed more than 5,600 campaigns from the past decades to understand the relationship between creativity and effectiveness. What they found is that creativity does matter, but it's not a guarantee. About 21% of the Creatively awarded ideas also went on to win effectiveness awards. However, when ideas reach the very top, aka the work creative 100, the likelihood of effectiveness doubles to 44%. The difference isn't just the idea itself. The most creative and effective campaigns tend to run longer, use more channels and show higher levels of what work calls creative commitment. They balance emotion with information, build brand equity and in most cases deliver measurable sales impact. The takeaway is pretty clear. Creative effectiveness isn't just isolated brilliance. It's about sustained, well supported creative work. So there's a lot within that research that we're going to talk about today. I wanted to start with a study. This one I thought was interesting because it's positive that a lot of like the top top creative is very effective. But that stat stood out to me like only 21% of award winning creative was then found to be effective. Steve, does that number surprise you at all?
- [02:24]
A
No, it doesn't. And I think it's because I have Sort of my specific opinions around a lot of the Creative Award. There are a lot of award shows. If I could go back in time, I would have invented an award show because they are a money maker. They play off of the emotions of everybody in our industry.
- [02:44]
C
The Stevies.
- [02:45]
A
Yeah, the Stevie. Just, hey, send them in. It's $500 in entry there. There are a lot. If I'm talking specifically around some of those that are more notorious for creativity. We're talking Cannes one show, et cetera. I'm not surprised because I feel like, for the most part, what they celebrate, which I also think is worth celebrating in a different avenue, is the art is the surprise is the uniqueness, but kind of of the moment. Whereas ineffectiveness, and especially as the article that you just referred to, is something that, well, you don't really know if it's effective over until you've spent some time with it. It's like a different lens, I would say. I never want to discredit them and be like, oh, creative award shows or not. It's like, they have their place, but I don't think they're a great barometer. And apparently science agrees to what we're really supposed to do, which is create effectiveness, impact and effectiveness for our brand partners. And that's the other thing, too. Effectiveness, like, has to live in the real world for an amount of time. Right. Like, it's EAS for anybody to sit in isolation and go, I'm coming up with something that's cool. And a lot of times I'm trying to come up with it to appease these award show judges, to appease the industry insight. Right. Versus, like, the average person out there, what really makes creative and effective work. So I'm not really surprised. I just have a hard time, like, being a downer on it. It's still very inspiring. But it's art. Typically, it's the art side. It's not really the responsible side. I don't even think it's advertising half the time. You know, if you. If you identify advertising as it has a job to do, it's more like, okay, it's art that you use a client's money to make. So I'm not super surprised. I mean, maybe that number seems a little lower than I would have thought, but that checks.
- [04:33]
C
Yeah. I think the other stat that really stood out to me was the 44% headline going, wow, okay, that says it's not just about creativity. It's also about commitment in scale and consistency. Yeah, those were the campaigns that ended up not Just recognizing the creative idea but believing in it enough that you're willing to stick with it. I think the other thing just to, I don't know, go down a quick rabbit hole to your point, Steve, award shows are tricky, right? What are they awarding? I think the other side of it is, even with effectiveness awards, it's like, what are you really measuring when you said, okay, you improve click through rate by 52%, but if your click through rate was 2, like, that's not that great or too quick. So, you know, it's like, it's sometimes it can be funny math.
- [05:24]
B
No, Steve, I thought that was a good point that I haven't even thought of, which is, should we even expect award shows to be judging effective creative? Because you see those headlines all the time where they're like, oh, awards aren't. They're not aligned with what's effective. Are they even set up to suss that out in the first place?
