We always hope that creativity will hit the instant we start a brainstorming session and a revolutionary, big idea will emerge magically from some quiet corner of the room. Good luck. Doesn’t happen. There’s even some new research that shows a lot of what people have been doing in brainstorm sessions is short-circuiting your team’s creativity. Here’s how to get good ideas out of your team:

Get the Culture Right

Creating an atmosphere that encourages and inspires creative thinking is more important than any activity you can conjure up for a brainstorming session. Design Thinking guru and IDEO CEO and President Tim Brown advocates the importance of giving “permission to innovate” and letting minds wander and think even at times it’s not expected. If the culture is right, you can bring in people from different backgrounds, engineers, marketing folks, R & D staff, and even sales people to bring diverse viewpoints to the problem.

Define the Problem

Is the problem clear and you need a range of solutions, or are you in search of lots of general ideas for a general issue?  It’s the difference between “How do we get consumers to use their debit card instead of credit card?” to “How do we empower students to become social media brand advocates for our school?”

If your problem is clear, there needs to be slightly more structure surrounding the brainstorm, because people need direction from the problem and the problem owner to guide their ideas. Let this be the starting point

If you are searching for more ideas for a general issue, give people more freedom to generate ideas before, during, and after the scheduled brainstorm to make it as effective as possible.

Start Alone, Bring Together

A recent study by Texas A & M researchers showed that allowing people to think individually on a topic before coming to a group brainstorm helped produce more creative solutions than limiting people to a set brainstorm session.

Within the brainstorm itself, it is important not to think by constraints. We like to say, “No one can wear the poo-poo hat.” That means no saying poo-poo to an idea that isn’t fully formed. So what if it is uncooked or even raw? If your goal is to generate ideas, any thought in any form should be invited into the brainstorm.

Relinquish the Title and the Whiteboard

It is important to work collaboratively and openly and to invite in a little mess. When more ideas are needed, let more people take turns walking up to the whiteboard, let more people draw diagrams.

The same Texas A & M study found that groups that were allowed to interrupt one another came up with more creative ideas. In short, you need to create a “blurt it out” culture in the brainstorm. Make sure those interruptions are “Yes, and…” not “No but…” remarks. It’s how improv players keep the scene going and the same is true for brainstorms.

If things get messy and tense and people start losing energy, don’t give up. Take a five minute break. Don’t get on your cell phone, don’t email. Take a walk, move your body. Research shows that these types of break can dramatically increase the productivity of brainstorms.

Capture and Display Ideas for Lingering Hunches

A permanent whiteboard or chalkboard, or a wall in your office that displays ideas for a certain project will not only help group members visualize your thought process but also jog the mind and keep it active. Capturing ideas in all their worth, whether it be through visual thinking, storytelling, metaphors can help folks that have a lingering hunch. Great ideas don’t live on a schedule but they won’t ever emerge if you don’t keep the building blocks present in your team’s mind.

For more resources on brainstorming see: Doug Hall’s book “Jumpstart your Brain” Roger Van Oeck’s book “Creative Whack Pack”

There are product categories that have gone years without innovation. And when I say years, I mean since Ben Franklin’s time.

Take, for instance, reading glasses. It’s not like they’re things that people seldom use. Some of us, well, actually all of us, are facing the inevitable entropy called aging. So, while reading glasses are useful, they aren’t necessarily celebrated or loved. Sort of like vacuum cleaners, Pepto-Bismol or hearing aids.

What’s new Ben Franklin?

So when a new product came to us with something that innovates in this category, it got our attention. Todd Huschka had an idea: make designer reading glasses that aren’t bifocals, but you don’t have to keep taking them on and off. His idea was to simply cut the conventional lens shape into a “U” so you could use your long distance vision looking straight ahead most of the time, but when you had to read you simply looked down through the glass portion for correction. Glasses to read. Not glasses to see far. Pretty slick idea. It seemed like a product with a lot of potential but would need to be differentiated on more than just the functional benefits. After all, there wasn’t a burning need for reading glasses. So what is the burning need and reason to live in a target consumer’s life?

Think deeper than benefits. What’s behind the need?

Rather than stabbing blindly (pardon the pun) in the dark, the first step is to figure out who your audience is. In this case it starts with demographics, but quickly expands to deep psychological needs. You don’t need anything but walking around research to know that the biggest audience for this product is people over 40. Demographics done. That’s the easy part.

The next step is to figure out what is their need? Not functionally, but psychologically. What about this brand makes them more of who they are? Not who are they–a 40-year-old female who’s facing farsightedness–but who they are archetypically? A brand acts as a prop in their personal theatre, so the key to success is to discover the story they are telling the world through the product.

