Funnily enough, I don’t immediately think of dancers or actors as creative in the first minute. Is it because I think of their talent/ skill as a craft? Do you think of them as creative immediately when you hear the word?

Why?  I’ve often asked myself this.

Most intelligent people on giving this question more thought will say, but creative is not limited to the artitic - being creative is being a good problem-solver. Then whether you are an enginner, a coder, or even an event planner. But I find that the word “creative” alienates people instead of making them feel comfortable. The word in a sense is more isolating than embracing.

Just something that bothers me a little when I let it

But I found this amazing Harvard Business Review article penned by management guru Peter Drucker. The article is called, Managing oneself. I read it at a bookstore but upon googling, I found a pdf online.

Drucker essentially laid out the framework in my head very simply on paper, giving my head a little structure to think through. I very strongly recommend that you read this article, but if not - atleast think through this brief outline of his framework that I am about to provide. I suppose this is more so for me than for the benefit of my readers, as I have realized that I learn and I perform better from doing any given task once.

Framework:

What are my strengths? Drucker suggests a simple method called, The Feedback Analysis” - as the surefire way to understand one’s strengths. The feedback analysis tool essentially asks me to write down what I expect will happen nine or 12 months since whenever I am about to make a key decision. ( Since I am not in a managerial role yet, most of my projects have shorter life-spans. So I have adapted this method for myself.)  And once you do this, compare the actual results with the expectations you set for yourself prior to starting the task. I haven’t tried it long enough to swear by it, but it seems a logical enough tool that will be helpful for sure.

How do I perform? This was a really strong insight for me. “Like one’s strengths, how one performs is unique.” And the first step to understanding how you perform is to understand whether you are a reader or a listener or how do I learn? This is an area I have been thinking about for  some time.. the idea of how I learn. Drucker gives great examples of how some people learn from reading, listening, talking to self, talking it out to others etc. I learn by asking questons and filling in the blanks in my head. When I hear a problem - it immediately forms itself as a fill-in-the-blanks equation in my head and I need to ask questions until all those blanks are fulfilled. Once I feel equipped with that information, I try to figure out how to solve it. But also when it comes to solving, I learn by doing it and talking out loud to myself.

Once I figured this out, it has been easy for me to watch other people and try to figure out how they learn which in turn, determines how they perform. Again, its too early for me to say that I’ve seen a difference in the way I perform, but having this framework is immensely helpful and it makes me a better performer.

What are my values? This is a really important tool. My values dictate that I do not bullshit my client and I tell them what I think and not what is in the interest of the agency. Prior to my current job, I was freelancing at a place where my values did not align with the agency’s. And I was unhappy. My current place holds similar values as I do and I find myself much happier here.  I think this is will bear more importance further down my career as I move up the ladder.

Where do I belong? Now, this answer is in two parts or rather a different post by itself. Over the last few months, I’ve been deeply immersed in understanding “creativity” and “creative people.” My exposure to creative people and companies centered around creative people sparked off this interest. So this question will be better answered in the next post, but for the sake of this article, I cannot stress the importance of this particular question. I’ve worked at start-ups, large companies, small ones, publicly traded ones etc. And it took me some 3.5 years to realize where I feel belonged. And thank god, Drucker agrees. “Most people, especially highly gifted people, do not really know where they belong until they are well past their mid-twenties.” I’m still learning as I go but for a 25-year old working professional like me, it was very very important that I find a mentor at my job. And part of my search for the right job was fueled by this search for a mentor, who would take a strong interest in me and my career and be instrumental in molding me, while giving me the freedom and the flexibility to make mistakes, but expect me to learn from them. That aspect is incredibly important to me right now. Will it be important five years down the road? Maybe not. Maybe my thirst for mentorship will be satisfied, but for now, I know I want that.

What should I contribute: This particular question is perhaps the one which will continue to push me to get better at my job. Drucker essentially says that some people are better as subordinates, some as decision-makers, some as team-mates and some as loners.

I am a little confused about this right now because in certain areas of work and life, I find that I am better as a decision-maker and in certain other areas I find that I am better as a team-mate/ subordinate. And yet again, in certain other areas, I perform the best as a loner. So I am not sure I think people fit within any of those categories because I certainly don’t. But what I would like to be able to do is transfer some of my faith and confidence from one area of my life and work to another and vice versa. But this is good food for thought.

Bottom line: Once you understand this framework, you should be able to evaluate each project with this type of thinking, “Given my strengths, my way of performing and my values, how can I make the greatest contribution to what needs to be done? And finally, what results have to be achieved to make a difference.”