- [05:40]
A
Totally. Just embrace what it is and go like, this is the art side, this is what we're doing and, and have a good time and everybody fly to France and party it up. I that the other thing too is like, creativity is subjective, effectiveness isn't. I mean, it can be manipulated or you can try to tell the story if you want. To this day, if I see another award show video entry like, and the campaign garnered 800 billion media impressions, like, no one knows what that means, you know, but they throw it in there and everyone's like, it's impressive. Effectiveness like that can be measured. And so it's almost to me like, it doesn't need an award show for it. It just needs like a report like the effectiveness report. There's not a subjective by any judges here. It is. There's a lot of resources out there that do that. I think, unfortunately, in our industry, sorry, I'm soapboxing here in our industry and I think it's changing. Historically, I'm old now, so historically I think effectiveness hasn't been thought of as sexy. Right? Like the actual craft of what a real good campaign is supposed to do is a combination of those things. But at the end of the day, like, you have to be able to brag about that. It worked. It solved the business objective. That's the trick. That's the puzzle. And somewhere along the way, this whole Mad Men idea, a lot of creatives in advertising, I think we got confused by that a little and started to embrace like. And then there became that split right where it's like, well, you know, effective work that Sucks. It's not good. It's like, why?
- [07:14]
B
No, that's a great point. And that leads nicely into this next question I had, which is we have creative that can win awards and be seen as art, but doesn't necessarily drive growth. What do you think separates those types of creative then?
- [07:27]
A
Growth driving creative is designed to be used like, not just admired, if that makes any sense. It made sense in my head as I was saying it. I'm tracking like, it's like growth driving creative. It's designed to scale, it's designed to be repeatable, it's designed to work across all of the channels. It's utility. It's really hard working creative that's designed to live in the real world for as long as possible versus just be this. I guess I'm going back to this art flash in the pan art that's designed to get everyone to go, oh, hey. The other thing that's interesting about that mindset versus I think it was talking about like durability. Like growth centered campaigns have durability, they have longevity. And I think one of the reasons why that turns into effectiveness, especially today, because I would argue maybe even 10 years ago, and I've worked at many agencies where that was it. The goal was like, get on the news tonight with whatever we're going to do, right? And back then that did work. I think that really did. We would call it the added or the second media buy, right? It's like there's the media buy that you pay for. But because the idea was so crazy and outrageous or whatever, it got free press and all that. Nowadays the news cycle, like right now, while we've recorded this culture's already gone through three big things, probably that we'll find out when we go to Twitter after this, right? So now if brands are trying to play in that, you don't last four seconds. Like, you got like, we got the headline. It's like no one cares because we're already onto four other headlines, whether it's what's going on in the world or all these things. So I think that discipline of going, hey, I don't need to play in that game because it's a losing battle to just try to get like the headline of the second versus, like build something that is incredibly creative emotionally but effective rationally, that can live forever. And that takes a lot of discipline because sometimes as a creative that doesn't feel sexy and you can get bored with it as a creator, right? And you're like, but it. But they're not bored of it. It's working for them, like, so it's that discipline, I think, of being an artist in advertising for a lot of creatives.
- [09:39]
C
Okay. You're inspiring me, Steve. So let's create an award show. We're gonna call it the Stevies. Cause that's just cool, right? And you can't enter your campaign until it's run for two years.
- [09:53]
A
Oh, I love that. It's interesting too, because I've thought a lot about just the cycle of advertising award shows. They're every year, so they're just to do like the novelty. And it feels like a frown to be like, oh, hey, it's limu emu. Which has been going on for 10 years. Like you can't enter that. That's not new, you know, and it's like, exactly. But it's been really effective. Exactly. Yeah. I love it.
- [10:16]
C
The Stevie's coming soon.
- [10:17]
A
Stevie's. See you. See you in two years.
- [10:21]
B
Let's say we create the Stevies. All right. And see if you're judging it. Rob two, you can be a judge. What would you reward that doesn't normally get recognized?