What story are they telling to the world?

First off, the bad news: they’re aging. What happens when you age? You fight it. You deny it. You rebel against it.

Then the good news: when you age you just want to stay cool. Many people carry brands that say: “I’m still there. I’m still young.” Products that embrace the unconventional, that eschew normality scream young.

The story many people of this age want to tell the world is, “I’m still an original.  I’m not a fuddy-duddy. I’m still the cool rebel I always was.”

This is the harmonic convergence we’re looking for: a product that is avant-garde and breaks convent; a product that rejects convention and was literally born out of a need for re-inventing the way it’s always been done. That the product meets a consumer who is rebelling against aging and needs a brand-prop that screams unconventional.  Voila! Burning need.

Who gets to be invited to the show?

Does this mean that every boomer out there is going to wear these glasses? Far from it. Positioning is not about inclusion, it’s about exclusion. Besides, it’s unlikely that we’re going to sell this brand to people who desire conformity.

So we have an archetype: The rebel. The rebel, in a nutshell, is about tearing down the old. Breaking convention. Doing it differently. Creating a better world by getting rid of the old one.

From this point onward a brand can begin to form its unique point-of-view. The archetype informs everything from the name to the packaging to the tone of voice. It tells you who to cast as models and how to answer the phones. It informs new product innovation and sales strategies. In short, an archetype is the center of the brand universe. It establishes a need for products beyond the functional.

"My Shot" by Thierry Bornier

Ok I admit it, I was in line at my local Target Tuesday before they opened, praying I too would get my hands on a few choice pieces of Missoni merchandise.  I am a self-proclaimed fashionista so this partnership between Target and Missoni was my opportunity to own a little piece of iconic fashion history.  Little did I know that the pieces I was able to buy might now become valuable collector’s items.

Calculated hysteria?

Who can’t understand what’s in it for Target?  Lagging sales to Walmart and a recession has everyone spending less but still wanting more. Target has built its brand on Design.  It is a retail outlet for those seeking great design and designers looking for a boost.  Elite designers like Michael Graves, Isaac Mizrahi, Alexander McQueen, Sonia Kashuk and many many more have partnered with Target to bring their designs to the mass market.

Not only did the launch crash the Target site,  inventory ran out in less than an hour in some locations, some consumers have been told merchandise will not be restocked and those lucky enough to have placed early orders online may not even receive their merchandise at all, after waiting for a month for them to ship.  In less than 24 hours over 25,000 items of the new product line were available on EBay the last time I checked, some items are going for much more than what Target was originally charging.  WOW What happened? With all the PR buildup prior to the launch, was this all part of the plan? In terms of the brand, does the frustration of a few get balanced out by the images of mass hysteria in front of Target?

Was it in the plans all along?

Taking a cue from the UPS Logistics ad campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRAHa_Po0Kg  Was there no one planning for the worst case scenario or in this case the backup plan for success we talked about in a previous blog post?  Was it just a case of not being able to predict how fiercely the fashionistas would react to owning a piece or a lot of pieces of Missoni?

While I was shopping I thought the big question for the day was What’s in it for Missoni?  Aren’t they watering down their luxury brand by partnering with Target? Now I am wondering, Target was it worth it? Did this launch of a new line of luxury items leave a lasting negative impression on Target’s brand, or did it just alienate those few consumers who fought to get their hands on Missoni?  In short, is this a perfectly executed launch that has people starving for more from Target? Does this launch reestablish them as the go-to place for designer elegance for the masses, or is it a misstep that offended their core fashion conscious consumer? What do you think?

TDS Business site is reporting some backlash on the brand

What’s happened to Target? Well, a lot of their advertising has gone stupid-retail for one. Their broadcast has become a big ho-hum that carries very little branding, almost zero concept and this means the brand linkage to Target is completely dependent on three seconds of logo at the end of the spot. Advertising like this relies on consumers actually paying rapt attention–which they don’t–and is a formula that makes it easy for them to confuse Target with one of their competitors.

For instance, check out this recent Target commercial for Champion sportswear:

The problem with this ad is it could be for anybody. Is it a Nike commercial? No, it’s really not that good. Is it a Kohl’s commercial? Maybe. It seems like a throwback to some “Softer Side of Sears” era. Lots of pretty pictures, absolutely no concept and worse yet, no brand linkage. If I don’t get bored and change the channel before the end, I wouldn’t know it was Target. Sure, it has Jude Hollywizzle and I guess if you were into street ball (which, I’m guessing, 90% of the soccer mom/Target shoppers aren’t), you’d pay attention. The goal here is to sell the Champion line of clothing , but what about the Target brand?

