Advertising creatives have proved popular subjects of academic study, particularly over the last 20 years (McLeod, O’Donohoe and Townley, 2009; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017; West, Christodoulides & Bonhomme, 2018). Attitudes in academia and industry towards creatives have fluctuated since the start of the twenty-first century – making them prominent in advertising literature (Young, 2000; Hackley & Kover, 2007). This essay will focus on working relationships, due to their importance in creative career development (Davies & Palihawadana, 2006). The working relationships of British advertising creatives will be discussed – in particular, the current understanding of the working relationship between creatives; between creatives and other agency professionals; and between creatives and clients. For the purposes of this essay, ‘British creatives’ is used in reference to creatives working in advertising agencies in Great Britain. These three main working relationships have been selected due to the diversity between them and the different stages of understanding of each within the literature. This essay draws upon papers outwith Britain, due to similarities between British creatives and their foreign counterparts, particularly the United States (US) (Young, 2000; Hackley, 2003a;2003b; Hackley & Kover, 2007; Mcleod et al., 2009).

Creatives

William Bernbach’s pioneering move to introduce so-called creative teams (Young, 2000) or creative partnerships (McLeod et al., 2009), heralded a new facet of study with regard to the working relationships of advertising creatives. The very nature of a close-working partnership dictates that the working relationship between copywriters and art directors, within the same creative team, are amongst the most complex (Young, 2000; Hackley, 2003b; McLeod et al., 2009). A number of studies have speculated the causation of the bond cultivated between the copywriter and art director (McLeod et al., 2009; Hackley, 2003b), most notably the observed lack of changes in creative partnerships over the course of their careers. This lack of change results in a relationship which McLeod et al. (2009) pose to be close to that of a marriage. McLeod et al.’s (2009) UK perspective on the closeness of this relationship agrees with Young’s (2000) earlier study into creative teams in the US – highlighting the similarities in literature between US and UK creatives and providing validity to the use of Young’s US study in understanding the working relationships of British creatives.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

The creation of this bond, is also thought to occur through two prevalent shared experiences – career progression and risk exposure (McLeod et al., 2009; 2011). The relationship and performance-based nature of creative career progression appears to form a mutual dependence between creative team members (McLeod et al., 2011). The understanding that a copywriter requires an art director as much as an art director requires a copywriter in order to produce viable advertisement concepts, cements the perception that one may not progress in their career without the other (Young, 2000; Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001; McLeod et al., 2011). As such, academia appears to have diverted from study into this facet of the relationship and instead have turned attention to the risk which the duo are exposed to (West & Ford, 2001; Grant & McLeod, 2007; McLeod et al., 2009). In line with Grant & McLeod’s (2007) study into advertising agency relationships, McLeod et al. (2009: 1029) found in their study of British creatives that the qualities, such as “humour” and “trust” utilised within creative teams to offset risk, are also foundational components of the tight-knit relationship.

However, it is noted that although the creative team are close, the relationship is not without potential for conflict (Grant et al., 2012). Though copywriters and art directors share several attributes, it is understood that their methods of information processing and presentation are very different (McLeod et al., 2009; Young, 2000). The prioritisation of visual over written components, coupled with a different socio-economic background to copywriters, is found by Young (2000) and McLeod et al. (2009) to make art directors fundamentally different to copywriters. This notion is confirmed by Hackley & Kover (2007) who pose that there is not only an inherent stereotype of creatives by non-creative parties, but also of each type of creative (copywriter, art director etc.) by those within the sphere of creatives. It is apparent that these differences create “creative tension” within the team (McLeod et al., 2009: 1035). This heterogeneity is also noted as a likely direct cause of the range and diversity in the ideas put forward by creative teams and the subsequent increased quality of the advert produced (Young, 2000; McLeod et al., 2009; West et al., 2018). Conversely, West & Ford (2001) found it to be the similarities, rather than differences, which result in high quality creative ideas. They note the creative philosophies act as a shared “guiding principle” which provide the foundation of relationships within the creative team, as well as the wider firm (West & Ford, 2001: 78). Johar et al. (2001) also found homogeneity between creative team members rather than diversity. Therefore, one may not draw direct comparison between the UK and the US, as studies find that British creatives diverge from their US counterparts in terms of the composing personalities of creative teams (West & Ford, 2001; McLeod et al., 2009).