These were perhaps the most important take-aways for twenty-something people like me. If you are mid-career, I suggest you read the entire article as I am sure you will find more relevant learnings.

What do you think? Do you think this framework helps you?

I was pretty ecstatic when I learned that Paris’s famous Colette is coming to New York. Alas, I was mis-informed. Colette is not coming to New York. Instead, Colette has partnered with GAP, ColettexGAP, to bring a selection of curated items to NYC. GAP is desperate for any ingredient brand to help pull itself out of the trenches, but Colette was coveted and special. Of all possible partnerships of creative brand ideas Colette could have executed in New York, a brand alignment with GAP is unimaginative and quite distasteful. And frankly, these sort of relationships and limited edition products/ pop-up stores concepts are now overused and rusty.

Colette, a purely commercial enterprise and the brain-child of Sarah Lerfel has exuded and has been perceived to be more of a cultural curator, a salon, a library of diversity and cultural relics, rather than a retail experience. Colette blurred the boundaries between commercial, artistic and cultural interests and although I have never been there in person, I couldn’t be more off the target when I say that Colette has successfully managed to give each of the three dimensions equal priority.

Anyways, it got me thinking about this whole merging art, culture and commerce, but I’ve come to realize that to succeed and have longevity now (by now I mean, in a world rocked by changing media and economic landscapes), an enterprise simply cannot afford to think of art and culture as disparate elements, as something you pick and choose in measures when the enterprise needs a boost or some fresh PR. I have come to believe that a cultural and artistic sensibility has to be in the DNA of a commercial entity. Just the way the commercial DNA was/is in-built in the works of Andy Warhol, Keith Haring and Takashi Murakami.

We have moved beyond philanthropic sponsorships of art and cultural events to a more inherent embrace of arts and culture. The one strongest benefit of this rocky economy and associated budget cuts organization-wise is that business managers are being forced to consider carefully how to make the most intelligent and creative use of their budgets, while still meeting the bottom line.

I might have been too quick in doling out my judgment for the GAP+Colette partnership without having experiencing it in person. To watch a brand I have no respect for (GAP), enter into a synergistic relationship with a brand I absolutely adore (Colette) bought out a visceral reaction. I may change my opinion if this experience transforms my opinion of GAP. Let us wait and watch.

Irrespective, maybe its time GAP began to rely on itself and stopped creating these short-term ingredient brand relationships to raise their bar.

Again, I apologize - my thoughts are pretty scattered. Its like my brain has been short-circuited! LOL. But I’d love to hear your thoughts, if any on this matter.

It was a fun event - and I got the opportunity to meet several planners/ strategist with whom I had previously only communicated via email, AIM or facebook. The Q/A was hosted by Danielle Sacks,a Fast Company journalist who covers the advertising and marketing industries for the magazine. It was a chill evening spent in the company of inspiring peers and idols! Kudos to PSFK for continuing to act as our curator! 

Here are some photos picked from Dave Pinter’s flickr group. Enjoy! (The girl in blue/black is your’s truly btw. And no I don’t like the taste of fizzy drinks (soda, beer, fizzy water..) so I finished several bottles of water instead.)

As part of the marketing promotion for the book, Rohit issued an open call on his blog where he offered to answer 5 questions from any blogger about the book. Here are the few questions I asked but click on the graphic alongside to read all the other interviews. Enjoy!

1) How long has the ‘Personality Matters’ idea been brewing in your head?

Last week, a bunch of us here at POKE, had a very interesting experience. We routinely hold chat sessions to just talk to regular folks and understand their tech habits. On Friday, we had a bunch of guys come in for one such routine session. One of them was the Crazy James.

His story paraphrased,  — He is trying to spread peace and love in the world that is consumed by materialistic desires and he will bike around the world for just $100. We checked out the above video on his myspace site. And we totally admit that this kid’s got balls. But once you get over that - it’s a load of bullshit that irresponsible brands contribute to and perpetuate. Let’s examine this a little more closely.

Crazy James, harped on about living how brands and advertisers were messing around with people, offering them too many messages, compelling them to buy stuff they didn’t need and in the end, contributing to this materialistic economy we live in.

Further in the conversation, when we asked him how did he decide on his idea, we learned that one night he was out drinking with American Apparel folks on the West Coast and the next morning, they bought him a bike and  offered to sponsor all his clothes. He also mentioned that everytime he is ready to leave a city and bike to a new one, American Apparel issues a press release for him. He supposedly got his airflights sponsored by Virgin Air and when he met with us, he was living with an editor at Elle Magazine.

