Larry Smith, founder of SMITH Magazine turned this idea in the “Six-Word” Memoir. Here are a few samples from his website:

Age not a protection against heartbreak.

Love at first sight; optical illusion.

Hi: The start of all friendships.

Stephen Colbert added his six-word memoir: “Well, I thought it was funny.”

Bachelor party. YouTube Video. Wedding cancelled.

Six words invites simplicity and sometimes delivers profundity.  One of the warm up exercises I do in an Inotivity seminar is for participants  to write a six word solution or description of a situation.  Spend just six minutes.  Then stop.  Move on.

Here are some random ones:

Twice the flavor. Half the fat.

Beauty fades.  We renew it daily.

Arby’s: Because fresh never gets old.

Stretch Zone: Strength begins with flexibility.

Parents gave me life. Thank you.

The hardest job you’ll ever love.

Six words is close to the ideal for advertising billboards.  The idea is to find the nugget and the words to match. It’s just one more way to get ideas on paper. You don’t have to evaluate it or judge it.  Try different ways to express the same thought.

Thanks to Larry Smith. And Hemingway.

I think it began somewhere deep in the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave.  The client looked at the cave drawings and said, “I’m not digging the bison.”

Human nature being what it is, these days there are a lot of clients not digging the bison.  Sometimes the agency is serving up less than stellar ads. Sometimes the client company will take the safe, well-paved route to “me too” advertising.

This is a conversation that has taken place in the halls of every agency long before Don Draper was conjured up.

In 1985, John O’Toole Chairman of the Board of the great agency Foot, Cone and Belding, gave a short speech in Chicago called “Who holds the keys to great advertising:  the client or the agency?”

27 years ago and it stills resonates. 

Here are some of the good bits.

 “Who are we to blame for non-great advertising -- or for dull, predictable, banal, even insulting advertising: the advertiser or his or her agency?  To put it, more positively, which party really holds the key to great advertising?

 A case can, and frequently has been made on either side of that question. 

Those who say that the client holds the keys point to the fact that an agency’s output varies in quality, sometimes achieving greatness for one client while falling far short for another. And there does seem to be a greater consistency from product to product on an advertiser’s reel than there is from client to client on an agency’s reel.

 Those who content that that the keys are in the hands of the agency observe that an agency change has occasionally taken a drab advertiser to greatness overnight.

Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong.  And it probably doesn’t make too much difference anyway.  Because the fact is that great advertising only occurs when client and agency are totally in accord.

From my point of view, a good agency can do good advertising for any company.  It can do bad advertising for any company. But it can only do great advertising for companies that crave it.

And that craving, like any other policy statement from a company is only credible, only actionable, only reliable when it is articulated and demonstrated at the top.

There is sufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion which I’ll call “O’Toole’s Rule”:

The higher up advertising involvement goes in an organization, the better the advertising.

 …I view with some alarm those companies where the system has been so warped that those in top positions may never see a great advertising idea -- companies where top management makes it clear t hat other priorities prevail or where an idea in its most fragile and vulnerable stage inevitably succumbs to a brand manager’s fear of terra incognita.”

----------------------------------------

Terra incognita with all it’s ancient roots, captures the essence of the problem.

The agency doesn’t know with surety what will work.  The company, even with reams of consumer insights doesn’t either.

Show me research that says a duck or gecko will sell insurance.  Or a chubby, slightly cloying boy made of dough will sell Pillsbury bakery products.

Nearly three decades later, we’re still having this us vs. them conversation. And we probably always will.  There will always be people who don’t like bison.

O’Toole had it right.  An agency can only do great advertising for companies who crave it.

So here are Baker's Rules:

1. Follow the money

The classic detective line works in virtually any industry.  Who ever pays, decides.  Agencies can walk away from bad clients but no agency is going to kill a cash cow because an agency is ultimately a business.  

2. Respect is double-edged

I have worked with CEOs and Marketing Managers who see marketing as a necessary evil.  So the agency becomes a simply vendor.  If you want to alienate an agency, treat them like vendor.  And it works the other way.  If an agency thinks the marketing team or the CEO doesn't have a marketing bone in his or her body, they are probably missing key insights and not leveraging the experience of the boots on the ground.

3. Embrace constructive conflict

When I was a playwright, one of great assignments was to give two actors in the same scene conflicting motivations (unknown to each other). (i.e. Actor one, your job is to get the other actor to feel bad about himself. Actor two, your job is to make the other actor laugh.)

If we look through the motivation lens, we see that below the CEO level, the #1 job of the marketing team is keep their boss happy. At an agency, the #1 job is to create advertising that will impress potential clients and get you a job at another agency.  Can you see the conflict here?