The creatives’ relationships are not only limited to the dyadic relations within their creative teams but also exist with other creatives within and outwith the firm. Study into British creative stereotypes, found these to be a unifying force, building good relations between creatives (Grant et al., 2012). Self-fulfilling stereotypes portrayed in academia, and industry, are argued to influence creatives’ identity and the image they strive for (Hackley & Kover, 2007). Kover (1995) and Hackley’s (2003b) studies further contend that creatives share frameworks and principles, as well as the stereotypes – subsequently bolstering the bond between creatives. This common framework is apparent in both the US and the UK, with both Young (2000) and McLeod et al. (2011) finding that creatives look for validation and recognition from others – particularly in the form of creative awards. Thus, the working relationships between creatives has been considered extensively in the UK and US. The similarities found with US creatives has allowed for a more complete picture to be formed in the literature. However, this is constructed from literature from over a decade ago. Therefore, more recent studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of these findings in the context of today’s British advertising creatives.

Agency Professionals

The relatively harmonious relationships which exist between creatives is not thought to necessarily extend outwith the creative sphere of the firm (Kover, 1995; West & Ford, 2001; Hackley, 2003). Kover (1995: 604) noted the defensive nature of copywriters and their perception of non-creative colleagues as “potential enemies”; this was later reflected in British studies (Hackley, 2003b). Hackley (2003b) posed that this difference in perspective on consumer behaviour creates an implicit divide between creatives and all other agency professionals. Creatives are perceived as out of touch with consumers, in contrast to the rest of the firm; subsequently, management teams are found to favour the non-creative, more strategic dimensions of client work (Grant et al., 2012). This perceived importance to those who plan rather than create is seen to undermine the work of creatives (Hackley, 2003a;2003b). In situations where strategic or planning components of the advertisement are not credited, but instead the creative output is, Grant et al. (2012) found that planners took ownership of the creatives’ work – reinforcing Hackley’s (2003a; 2003b) earlier study of self-perceptions within the agencies.

The relationship between creatives and account planners is particularly complex (Hackley, 2003a). Hackely’s (2003a) study found that account planners intentionally built positive relationships with creatives in order to have greater control in the creative ideas put across to clients. However, Grant et al.’s (2012) paper builds on Hackley’s (2003a) work, and notes that both parties are aware of the relationship’s superficiality. This manipulation, coupled with managerial restrictions placed upon creatives by account planners, is believed to cause distrust between creatives and non-creative agency workers (Hackley, 2003a; Grant et al., 2012). However, Hackley & Kover found US creatives to be almost nonchalant toward this conflict as it is viewed as part of their “professional identity” (Hackley & Kover, 2007: 63). An explicit study into the identity work of British creatives is lacking and as such it cannot be confirmed that this imperturbation carries across to the UK advertising industry. However, it is acknowledged that, generally, British creatives do carry a degree of professionalism in all working relationships, regardless of conflict (Grant et al., 2012).

There is inconsistency, even within Hackely’s (2003b) study, regarding how creatives are viewed by others. Hackley (2003b) noted that creative excellence was recognised by non-creative agency professionals rather than by other creatives within the firm. This was reaffirmed by Koslow, Sasser & Riordan’s (2006) US study which found that agencies view creative success as success for the entire firm. These studies imply an underlying respect which non-creatives hold for their creative colleagues (Hackley, 2003b; Koslow et al., 2006). McLeod at al. (2011) elucidate the progression of creative careers, noting they are based on a series of temporary transactional relationships as creatives move between, rather than within, agencies as means of promotion. Therefore, it is understood to be of benefit to creatives to have productive relationships with non-creative colleagues, despite their superficiality, as they are crucial to building a creative career (Hackley, 2003b; McLeod et al., 2011).