- [10:31]
A
Durability. I'll never say it's easy. That's a cop out. It's hard. It's hard to come up with something memorable, period. But to come up with something that's memorable, that can last. I come from also from the music world too. And just like that's what they say when somebody creates a record that's timeless. We've all heard them. It's like, man, that was awesome when that record came out. But it's been a classic for many years. And I think that's the same with advertising. You also have a lot of one hit wonders, I guess, to continue analogy to music, right. It was like, man, that, that was the summer hit of 2006. But where are they now? Meanwhile, then there's like the bands that put out records that are like durable timeless. So I think that would be the thing I would look for, which I guess would only exist in the Stevies because it doesn't really exist in today's ad. I agree, man. Award shows, because you're like looking for. What was that one hit wonder.
- [11:23]
C
We're creating the criteria for the Stevies here. You know that, that commitment, right? That commitment to be both courageous. But hold on to that idea and not give up too early, which every CMO obviously loves to do when they come in. Let's change it when it's working great. I love the word durability. It's a great word, Steve, because I think that's really what you're, what you're looking to accomplish.
- [11:44]
B
Well, we're sharing some opinions that people will probably push back on a little bit. So I know, Rob, you're not afraid of doing that. Steve, you also appear to not be afraid of doing that either. So in that spirit, what is a creative take that you've had or have hopefully have that people have pushed back on but you still believe is right?
- [12:03]
A
Oh, gosh, I'm not much of a contrarian. I don't think so, but I feel like I've probably got a lot of those. I would continue along. What Rob was just saying is like, you don't need to reinvent yourself all the time. We have this conversation with clients all the time, right? Where we're like, man, we're on a roll. It's like year three and we're continuing to build. We can continue to make this idea fresh yet consistent. We should maybe do this or that because some. No, you don't need more ideas. You just need fewer ideas that are really great and can be durable thus executed for a longer period of time.
- [12:42]
C
That's a good one. Elena, you know mine, I've said it enough times on this podcast, but my contrarian view is that television is now an audio first medium. And the research has really showed that people's eyeballs are retreating to their second screens. So to get attention, you've got to think about what's your audio strategy in that commercial?
- [13:06]
B
Always a good reminder. So one part of the report, I know we've been talking about how only 21% of these creatives that won awards were truly effective. But they did share that those like top, top end ads that won like the highest creative awards, they were much more likely to be effective. But Steve, why do you think like such a few number of brands ever get there where like they're having things that are both effective and creatively awarded?
- [13:35]
A
It's hard to do. That's really the craft. That's the goal. That is the benchmark. And nothing that wants to honor truly what advertising is designed to do that doesn't fall into that space, that very small space of being able to accomplish that I don't think should really be recognized or talked about or celebrated that much because that's, that's really where the celebration is. Because we know that humans. Speaking for myself, like, we don't just buy rationally. We're still very much. Until AI takes us all over, we're very, we're Emotional.
- [14:11]
B
Right.
- [14:11]
A
And emotional messaging and engaging messaging and creativity that inspires, that makes us feel something that's always going to register. Right. It has a lot to do with memorability and effectiveness. Right. As well. But we're going to speak to the heart. We're going to use insights that really speak to people emotionally, not just the speeds and feeds. This product does X, Y and Z. But when you can combine those things like you've just defined, like that's the goal. Like that is the goal. It's not one or the other. It never should be or can be. That is the mix that works. We're always striving. We have the line. Remarkable work that works remarkably. Rob, you probably came up with that is before my time. I've always really, really loved it. And it's so easy to say. It's always easy to say. But when you're sticking down pen to paper, it's like it's a challenge. It's definitely the one that our entire industry should never stop pursuing.
- [15:12]
B
So we should be pursuing it. But like you said, most don't make it. Don't make it there. Which makes me think that there has to be some best practices or some things that most people in the industry are doing pursuing that aren't helping effectiveness. Do you have one in mind? A creative best practice that you think is actively hurting effective campaigns, maybe like over personalization.