When he pointed out the glaring contradictions in what his is preaching and what he practices, he didn’t have a suitable response for us. We pointed out that for his rants against materialism, he was the ultimate poster child hawking a clothing brand, a bike brand, an airline and probably other brands we didn’t know about.
Again, no convincing argument on his end.

Finally, he did mention that he worked for his food. Why, we asked. Why not get that for free as well? No, he persisted because that’s a story for me and then I share it with my readers on my blog.
His website has no blog. And his myspace blog has a few entries and was last updated on Nov 5. Maybe he hasn’t eaten since and has no stories?

Our craigslist ad that he responded to had asked for 18 - 21 year olds. It was only after he left and we checked out his myspace page that we realized he was 23. Not that it matters. He did say that he picked up odd jobs to make some cash on the side and our little chat was gonna earn him $20.

Also as he was leaving he invited us to go visit him and his biker buddies in Central Park the next Sunday where they will all be parading around half-naked and clothed only in American Apparel underwear. Is American Apparel paying you to do that for them, we asked. And again, he fumbled really not knowing how to be his own PR agent.

Crazy crazy…James, the poor poster child for misguided brands. If you see as his video ends, he has several other sponsors and from the looks of it, it is a part of some virtual reality show. But if you ask me, it is a virtual show that’s already gone very wrong. And I pity the brands associated with it.

Especially American Apparel. I did think AA was one of the leading brands who had a vision and stuck to it. But after this experience, I get it — I get that AA is just another brand trying just too hard to be cool.

The clothing brand is sold in high-end boutiques like Kitson with the Crazy Robertson hoodies selling for as much as $98. John Jermyn aka Crazy Robertson gets 5% of net profits although he  refused to accept cash and instead asked to be paid in food, liquer and paper for his art projects.

I’m not sure where I stand on this particular brand building endeavor. The entrepreneurial kids also set up a MySpace page complete with videos of Jermyn saying, "My name is John Jermyn. Welcome to my myspace.com website."

The whole venture strikes me as funny. But it is fantastic microscopic vignette of the various forms boredom takes and the various solutions we come up with to continue to keep ourselves fascinated.

I had a weird notification on twitter today.

“Saawariya” is following you.

Saawariya is a movie.

As a marketer, twitter marketing is one of the recommendations we often use for clients but I didn’t expect bollywood movie markters to be so savvy.

Only, I quit twitter because of such marketing campaigns destroying the network’s social stock.

Sigh.

I’m not a fan of comemercials that take potshots at their competitors on-air. I think its highly unoriginal and barely creative to do so. But the recent chemistry.com commercials perhaps may change my opinion. Have you seen them?

I’ve never used dating websites so I don’t know if eharmony really rejects people on those grounds. I thought there was a match for everyone… But then, take a look here. Apparently eharmony.com does reject people on unclear grounds. Their reasoning might be very valid - maybe they just don’t have the match for them. But chemistry.com — a new player in the online dating industry, used this criticism of eharmony.com to their advantage. By the way, chemistry.com is owned by match.com – the industry leader in online dating.

I don’t know if it is brilliant or sad - but these ads worked for me. I remembered the new brand, I remembered the commercials (because they are so damn good) and I correctly relayed this to the students 2 weeks after I had seen this ad. This, I think, is a great example of how to use traditional advertising to market to market an online entity.

The goal of sych advertising should be tri-fold:

• Good enough that people remember the brand name/ the dot.com URL
• They remember what the ad was about/ what the brand is about.
• Correctly able to recall the brand and talk to friends about it.

I doubt there is magic formula or the right recipie to achieve all the goals above, BUT —

I think a few elements to doing this teh right way are:

• Establish the sole distinguishing factor from competitor -(without really ridiculing the competitor please- that’s just something I am not cool with and would have no respect for a brand that did that.)
• Give audiences the "OMG!" moment. (OMG - taht’s funny, OMG - that’s cool.. whatever your OMG is) Have you seen the ask.com commericals? My reaction was "OMG - those features are so cool" And I did log on the site to check them out.
• Can you add to this? What other elements worked for you that you think will work for online brands taht want to use traditional media for advertising?

PS - I’m referring to the new ask.com commericals - where all you see are the website features. No annyong man singing and no references to alogorithins or complicated concepts. Just the website - and what it can do for you. I’ll post them here when I find them - right now, youtube.com has the old ones.