Both clients and agencies will tell you that it's about building the brand and selling products -- but I'm talking from 30 years experience and see the day to day reality.

What I notice is that few people are well trained in constructive conflict.  The meeting room suddenly becomes very uncomfortable when ideas are challenged.  Especially when the agency challenges a CEO.  It has a chilling effect. Clients and agencies have to learn how to fight and defend ideas -- and not make it personal.  Yes, it's hard. Very hard.

Thanks John for 1985 and good luck to all you fellow cave dwellers.

Tom has always been a choreographer of ideas.  He lights up when he hears a good idea.  And he likes it even better when you top one of his.

“If I had a business card, my title would be Creative Thinking Coach,” he told the group. 

Tom has other, more impressive sounding titles (like President of his own nationally known ad agency) but none that are more meaningful except perhaps for father and grandfather and New England Patriots fan.

He begins by flashing a quote on the yellow-painted wall. “You are not creative if your little dog knows you.”  Tom explains it’s a quote from Gertrude Stein and basically it asks ‘how predictable are you?’  If you’re predictable, chances are your creatively challenged.

Tom adds that "if it truly surprises, it's probably creative."

So why should we listen to Tom Monahan?

Because in a time when creativity coaches are becoming more ubiquitous, the difference maker is that Monahan has lived in the trenches. He has delivered creativity on demand for decades.  He was the youngest person recognized in the Wall Street Journal’s brilliant Creative Leaders campaign.

What Tom does is blend the imaginative with the practical to help people move beyond the expected to the extraordinary.

As he does in his book, The Do-It-Yourself Lobotomy, Tom asks a question while pointing to his clothing. “What am I wearing?”  He gets the usual ‘correct’ responses. Then he asks “What kind of socks am I wearing?”  The usual suspects are Gold Toe, Argyle. Paisley, and Stripes.

Then he asks, “What’s an unusual design you wouldn’t expect to find on socks?” The wheels start turning and we hear ‘Santa Claus,’ ‘Babe Ruth,’ and ‘Fish.’

His final question is “What’s a highly unusual design you would never expect to find on socks?” That’s when things get imaginative.  ‘Bela Lugosi in a swimsuit.’  ‘The Last Supper.’  ‘The First Supper.’

The socks exercise is a metaphor for learning how to ask a better question.  And then asking better questions on top of better questions.

There is almost a collective agreement that most people in business ask basic questions.  We ask how are we going to get more people to buy brand X.  We don’t ask questions what would be the worst thing we could do to get people to buy brand X?  Or how can we stop selling brand X and start giving it away?

The nucleus of the Do-It-Yourself Lobotomy workshop is formed from two molecules: principles and tools. 

What Tom and creativity coach Lisa DiMonte add is passion.  The passion and experience for helping people move beyond argyle and into a bigger universe of ideas.

That’s the kind of chorography that makes the world a smarter, better place.

Nice work again, Tom. Check out his web site.

http://before-after.com/

Check out AS220

http://www.as220.org/about/about-as220.html

Sometimes we crave experiences that lead to answers.

A few years ago at a TED conference. Peter Skillman introduced a design challenge called the marshmallow challenge. The idea was  simple: Teams of four have to build the tallest free-standing structure out of 20 sticks of spaghetti, one yard of tape, one yard of string and a marshmallow. The marshmallow has to be on top.

This is exactly the kind of exercise that drives some executives to question why management brought in the crazy facilitator.  But the exercise reveals from surprising truths behind collaboration and the assumptions we make unconciously.  

I will play spoiler when I tell you that when this exercise is played by business executives, MBAs, Lawyers and pre school kids -- the kids out perform and out think the people in suits.

Here is Tom Wujec at another TED Conference succinctly telling the Marshmallow story and adding his own insights and ideas about collaboration,rapid prototypeing and learning. It's 6 minutes short and worth every minute.  

While the book was playful and filled with cartoon illustrations, the idea was serious.  It was about those killer phrases that fill corporate meeting rooms everyday:

Yes, but…

We’ve done that before.

It's not in the budget.

Great idea, but not for us.

Get a committee to look into that.

I'll get back to you.

Don't rock the boat.

Let me play devil's advocate.

The last person who said that isn't here anymore.

Recently, I’ve noticed a curious mutation on the infamous, “yes but.”

It’s IKB or (I know, but…)

The difference is slight but it’s definitely a new species.

“I know but tosses” in what James Pennybaker, the chair of psychology at the University of Texas Austin would call pronoun revealing.

“I” is a pronoun rife with self focus.  In fact, Pennybaker’s research showed that depressed people use the pronoun “I” more often than emotionally stable people.  And people who consider themselves lower in status use “I” much more frequently.