- [15:35]
A
Everything has to be so incredibly hyper targeted. I still think like mass reach with a clear idea. Right. Will always outperform fragmented cleverness, if that makes sense. I think we have a responsibility. I think real creativity isn't about just serving up exactly what you think someone wants, but it's being able to understand to serve them up something that they didn't know they wanted or something that they maybe will want in a year from now or whatever. Right. Guess that maybe would be a best practice that I don't think is helping. If you just assume that's that's it, that's the best practice. Always hyper targeted, man. Studies show that our audience likes dogs. Send them a picture of a dog. And that's if they also might like meerkats, you know, and we think that there's something really interesting and clever there. And so everyone loves meerkats. I don't know. Yeah, maybe that.
- [16:30]
B
No, we're definitely aligned with that. Wait, Rob, shut up for a second.
- [16:35]
C
I hate cats.
- [16:37]
A
Meerkats, though, are not cats.
- [16:39]
C
What the hell's a meerkat?
- [16:41]
A
You don't know what a meerkat they're like in Africa or something. Probably. They, like, stand up and they're like. They're adorable.
- [16:47]
B
Timon. Timon from the Lion King. He's a meerkat.
- [16:51]
A
Yeah, I think.
- [16:52]
C
I think I just hate all cats.
- [16:54]
A
That's fair, Rob.
- [16:55]
B
Okay, get back on track, Steve. I think we definitely would agree with that for a lot of reasons, with even the practicality of, like you said, knowing what somebody really wants down to the individual level. And I'm also. I'm interested in doing an episode on this soon about fragmentation, because it is a big issue. And I think that's what drives brands towards this hyper personalization is these platforms demand it. Like, they want all these different versions and. But I think there's that path where you just become so fragmented and personalized and you lose those big ideas. Or how do you start with a big idea, share it everywhere you can, because there still are a lot of opportunities for mass reach, and then take that and distribute it in different ways. I like what you're saying there because you're right that these platforms drive you towards that, but how do you not get caught in that loop?
- [17:39]
A
Yeah. And I think, like I said, I think there's a great advantage to personalization as it relates to, like, funnel mapping. Right. Okay. So and so saw this ad. I know it. I've tracked them now I'm going to serve them up another ad that acknowledges they've seen that kind of thing. But when it's like, from a creative standpoint of like, super, super hyper targeted targetation. I think that's a word, targetation. It is. It's a category in the Stevies is best use of targetation.
- [18:12]
C
I love it.
- [18:13]
A
It's coming up in two years, folks. But like, targeting like that. I definitely agree. I just think, man, when you're so narrow focused on your effort, you miss out on all of the fringe and that's. You don't grow otherwise.
- [18:27]
B
So I think a lot of us, when we get into marketing, we want to do the big creative thing. Like, that's like the fun part of marketing is getting to be creative. But where do you think CMOs might unintentionally be harming their creative effectiveness?
- [18:42]
A
I would say for me, a lot of it is. I feel like not a fight, but a debate or a challenge that I'm often in with CMO partners or someone of their like is the value of distinctive assets. Just looking. Sounding super unique and different. Just that I feel like there's a lot of times where I'll go in and typically I'll present work based off of just that criteria. Here are three very distinct asset approaches one uses. Hey, here's a character we've developed, or here's this thing we've developed, or here's this. And again, because they're designed for durability, they're designed for longevity, and we've looked across the competitive set as well as just the rest of the market, and this is distinct. And here's some things that aren't right. And sometimes you can get subjective, but like, really doing the work there, I found, you know, more often than not where it would get frustrating is as you go along the work, the distinctiveness will get knocked out because being distinct can also be really uncomfortable. It's very easy. But I just, I'm going to do this because this feels safe. It feels good. The other thing, unfortunately, I believe the life cycle of a CMO at a company is super short, like the span. Right. So that just means, okay, they're getting traded around faster than like college sports coaches. They're not there either if we're trying to like, be in their shoes. Right. They're operating from a place of like, I don't know if I should be ruffling feathers. I understand it. I'm not critiquing it, but I wish. I promise you, and it's easy for me to say your life, your job's not a life. It probably is. But I promise you that if we are distinct, there's so many studies that back it up, that distinctiveness is a direct link to like, longevity and effectiveness. Yeah, that would be. Maybe it's a little close to the. Is a little sensitive right now because I think I just went through that earlier this week. So.
