REVISING THE CREATIVE PROCESS

The first step to resolving a conceptual ( communicating our client's message ) problem with relevancy begins with understanding that conceptual thinking is not opportunistic. It is episodic. There is no top-down, left or right convention. We’re are dealing with an existing set of realities and by doing so, we’re dealing with concepts that have already been resolved. Considered perfect in most regards. They are correct and work because they’ve been experienced and utilized, establishing form and function creating a unique relative perception for everyone else.

To suggest there is a formula or process, suggests everything else is in the world is innately wrong. The information we’ve received through observation, statistics and ( unwanted ) opinions must be considered factual in order to concept with relevancy. If not, principally speaking, this will end the conceptual process before it begins and eliminate relevancy. Simply because, the creative process does not see the tree before the forest. It will see the forest and systematically work back in relation to the whole on a broader experiential plain. To scrutinize the height of the tree and it’s foliage is destructive and impulsive. As it is, the forest should be considered perfect. It has no immediate relative meaning to us, therefore there are no problems or logistical mistakes. And if you assume this is a top down process then I urge the objective eye to look closer. Once you’ve broken the tree down, you’ll begin to see the leaves, then the veins, then the texture of the leaves and so on until you are so completely removed from the first and most obvious plain ( simple-minded message ), it would be impossible to concept a relatable experience back. By then the objective is to far away to relate back to the prospect. The prospect is now lost in the forest and the only thing they care about is, getting out.( math whizes refer to this as infinite regression )

Clients often say far to much and forget that a prospect is initially only seeing the forest. Once interested in the forest, the prospect may focus in on a path. Offering an experience is equivocal to offering choice. Choice denotes value thereafter.

Again, to suggest there is a formula is to suggest everything else is wrong. We know that mother nature is not wrong. A problem may exist relative to us but, it by no means that it is wrong, that it is not a truth or fact. A concept that is built on an existing set of concepts must be treated as fact. And we must assume that initial parameters of these facts are not going to change. They are perfect truths. And in agreeing to this, we must realize that if the parameters do change within the facts, the concept must be reevaluated entirely. A truth or fact is personal context, and if context fails, there is no perceivable relevancy. Information cannot be introduced into the concept without expecting the relevancy of the concept to change as well.

Information arranged and organized through symbols, colors, pictures and words creates content. Content presented in relationship either paralleling, or contrast existing content creates context. Context creates relevancy.

Removing the term ‘creativity’ ( because it still scares people ) from this explanation and subsequently replacing it with ‘solution,’ we would explain this process as an existing system with a series of subsystems that based on their individual relationships continue to create an additional set of subsystems with each reaction.

Campaigns with communication that establish a big picture, with media being the 'details' and not the focus, will create relevancy. Position a statement before you position media. A statement is clear and concise. Whether written or expressed verbally ( or anything auditory ). Creating alternative vehicles for messaging ( media ) should be secondary. And all though media is the form in which we function it is not a something with a true form. The ideas and concepts should dictate the media. Perhaps calling media 'context' with the message/concept being 'content' will help clarify my points.

And when you do agree on the statement you're brand is declaring, keep this in mind, if you change a word, the sentence should be re-evaluated. It might not make sense anymore.

When you make a change, conceptually speaking, your creating a detour for the concepts and ultimately the prospect. And that detour will dictate the rest of the consumer journey. Your brand is not a house that can be repaired with duct-tape a little plaster and some new paint, it's a tree.

This isn't a top-down process.