Here’s the new look for the brand ads that are doing the work supporting Target:

Compare that to this Target commercial from days gone by:

The use of the logo, the iconic use of the color red and the overall energy and vibe of the commercial. Could this commercial be for anyone else?

It seems especially from the retail ad side of things, Target has decided that rather than trade on its iconic brand it will try to be like every other retail chain. Here’s the formula:

1. Find a pop song.
2. Find a designer, movie star or a sports star that’s willing to be in your commercial.
3. Edit a spot with random shots of that person doing random things.
4. Put your logo in the last three seconds.

J.C. Penny does it. Kohls does it. And now Target. Not exactly differentiating or for that matter memorable.

I realize that brands need to move forward and the advertising needs to change with the times, but Target had a winning formula that put their identity at center stage. It was a celebration of their retail-ness or retailosity or whatever you want to call it, that carried with it a big, fun, hip personality. Different? Check. Memorable? Check. Certainly there’s a way to create new spots that are entertaining, have brand linkage and are, well, Targety.

The question is, do the new brand ads and retail ads do the trick? Do they carry that fun hip vibe of Target? Love to hear your thoughts in comments section.

(post edited to include brand ad)

Spot on is a new feature of the LSB blog that invites community reaction to advertisements. It is the brainchild of Lee Schmidt and will appear on a monthly basis on these pages. Feel free to continue the conversation started by Lee and Rachel.

Lee Schmidt serves as associate creative director and copywriter at LSB. Before beginning his advertising career, Lee was a professional big-wave surfer, zip-line eco tour guide and Hugh Hefner’s personal proofreader. He tweets at @DonDraperCD

Rachel Yanofsky is an Assistant Account Executive at LSB. Though originally from Boston, she now prides herself on her cheese-devouring and milk-chugging abilities and has no sign of a Bahhston accent whatsoevahh. She tweets at @rsy22

The Commercial: KY “Jelly Sandwich”

LEE: What appeals to me most about this TV spot is its understatement. No fireworks, no over-the-top imagery. It’s very sly, very low-key. I like how it lured me in.

RACHEL: While this appeals to me as well, I feel that the message is almost too understated.  Perhaps if it provided a more descriptive tagline at the end, I would’ve felt that the ad was more complete.

LEE: The picture tells me the whole story. But I don’t think you’re alone, Rachel. This spot was created by an agency in Brazil. If an American ad agency had produced it, I suspect it would have a tagline. Do you think this spot would air in the U.S.? I mean, other than on some cable channel?

RACHEL: I believe it would air in the U.S. considering its message is portrayed discreetly and remains tasteful. Also, it seems pretty tactful compared to America’s K-Y TV Commercial “Shocked” that aired recently.  Since you’ve been in the ad industry longer than I have, what is your opinion on this?

LEE: The spot does take a tasteful approach. Still, there’s a double standard on TV. Programs in prime time can say and show and suggest things that commercials cannot. I suspect “Sandwich” could run on American TV but not during “family programming.” By the way, I thought the music track really helped tell the story. Sometimes music is incidental to a spot. Just background. But in “Sandwich” it helped set the mood.

RACHEL: I definitely agree that the music helped set the mood.  Also, I liked how they included the natural sound of running water and toast popping in order to draw attention to important elements of the ad. One aspect of the commercial I did not like was the abrupt cut to the product at the end. Not only was the image of a night table and photo cliché, but it just seemed repetitive and unnecessary.

LEE: Good points. The ending was a bit ham-handed. Overall, however, the spot succeeds. I’d love to see commercials in this country take their cue from this spot. It treats the audience intelligently. It doesn’t telegraph the punch line. It leaves you with a smile.

RACHEL: When  I was younger, I always used to judge commercials. Too often I seemed to come to the conclusion that there were a lot of bad commercials out there. Commercials like this one make me think maybe I was just too young to understand some of them!

If you have more thoughts on this commercial or spots in general add to the conversation in our comment section. Rachel and Lee would love to hear them.

Why is it that a lot of brands seem to lack the drive to compete? Marketing departments that are run by people who will kill you at racquetball, trounce you in a 5K or dunk over you in a game of basketball become shrinking violets when faced with a rival brand.

Marketing decisions that should literally take minutes, instead take months, bogged down in research and discombobulated decision-making. The “run-it-up-the-flagpole” culture that exists in America today has created a sort of corporate genetic mutation. Brands that should be lithe and agile, instead have mutated into weak-muscled, milquetoasts and are in danger of getting mowed down when the game gets serious.

But why? Why would a company choose to be non-competitive? There must be a good reason.