- [20:41]
B
Yeah, no, but it's a good point though, that it's almost up to the CEO because CMOs, if you come in and you don't have time to think long term about your brand, they're gonna be pushed into this corner of I need to play it safe and try to get an instant result. I mean, that's also on. Not on the CMO's shoulder. Like, that's on. The company itself needs to be aligned.
- [20:59]
A
And a million percent. If there's ever a person that I've ever seen stuck between a rock and a hard place more, it will be a CMO at a major company. You feel for them because they're just like, I'm trying to. You're just like, ah, not a place I ever would like to be.
- [21:15]
B
No. Well, one piece from the report that I wanted to call out is this finding that the best creative ideas balance both emotional and rational messaging. Because we talk a lot on this show about emotional advertising outperforming rational. But I thought it was kind of refreshing. Like, that's normally the narrative you see. It was refreshing to have work come out and say, hey, the best idea is balance. Both of those, which I know, Steve, we have remarkable work that works remarkably. We definitely believe that too. How do you think creatives can get that balance right?
- [21:45]
A
There's a little chicken in the egg, right? Like, philosophically, the industry needs to change in order to change. Creatives coming into the industry, creatives are like, I'm chasing the thing that the industry's telling me to chase. I think ultimately the landscape will force that. Right? It's like brands, and we've seen that over the years, I think where brands are like, no, my marketing dollars, I have to have something to show for it. So I think it's effectiveness is going to be something that creatives are going to be if they don't embrace it already, which I think that's the route to go. That's where the pride in your craft should be, is that you created a thing that solved a problem that actually worked. But if they can't get there, they're going to be forced to get there. But I think the idea of emotion, emotion will get the attention, but the rational part, the information that, like, that earns the permission, if that makes sense. So it's like, we need to stop treating them as opposites. They're literally two parts of the equation. Right? Like, you need both of them. That's the other mistake, right? Where you'll see maybe something that gets highly celebrated and it's very emotional, but you walk away and like, I don't actually know what it was for or what it does or why it's a thing need to get right now or participate with. And. And that's where I'm like, wait, we've missed that. And then you'll also see things. You're like, okay, I just totally saw a little demo of a thing, or I kind of know what that is and why it works, but it didn't speak to me in my life in any kind of way that makes me remember it or recall it in 15 minutes. So I think that's the way that creatives need to think about it, is that they're not opposites. They're just two halves to the complete, like, agenda.
- [23:32]
B
That's a good way of thinking about it. We can't have a podcast on creative in the year of 2026 without talking about AI. So we're at the check in on it. See, we talked to you about this last time you were on the show. How are you feeling now? Like, what role should AI be playing in creative work today? And where do you think it's maybe being misused?