But what’s equally revealing is that “I know, but” is a signal. It’s a signal that the person has either wrestled with this idea before or wants you to understand what they know or believe.

A few years ago, I consulted with a CEO who was having problems with one his executives.  In exit interviews, employees consistently mentioned this manager as one of their reasons for leaving. This executive was a world-class micro-manager.

When I asked the CEO about this executive and the results of the exit interviews, he said, “I know, but…”

So I said, let’s look at what you’ve just said. “I know but…”  Tell me what you know.

One of the knows was the lynchpin.  The CEO and the executive were friends and the relationship was important to him.

If you find yourself using the phrase “I know, but” with increasing frequency, write down the “I knows…”

As Mark Twain eloquently wrote: 

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

Good insight for any age.

“The idea of taking risks, of branching out into this ambiguous future, is scary at a moment when the economy is in no hurry to emerge from the doldrums and when unemployment is a national crisis.”

According to Safian, “The new reality is multiple gigs, some of them super short with constant pressure to learn new things and adapt to new work situations, and no guarantee that you'll stay in a single industry.”

Equally fascinating is the series of infographics that demonstrate the unprecedented acceleration of business change.  

Here are 6 infographics -- 6 snapshot of how business is evolving.  See link for full article in Fast Company.http://bit.ly/w2YWw0

Like the cliff swallows of San Juan Capistrano, there is one annual event that generally ruffles the feathers of creative facilitators. 

Usually it’s an article on the perils and pitfalls of brainstorming. Typically, the article cites a study that proves that individuals working alone produce more ideas working in a group. Or it’s the latest incarnation of the idea that brainstorming as practiced by most companies isn’t very productive.

So what’s the feather ruffling part?

It begins with an observation I recently shared in Nashville at the IFCA conference in a talk called Beyond Brainstorming. 

Alex Osborn is generally regarded as the father of modern brainstorming.  His book, Applied Imagination, became a business sensation in the 1950s by creating a framework for generating ideas in groups.

But more people cite the book than actually read it.  In the book, Osborn says very clearly that group brainstorming is merely a supplement to individual brainstorming.  In other words: “here’s another tool to help you create ideas.”

So if you want to go by the gospel of brainstorming, it shouldn’t be a question of which is better (either/or) but and.   It’s about using a variety of techniques to generate ideas.

Dana Montenegro of Seriously Creative and my company, Inotivity combine group and individual brainstorming in the same session in a unique process called IDEA Engineering.

The second feather ruffling is that most companies don’t follow most of the “rules” set out in Osborn’s book.  Surprisingly, they haven’t changed that much.  The main theme is to defer judgment and generate quantity. Leave the hen-pecking to later.

Most creatives understand that brainstorming works well when facilitated well -- but over the years brainstorming has evolved into many varied techniques that help inviduals think better and to build upon the ideas of diverse thinkers in grouos.  

I want to share some insights from one of the best collaborative thinkers on the planet, Tim Brown of IDEO.   It’s from his book, Change by Design.

“Business school professors are fond of writing learned articles about the value of brainstorming. I encourage them to continue to do so (after all, some of my best friends are business school professors, and it keeps them busy and out of my way). Some surveys claim that motivated individuals can generate more ideas in the equivalent time working on their own. Other case studies demonstrate that brainstorming is as essential to creativity as exercise is to a healthy heart. As is so often the case, there is truth on both sides. 

The skeptics certainly have a case: a well-intentioned manager who assembles a group of individuals who don’t know one another, who are skeptical, and who lack confidence and gives them a tough problem to brainstorm is likely to get fewer viable ideas than if each of them had been sent away to think about the problem individually.

Brainstorming, ironically, is a structured way of breaking out of structure. It takes practice. As with cricket or football (or their American equivalents), there are rules for brainstorming. The rules lay out the playing fieldwithin which a team of players can perform at high levels.

Without rules there is no framework for a group to collaborate within, and a brainstorming session is more likely to degenerate into either an orderly meeting or an unproductive free-for-all with a lot of talking and not much listening. Every organization has its own variations on the rules of brainstorming (just as every family seems to have its own version of Scrabble or Monopoly). At IDEO we have dedicated rooms for our brainstorming sessions, and the rules are literally written on the walls: Defer judgment. Encourage wild ideas. Stay focused on the topic. The most important of them, I would argue, is “Build on the ideas of others.” It’s right up there with “Thou shalt not kill” and “Honor thy father and thy mother,” as it ensures that every participant is invested in the last idea put forward and has the chance to move it along.

Brainstorming is not necessarily the ultimate technique for idea generation, and it cannot be built into the structure of every organization. But it does prove its worth when the goal is to open up a broad spectrum of ideas. Other approaches are important for making choices, but nothing beats a good brainstorming.