More recent literature has highlighted an increasingly integrated approach to accounts within advertising agencies (Grant & McLeod, 2007; McLeod et al., 2011; Grant et al., 2012). The uncertainty of job roles is thought to be leading to increased creative involvement in planning, as well as an increase in management’s involvement in creative output (Grant & McLeod, 2007; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017). This added pressure on creatives, as well as other members of the team, is detrimental to working relationships within British agencies (Grant et al., 2012; West et al., 2018). These newer findings would render those of Hackley (2003b) and West & Ford (2001) to be dated and inaccurate – highlighting the pace of change in the understanding of these working relationships (McLeod et al., 2011; Grant et al., 2012; West et al., 2018). Despite the discrepancies found in this avenue of research, a clear evolution can be discerned from the literature; from a divisive relationship to that of integration due to increasing ambiguity (Hackley, 2003a; Grant & McLeod, 2007; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017).

Clients

It is well documented in academic literature that the interaction between creatives and clients, unlike intra-agency engagement, is kept to a minimum (Kover & Goldberg, 1993; Hackley, 2003a; Sutherland, 2004; Koslow et al., 2006). The findings of US studies are mirrored by similar UK studies, and as such, have been used to develop further studies into creative-client relationships (Hackley, 2003a; Grant& McLeod, 2007). Koslow et al.’s (2006) study into agency-client relationships in the US found advertising agencies to be structured to limit creatives’ client interaction. This finding mirrors Hackley (2003a) and Davies & Palihawadona’s (2006) studies which noted that, in Britain, it is the duty of account planners and managers to handle clients directly, rather than creatives. However, it should be noted that there is little mention of intention to structure UK agencies to reduce creatives’ contact with clients.

There have been few studies in the UK endeavouring to determine the dimensions of the creative-client relationship which cause agencies to separate the two parties (Davies & Palihawadana, 2006; Grant & McLeod, 2007). However, the most prominent finding is that the divergence of motives, philosophies and knowledge in advertisement creation may prove detrimental to client-agency relationships (Hackley, 2003b; Grant & McLeod, 2007; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017). Crucially, Grant & McLeod (2007) found that creatives view advertisements as a means of expression, whilst clients, in line with the account team, view them as a means of business advancement. However, Turnbull & Wheeler (2017) found that this desire to isolate clients and creatives from one another might also stem from clients’ disinterest in engaging in the creative process.

Research into this creative-client segregation has been particularly lacking in the last decade, providing little opportunity to resolve the discrepancy. This knowledge gap might also suggest a degree of similarity to British studies, finding the need to integrate creatives and clients earlier in the planning process, as found by Duhan & Sandvik (2009) in their study of Scandinavian advertising agencies. This integration shift can be seen in particular case studies since the turn of the twenty-first century (Grant & McLeod, 2007; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017; West et al., 2018). Davis & Palihawadana (2006) found that high standards of creativity were driven by good relationships with clients, and vice versa. This recognises that the quality of adverts created rely on the quality and depth of information provided to the agency and the creatives, (Sutherland et al., 2004; Duhan & Sandvik, 2009; West et al., 2018)

Koslow et al. (2006) found that in the US, creatives were beginning to follow an implicit method and formula in order to satisfy clients – hinting again at a superficial working relationship. This is also reflected in British creatives in Turnbull & Wheeler’s (2017) study. This might suggest that British creatives follow similar patterns to their US counterparts, however are behind in the adoption of American practices. Thus, the study of British creative-client relationships appears to be in its infancy as it is noted that creatives have lacked a relationship with clients until the recent integration (Grant & McLeod, 2007; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017). As such, this is an emerging field and knowledge of the area is yet to be developed beyond the understanding that productive creative-client relationships may prove beneficial for both parties (Hackley, 2003b; Davis & Palihawadana, 2006; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017).