- [23:51]
A
AI is. I just want to be very much on the record. So freaking cool. I know there's a lot of like doom and gloom about it. Maybe we're all doomed. I love it. I'm just going to be excited the whole way until our demise. It's so fun. It is so dang fun. But how it's being misused or how it could potentially be misused. So first of all, it's great. It's great in generating mass and helping you explore in obviously just getting rid of or just a lot of the tasks that take up time. And it's just, it's a really good. I like to actually think in the creative space. I like to think of AI as kind of like a creative partner. It's really fun to bounce ideas off of and just sit there and help. What you don't want to do is just like mindless prompts, just like prompted in cut and paste. I've got it. It's like, that's not. Now you're eliminating your role. And what it's not going to do is have what I've heard called. And maybe I've made this up. And I swear at one point I heard someone refer to this term the human leap. And basically what the human leap was is the ability to advance or to invent the thing that doesn't exist currently. AI is really good at grabbing everything that does exist and serving it up however you need it, which is great. But what about the thing that doesn't exist? And that's the human leap? And the thing that's always pushed creativity forward, our culture forward, is someone coming up and saying, what about this? And you're like, whoa, okay, we didn't. We weren't ready for that. I think that's going to be. The problem is when you misuse it to a point where you don't interject yourself. And at Marketing Architects, we refer to ourselves in the department as creative engineers. And I know a lot of agencies have fun titles just to be wacky. The hope is that we're not doing that. I genuinely think it was something that I personally thought of for a long time was like, why? What would be a. What would Be in a world of creating with AI, like what would be a title? And that was the best I could come up with. But it made sense because an engineer is using their human talents and their intuition and their skill set to use machines to do a job, whatever that is. Civil engineer, mechanical, electronic. And to me, it feels like that's the same way. It's like now we've got like hyper powerful machine at our fingertips, but we're engineering it, we're using it. And that's the difference between a human engineer versus just a button pusher. So many ways that you can interject your humanity into the AI process, whether it be how you prompt, how you create, how you add reference, all these things. So I guess that's probably my one misuse. And my worry with AI there is that if everybody misuses it, that it's just going to just create a beige world because it's just going to keep pulling back the same kind of thing. Like, please, we need the human leapers.
- [26:47]
C
You don't like beige, Steve? Is that what you're saying?
- [26:50]
A
I actually like beige. It gets a bad rap. And I just, I just substantiated that's great color.
- [26:56]
C
Which guys also say that AI in many ways isn't new, conceptually speaking.
- [27:03]
A
And maybe you thought about this too, because, Rob, you are definitely steep in this. But I was like thinking like, wasn't a calculator AI, Right. Right.
- [27:13]
C
Like, just like there's definitely the actual, like, intelligence of AI. And to go with you on that, though, back in the olden days of the 90s, I started at an ad agency and I heard about this title called A Typesetter. I'm like, what the hell's a typesetter? They're like, well, it's these people that would put the type in to make. Make the ad. And then obviously Quark came out, which is like this software program where you could do. And like, people's roles had to change.
- [27:41]
A
Yeah.
- [27:41]
C
In the agency I was at, there was actually a room where they cut film. Like, they literally cut film with like, I guess, razor blades.
- [27:48]
A
The listeners need to know that Rob is 98 years old. Okay.
- [27:53]
C
But next door to it, they had this thing called an Avid. And you're like, whoa. You could drag and drop and like move it.
- [28:01]
A
Yeah.
- [28:01]
C
Now that pissed a lot of editors off because you're like, oh, this is a craft that we have have. And just as we look at AI, it's it radically accelerated change. Like those other changes happen slowly over time. So you didn't get like the bends when they occurred where right now we're all going through the bends going, holy crap, where do I exist now? But in the way. This is just another way of manifesting amazing tool sets to your point, Steve, that can just give us superpowers if we use our powers for good.
- [28:32]
A
Well, I think the other. Not to tangentize us here.
- [28:35]
C
Another word, another category in the Stevies.
- [28:37]
A
Yes.
- [28:38]
C
Best use of tangentizing is like anytime.
- [28:43]
A
I get excited about AI for a variety of reasons, I just think delusional optimism is the way to live life. If it's all going down, we might as well go down with a smile.
- [28:52]
C
Nectar, Steve.