Well said Tim. See you in Capistrano.

He tells a great story in his book about Brad Bird, director of The Incredibles and Iron Giant. (Interestingly, I freelanced at Disney at the Ink and Paint building when both Bird and Pixar’s John Lasseter were working at the studio but never met the animators.)

The story is about Bird’s experience working on the animated film Iron Giant.  “The Iron Giant team worked on a climate of fear before Bird arrived, which he worked to repair by telling them:

            As individual animators, we all have different strengths and weaknesses,

            But if we can interconnect all our strengths, we are collectively the greatest

            Animator on earth. So, I want you guys to speak up and drop your drawers.

            We’re going to look at your scenes in front of everybody.  Everyone will get

            humiliated and encouraged together.  If there is a solution, I want everyone to

            hear the solution, so everyone adds it to their tool kit, I’m going to take my shot

            at what I think will improve a scene, but if you see something different, go ahead

            and disagree. I don’t know all the answers.

Sutton continues, “Bird’s statement drips with wisdom: It shows how much people need each other and the virtues of exposing one’s weaknesses. His line “Everyone will get humiliated and encouraged together” captures the essence of psychological safety.

I see a lot of companies where you sense the psychological safety net either doesn’t exist or is so infinitesimally small that both constructive confrontation and risk taking are rare events.

There is a balancing act that leaders have to do -- simultaneously remaining open and supportive but then having to make decision that is ultimately theirs.  This high-wire act goes with the territory.

But when I see organizations that are closed or leaders that are closed or don’t encourage Iron Giant thinking, you can feel a different kind of tension.  It’s a sweat of unexpressed ideas.  Unchallenged assumptions.  And a general inability to disagree, agreeably.

That's the tripwire for less productivity, faux collaboration and an us vs. them mentality.

Sutton sums up the story with some advice, “Fight for what you believe, but gracefully accept defeat.”

So, at your next meeting or group interaction, ask yourself, “Giant Problem or Iron Giant?”

Tech Republic has 10 great commandments for egoless programming. You don’t have to be a programmer to appreciate the Iron Giant thinking.

1. Understand and accept that you will make mistakes. 

The point is to find them early, before they make it into production. Fortunately, except for the few of us developing rocket guidance software at JPL, mistakes are rarely fatal in our industry, so we can, and should, learn, laugh, and move on.

2. You are not your code.

Remember that the entire point of a review is to find problems, and problems will be found. Don't take it personally when one is uncovered.

3. No matter how much "karate" you know, someone else will always know more.

Such an individual can teach you some new moves if you ask. Seek and accept input from others, especially when you think it's not needed.

4. Don't rewrite code without consultation. 

There's a fine line between "fixing code" and "rewriting code." Know the difference, and pursue stylistic changes within the framework of a code review, not as a lone enforcer.

5. Treat people who know less than you with respect, deference, and patience. 

Nontechnical people who deal with developers on a regular basis almost universally hold the opinion that we are prima donnas at best and crybabies at worst. Don't reinforce this stereotype with anger and impatience.

6. The only constant in the world is change.

Be open to it and accept it with a smile. Look at each change to your requirements, platform, or tool as a new challenge, not as some serious inconvenience to be fought.

7. The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position.

Knowledge engenders authority, and authority engenders respect -- so if you want respect in an egoless environment, cultivate knowledge.

8. Fight for what you believe, but gracefully accept defeat.

Understand that sometimes your ideas will be overruled. Even if you do turn out to be right, don't take revenge or say, "I told you so" more than a few times at most, and don't make your dearly departed idea a martyr or rallying cry.

9. Don't be "the guy in the room."

Don't be the guy coding in the dark office emerging only to buy cola. The guy in the room is out of touch, out of sight, and out of control and has no place in an open, collaborative environment.

10. Critique code instead of people

Be kind to the coder, not to the code. As much as possible, make all of your comments positive and oriented to improving the code. Relate comments to local standards, program specs, increased performance, etc.

He asks, “What does the world look like if we put the consumer at the center of the social media universe?” 

I am a huge fan of infographics -- and his historical approach to visualizing the exponential growth of the ways consumers can interact with companies and to each other is compelling.

Compelling because the growth of media outlets is something many clients says they understand, but generally the complexity makes their eyes glaze over.   

When I started in advertising, there was the sacred trinity of big media: TV, Print and Radio. (Followed by collateral  -- billboards, direct mail and brochures).  The internet, the omnipresence of social networking and the rise of mobile technology has completely re-imagined the media landscape.

By deconstructing the media and conversation channels, it provides a change map that helps visualize the possibilities. Nice work Chris.

A link to original blog:

http://bit.ly/vex8xp