Conclusion

Though creatives have been prominently studied across the West, the lack of particular nuanced study into British creatives has led academia to look to similar countries to provide further insight. The prevalence of documentation concerning the stereotypes of creatives in each country may also bias the literature (Young, 2000; Alvesson, 1994; McLeod et al., 2009). The studies featured were generally confined to several firms each, often in a particular geographical locality (Young, 2000; Grant & McLeod, 2007; Turnbull & Wheeler, 2017). Though this limits the studies, their qualitative nature gives high replicability. However, one might then question why these studies haven’t been explicitly replicated elsewhere. Moreover, the literature lacks formal theory due to its subjectivity and focus on perception. Therefore, one shouldn’t take the findings of these studies as fact, they should instead be used in order to speculate and for further study. However, it is clear that more research into the working relationships of British creatives is required to build an updated picture of the situation than that which has been drawn a decade ago. What is of most certainty is that the working relationships of British creatives, and the creatives in all the featured literature, are of paramount importance to their successful career progression (Davies & Palihawadana, 2006; Grant & McLeod, 2007; McLeod et al., 2011; West et al., 2018).

References

Alvesson, M. (1994), ‘Talking in Organizations’, Organization Studies, 15(4): 535 – 563.

Davies, M. A. P. & Palihawadana, D. (2006), ‘Developing a model of tolerance in client–agency relationships in advertising’, International Journal of Advertising, 25(3): 381 – 407

Duhan, D. F. & Sandvik, K. (2009), ‘Outcomes of advertiser–agency relationships’, International Journal of Advertising, 28(5): 881 – 919

Grant, I & McLeod, C. (2007), ‘Advertising agency planning – conceptualising network relationships’, Journal of Marketing Management, 23(5): 425 – 442

Grant, I., McLeod, C. & Shaw, E. (2012), ‘Conflict and advertising planning: consequences of networking for advertising planning’, European Journal of Marketing, 46(2): 73-91

Hackley, C. (2003a), ‘Account Planning: Current Agency Perspectives on an Advertising Enigma’, Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2): 235-245

Hackley, C. (2003b), ‘How divergent beliefs cause account team conflict’, International Journal of Advertising, 22(3): 313-331

Hackley, C. & Kover, A. J. (2007), ‘The trouble with creatives: negotiating creative identity in advertising agencies’, International Journal of Advertising, 26(1): 63-78

Johar, G. V., Holbrook, M. B. & Stern, B. B. (2001), ‘The Role of Myth in Creative Advertising Design: Theory, Process and Outcome’, Journal of Advertising, 30(2): 1-25

Koslow, S., Sasser, S. L. & Riordan, E. A. (2006), ‘Do Marketers Get The Advertising They Need or The Advertising They Deserve? Agency Views of How Clients Influence Creativity’, Journal of Avertising, 35(3): 81 – 101

Kover, A. J (1995), ‘Copywriters’ Implicit Theories of Communication: An Exploration’, Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4): 596–611

Kover, Arthur J. and Stephen M. Goldberg (1995), ‘The Games Copywriters Play: Conflict, Quasi-Control, A New Proposal’, Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4): 52-62

McLeod, C., O’Donohoe, S. & Townley, B. (2009), ‘The elephant in the room? Class and creative careers in British advertising agencies’, Human Relations, 62(7): 1011 – 1039

McLeod, C., O’Donohoe, S. & Townley, B. (2011), ‘Pot Noodles, Placements and Peer Regard: Creative Career Trajectories and Communities of Practice in the British Advertising Industry’, British Journal of Management, 22(1): 114 – 131

Sutherland, J., Duke, L. & Abernethy, A. (2004), ‘A MODEL OF MARKETING INFORMATION FLOW: What Creatives Obtain and Want to Know from Clients’, Journal of Advertising, 33(4): 39-52

Turnbull, S. & Wheeler, C. (2017), ‘The advertising creative process: A study of UK agencies’, Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(2): 176 – 194

West, D. G., Christodoulides, G. & Bonhomme, J. (2018) ‘How do heuristics influence creative decisions at advertising agencies? Factors that affect managerial decision making when choosing ideas to show the client’, Journal of Advertising Research, 58(2): 198 – 201

West, D. & Ford, J. (2001), ‘Advertising Agency Philosophies and Employee Risk Taking’, Journal of Advertising, 30(1): 77-91

Young, C. E. (2000), ‘Creative Differences Between Copywriters and Art Directors’, Journal of Advertising Research, 40(3): 19-26