- [28:53]
A
It's just, let's go for it. But the other cool thing about it, and we do this thing in, in our group, which is really fun. Maybe every quarter we do it like a little film festival and everybody jumps in. There's usually a prompt. This last one was, was a film trailer. So you needed to make a trailer for a movie that you were coming up with. And you can use all the tools you want that we have access to. It's fun to do. It's camaraderie, but it's also just, hey, making sure that we're all leveling up. Now. Clearly we have a few folks on the team that are always like, okay, like Justin, who's just like, okay, he's going to dominate versus maybe someone over here who's classically trained as a writer. But what's been awesome is as we've done it more and more, it's becoming less obvious who's who in their submissions. And what's really cool about that is like the idea of, you know, historically there's ideas and then this massive bridge to that idea becoming real. Like back in Rob's day, if I had an idea, there's a bridge of people and money and production companies and channels and all of it. And so it's like only the select few ideas made it to the world. AI now is like dramatically shortened that bridge to where someone who has an idea can now make that idea real. And I think if you truly love creativity, that gets really exciting. It's the same thing with YouTube and stuff, right? At first it's like, what's YouTube? And it's like, well, now people who had a great idea were able to get it out there. AI is like that on, on, on supercharged. So I think it's really, really exciting. And I think the next few years I think AI is actually going to, you know, they're like, it's going to kill creativity. I think it's going to usher in a creative creativity revolution that we've never seen.
- [30:41]
B
Steve, you mentioned that one thing you changed about your team when all of this stuff was exploding was you changed people's titles to creative engineers. And I think that I'm guessing your intention behind that was to change some of the thinking around what we can do and what our roles can be. If you could give a CMO a piece of advice, one thing they could change about how they're approaching creative, how their team is their company. What would you tell them? What would actually move the needle?
- [31:04]
A
I would probably go back to that other thought. Just commit to fewer ideas for longer. Embrace that idea of building momentum through distinctiveness. I think there's a reason why we can look through the annuals of classic amazing marketing, and it's that characters are always a thing. That's a good example of a distinctive asset, like man. It's a great character that you've been able to have them speak, mean something, emotionally help sell the rational. But they've just created that memorability throughout the years. So I think that would be my thing is stop feeling like we gotta freshen it up. You don't want to be stale. Like, you can reinvent within the space that you've created. But I just feel like there's, like, a lack of patience. It's a long game. Effectiveness requires is a long game. Commit to it. It's a marathon, which I've never run. Elena's run 800 of them. I've never run any of them. So I feel bad using that analogy. And I just wanted to. I just wanted to publicly say that.
- [32:07]
B
Rob's actually ran more marathons than me. Yeah, I haven't done a marathon. I've done triathlons and half marathons. But, yeah, Rob has me beat. Has me there, actually.
- [32:17]
A
Wow, Rob, I did not know that about you. I feel bad.
- [32:20]
C
I just started writing him, so I'm new to. New to it.
- [32:24]
A
All right. I've offended both of you.
- [32:26]
B
No, it's fine. All right, let me. Let's wrap up here with something kind of fun. What is a campaign that you saw recently that you thought was very effective? Maybe if it even wasn't that flashy. And, Steve, you want to start us off?
- [32:40]
A
Yeah. Well, I would argue this one is flashy and maybe I'm alone. There's a lot that I could call to. I love, and I actually should look it up because I don't know how long it's been Going, but I know it's been going for at least a few years, which again, it calls back to the idea of durability. A great idea, but I love progressive insurances. Progressive can't save you from becoming your parents.
- [33:00]
C
The Dr. Rick.
- [33:02]
A
Yeah, but it can save you money. It's so good. It's on a great insight of like, hey, this is a time when people are trying to become independent and part of that is getting your own insurance and all that and you still want to be independent. And then this just great insight that we all. You reach a place. I'm definitely there. It's like you're your dad. You know, I'm like, like we all become our parents. But just so well executed. I have never. It's. I've again, I should look it up. I don't know how many. They've done dozens. They haven't hit one where I'm like, oh, jump the shark that's peaked. Like nailed it over and over and over. It's like that. Don't stop. If progressive people are watching this, just keep going with that. It's so good and effective and like a great example. Now I don't know if it'll show up in can because. Right. It's like, well, this is, this is. It's an old campaign that's been going for. But it will definitely win at the Stevies.
- [33:54]
B
So progressive.
- [33:56]
A
Please, please submit it, please. That'd be one for me.
