How Creative Is Healthcare Communications Today?
I was chatting with colleagues in the healthcare communication business the other day, marveling at the breakthroughs in science and medicine over the past two decades and feeling fortunate to have had the opportunity to be a part of these new developments as we work with clients to bring innovations to the marketplace. Then one of them, a writer, said wistfully, “You know, I get so excited about new developments. And I feel such a sense of accomplishment when I am able to communicate their significance in my writing. Yet when I open up the publications read by the very scientists and clinicians who are leading this innovation, I feel that the advertising is not up to par. I see a lot of the same stale ideas, staid execution, and a lot of talking at rather than conversing with customers in the advertising. It’s as though time stood still for our industry.”
Are we, as marketers and marketing communication professionals, standing still while our counterparts in research, development and clinical practice are fast-forwarding? Is it true that advertising professionals—who build their livelihood on creativity and innovation—are lagging in the very areas in which they are expected to excel? How did this happen?
It seems that the first place to look is in the advertising agencies. Have they fallen flat on their faces? In the past few months, I have sat through several agency pitches as a search consultant. Based on the work I saw at the pitches, I have to say that the caliber of agencies today is certainly not worse—and probably better—than it was ten years ago. There is a consistent focus on the strategy development process, although there are various degrees of rigor in the process and not all embrace the integration of audience research. The creative teams are talented and experienced. With few exceptions, they are able to articulate the strategy behind their work. Yet I noticed that much of the work that the agencies are most proud of is either old work or unpublished work that they wish they had run. Why is that? What has changed?
It is certainly possible that clients are less willing to take risks. There may be a general belief among clients that it is best to play it safe with tried and true approaches rather than take the chance of losing the audience—or even worse inviting their scorn. As a result, creative work tends to be more predictable and less edgy.
Then there is the issue of branding. Branding has become a catchword—poorly understood and often confused with image and design consistency. Logos, colors, grids, color bars and other graphic devices, neatly packaged in so-called communication and design guidelines, have priority over value proposition and messages. Too often these guidelines are treated as brand guidelines and become the primary if not only focus in evaluating communication pieces. Certainly, it’s much easier to manage tangibles such as “Is the logo the right size and correctly placed?” than “Are we delivering the appropriate message to our audience effectively?” We hear about “logo police” at the corporate level, but where are the “message police”? I know one company that specifies “No people photographs in ads” in their guidelines. Although design consistency is a powerful tool for unifying visually discordant communications from different divisions of a large company, is it what customers hold most dear?
Tell us what you think.
I agree that things have really changed in the last 10-15 years and it seems that technology has made everything faster. Work being done is more reactive than proactive, more is being done as a here and now solution with little thought about the competitive environment and looking toward the future. In the craze of doing everything faster and cheaper, few are looking at anything in an intelligent manner.
Also, I find that talent is not what it used to be. People leave their jobs very quickly or go freelance at a much younger age than ever before, reducing the talent pool. This makes it difficult to even get good work from a real staff or even from a pretend staff.
This is a great point–that marketing communications do not mirror the exciting innovations in science and medicine. And I appreciate your comments that branding rules shouldn’t be more primary than emphasis on the message (although I think Erin Murphy’s article on identity is excellent too).
I wonder if agencies today try so hard to render things so perfectly for their presentations, that they miss some of those inspirations that come from ideas sketched out, as in days of old. Also, there is a great deal of effort put into different ways of reaching the audience, possibly taking away from energy being put into the message.
Thanks for bringing this discussion to the table, Lena!
I share the sense of disappointment that innovative developments in science are not presented in equally innovative creative work.
Maybe agencies have not convinced clients that creative excellence will bring tangible results in this market (i.e., sales). Or maybe it is time to invent some different kind of creative based on a scientific mindset, but not the same old work we are used to seeing.
Erin’s comments about identity could apply as much to agencies as to clients. We need to have a message that makes our value clear.
Back to the Basics: Taking the time to create a strong Value Proposition and Selling Pillars for our products or programs is an absolute necessity in guiding the creation of excellent messaging – the sort that really helps us connect with our customers. Laboring over the Creative Brief is another essential process and tool that will set the tone and direction for the Agency. That said, I agree that we must demand from our Agencies hard-hitting, innovative creative communications that have the stopping – and staying - power necessary to get the customer to pause and actually listen. Finally, when working in conservative, low-risk corporate environments (and it sure seems like there are more and more of them these days) it takes a strong-willed marketer to convince their company to allow these more provocative communications to happen. But, hey, somtimes that’s the marketer’s job: first convince the company…..then convince the customer!
This posting has hit on many of my pet peeves as a communications consultant and science/marketing writer. I’ll restrain myself to just a few comments. . .
Open the brand box. I agree that there’s a popular misconception about what brand is. I could identify with your mention of a company brand policy not allowing people in its ads/communications. Likewise, I worked for a company that was restrictive in the opposite direction—all people and no products. The danger extends beyond putting creativity in a box. Brand should exist to enhance the business objective. Whenever it doesn’t, something is wrong. Sometimes I think the objective of brand gets lost.
Take some risk. I am so bored with today’s cookie-cutter ads and communications and stale messaging, especially the print ads. I hear the target audience is tuning out as well. While everyone starts out enthusiastic and ready to break new ground, when push comes to shove, it’s been my experience that concepts morph into safe and boring. That’s probably one reason why the half dozen or so YouTube videos advertising life science products recently became the rage and went viral. OK, some of the videos were a little extreme and probably not all of the hundreds of thousands people that viewed the ads were prospects. However, if their objective was to get their product known among a new and young target set, then they did extremely well. I applaud their courage. When a creative idea comes along that makes sense for the target audience, it might be worth taking a little risk and trying it out.