There’s a time to plan and a time to play

I believe it’s the disease of having to prove ROI, without a shadow of doubt, before a product or marketing campaign even exists. Instead of developing new products and innovative marketing campaigns, companies develop arcane algorithms and processes. Marketing and new product development stops resembling a game of racquetball or basketball, requiring quickness and ruthlessness, and starts resembling a stroll through a swamp requiring fear and slogging.

The result is new product introductions stall with fear and hesitation until the company loses interest or the idea becomes irrelevant. Brilliant ad campaigns decelerate while they are passed around from marketing manager to CMO to CEO and back again until they seem old and tired and suffer death by yawn.

It’s a four-quarter game

Who’s to blame? In the past, folks writing for the Harvard Business Review have pinned it on Wall Street. The problem, in a nutshell, is Wall Street rewards steady earnings over innovation.

Chris Trimble, who writes and teaches about strategic innovation at Tuck, is quoted in this article: “I’ve had CEOs tell me that ignoring Wall Street is the only way to do the right thing for the company’s long-term future. They choose to invest in innovation, take the short-term punishment (in the form of a declining stock price), and hope that the punishment is not so severe that they lose their job.”

I’m not arguing with the Harvard Business Review, but the problem goes much deeper than the CEO. Fear has become part of corporate culture and has led to a collective lack of competitive drive. That should be scarier than Wall Street.

The saving grace for most brands is their competition is doing exactly the same thing. It’s simply become the way business is conducted. It’s like everyone made a collective decision to be nice. “Let’s just have a friendly game. No elbows and no dunking, okay?”

But ask yourself this: What happens if one of your competitors has been sharpening their game? Becoming quick and ruthless. What if a new competitor came into the marketplace? Someone who can move fast and without fear? Perhaps a company who is privately held and doesn’t’ worry about Wall Street. Could you move fast enough to keep your advantage?

The solution is pretty simple. Learn to compete. Learn to win. Train. Run faster. Stop being fat and complacent. Simplify your game. Get mean. Throw some elbows. Be aware that you’re only winning because no one is challenging you.

Businesses need “first-step speed”

In many sports there is something called “first-step speed.” It’s the first step you take with the ball that gets you just that little bit in front of the competition.

A brand can develop that first step by doing a couple of things: First (and just to keep the sports analogy going) don’t worry about winning the next quarter, worry about winning the game.  Stop being afraid of Wall Street and start being afraid of your competitors. Second, question the algorithms and processes your company uses to develop everything. Are they really valid or are they simply slowing you down and opening up an opportunity for a faster competitor? And third, play the marketing game like street-ball. Not Wall Street ball.

I think everyone is getting sick of the us vs them argument. The fact is, ideas can come from anywhere. Creative isn’t the sole domain of the creative department. An idea is an idea whether it comes from ones and zeros or it comes on a scrap of a paper napkin.

Rein Inamoto’s definition is, Idea= Emotion x Function. And his article in Fast Company is causing all kinds of fuss. But that’s always been the formula for great advertising.

Here’s what I think is a little better definition: An idea is taking two previously unrelated things and creating something new. For instance, a strategy from point A and a technology from point B.

The thing I’m really getting tired of is this strange inferiority complex that seems to exist with people who don’t have the word “creative” in front of their name. Inamoto’s quote, “They were creative, it’s just that the creative thought they weren’t.” But when you say things like “Embrace the culture of code,” as he does, that sounds like a threat, not an idea. Code isn’t an idea. Algorithms are not an idea. No more than a television spot is an idea. That is, until they’re mated to something strategic plus something beautifully and strangely unrelated. That’s what makes an idea.

So, okay, screw it. Anyone who has the ability to put unrelated things together to make something new is creative. Everyone has that potential so we’re all creative. Ideas can come from anywhere. But let’s not forget our job is persuasion, and the ideas have to be in service of that. The delivery system has changed, the fundamentals have not.

There, I’m done.

In advertising we’ve often mistaken creative technologist for someone who designs websites and also doesn’t mind doing a little coding. Or a writer who can fix your computer. But the real job description is something that is so much more. The confluence of unfettered creativity and the technology to make it happen is rare. The two things seem to live at odds in most people’s brains and being good at one (like coding) often is at the expense of the other (like kinetic movement). Ask most art directors about algebra and you’ll get the idea.

I was surfing and I ran across this and it totally captured my attention. And while I’m not a big fan of America’s Got Talent this is a good example of why, as a creative person you have to keep your eyes and mind open to everything. You just never know when or where something is going to appear.

The woman who created this was a dancer and also into programming (this is the rarity that I’m talking about) created this and it’s a great example of what is meant by a creative technologist. Truly something different.

The million dollar question is, can an advertising agency hire someone like this and keep them engaged? I’d like to try, so if you’re out there we’re looking send me your stuff.