- [34:00]
C
That's a good one. That's a great one. I've got. Okay. Initially I was thinking about this going, oh, well, you know, I love the new Mountain Dew ad where seal is like a seal. I'm like, come on. But I'm like, well, wait, that's flashy. So I can't. That's disqualified. So I have like, okay, what's a non flash? But no, this one's going to make some people throw up in their mouth. But I really took like production value and flashiness into mind. And I'm telling you, the Billy Bob Thornton T Mobile commercials, they are incredibly persuasive. And it's just Billy Bob Thornton walking down the road talking to the camera about how T mobile used to suck and now they don't. And I'm telling you. And it's like I found myself going, hell yeah. I'm glad we actually have T Mobile as a house because he's really good at just getting there. And maybe it's just because I love Billy Bob Thornton too. So I thought non flashy Billy Bob Thornton. That was My pick.
- [34:58]
A
Yeah, I think it's interesting. Did AT&T do like a direct attack back with Luke Wilson or did they just make two commercials that are really similar? Because have you seen that one? I have. Luke Wilson's just walking down a country.
- [35:09]
C
Road talking about, oh, hell, he's no Billy Bob Thornton.
- [35:12]
A
And I looked at that and it was like, oh, is this. Are we about to have a little brand. A brand battle? Or if it was just like, wow, a coincidence that you came up with two things that look a lot alike. I think. I love that. I think a lot of people overlook the power of straight talk. Yeah. Delivered in a. In just a. An emotionally well created way. And straight talk there. I mean, like you said, I mean, being able to acknowledge, yeah, we weren't great, or you didn't think we had a bad reputation, or this or that. That's straight talk. And that. That actually, I would argue, is very emotional.
- [35:47]
C
Absolutely. And he's so good. He's like, yeah, we used to suck when. When phones used to be the size of a frozen lasagna, you know, and you're like, yes, yeah, Billy Bob, yes.
- [36:01]
A
Go look up the AT&T mom with Luke Wilson. Because I do. They're starting a battle because it's too similar for it to be a coincidence.
- [36:07]
B
But that would be fun.
- [36:08]
A
Brand battles. Bring them back.
- [36:10]
C
Oh, yeah, yeah.
- [36:12]
B
I went down the insurance route. I don't know if you've seen this ad recently, but there's a new Geico ad where it's this, like, family room, three people, and they're talking to the television, kind of yelling at their favorite sports team, and then the player starts talking back. Yeah, yeah, I. I like it. It's. No, not a huge production, but it's relatable, timely, and they show their mascot, the Geico gecko. And I went on YouTube to see exactly when it's. In the first two seconds of the ad, you see this mascot. And if you think about it, you didn't really need the mascot in the ad. Like, you could have just had a narrator. But I think they know how valuable that little gecko is. So he appears right away and yeah, I just thought, not super flashy, but speaks to kind of a human truth. And I don't know if it'll win any awards, but I thought it seemed effective.
- [36:59]
A
It'll win a Stevie.
- [37:00]
C
It'll entering in the Stevies if that gecko's a union or not. Because, man, the residuals on his use.
- [37:08]
A
Oh, I know, right?
- [37:09]
C
He's just living it. Up.
- [37:10]
B
He's earned it. All right, great. Well, that was so fun. Steve, thank you for joining us today.
- [37:16]
A
Well, thank you for having me. I thank you, Steve. I will look forward to a junior effort. Maybe in a year. I don't know. Yeah, I'm here.
- [37:24]
C
So until then, we're gonna. Until then, we're waiting for the Stevies. Yeah.
- [37:28]
A
So I'll let you know.
- [37:30]
C
We're gonna get on that.
- [37:32]
A
Awesome. No, thanks for having me, guys. Always a blast.
- [37:36]
B
That's it for this episode of the Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Taylor de Los Reyes for producing the show. You can connect with us on LinkedIn. And if you like the podcast, please leave us a review. Now go forth and build great marketing. Marketing Architects.