INTERVIEW

 

 

Why did you choose to go into advertising?

 

Umm, that’s a good question. I think I chose to go into advertising because well, I originally thought I wanted to be an architect; my father is an architect. And then, I’m not terribly good at math and figured out I didn’t want to be responsible for buildings to stay upright. So, I knew I wanted to do something creative and that I wanted to do something in media, because that’s what I studied in undergrad, and in a Communication Arts, somewhere, I saw an ad for an advertising program, and was interested. It seemed sort of a Venn diagram of I could earn money for it, and I could be creative, and I didn’t have people’s lives in my hand, so that was sort of the perfect alchemy. And then it led me here.

 

Tell me about your creative process. 

That’s a good question, again. The thing about advertising is that creative processes can’t be broken down into rigid formulas. It’s not math. I’m not even just talking about creativity for advertising, in general, I think some people find time where they’re more creative and that process is either in the morning they’re writing or at night or working until their brains explode and then they have an epiphany. I think that I find most success when I’m sort of dogged in the pursuit of an idea. So like, what I just said, continue to work until you feel you’re exhausted the talk and then it’s what lies beyond there. But I also think relaxing. Specifically in advertising, there’s this pressure to get to an idea quickly; it’s not something that can be like, there is no faucet that you turn on. Creativity needs to be given time, you need to be able to think, you need to be able to daydream, you need to be able to go for a walk. I think all those things are important. I don’t think there’s one specific formula, and I don’t think I have a specific formula other than taking a keen interest in it and living with it. And hoping that something falls out of there.

 

What is a campaign or project that you're most proud of—Cannes or otherwise?

 

I think there’s a lot. The thing I’m probably most proud of now is--it was sort of a joint project between the New York Times and a whole slew of other newspapers. Like the WSJ, the Atlantic, New York Magazine, the New Yorker. International newspapers you see and it was around the idea of encouraging people to get outside of their echo chambers and to read more, listen more, understand more. Basically, it was a joint campaign. We got 36 publications all to advertise their competitors, and journalism is such a competitive mix that it was a real statement. But in this time it feels like that is a very transformative thought. That’s important for all of us to look beyond our competitiveness and to understand that when people are better informed, the world is better informed. So I think that was something recent that I’m pretty proud of.

 

Can you talk a little bit about the concept and process that went into "The Truth is Hard?"

 

Yeah. It was born out of the 2016 election. It was born out of a lot of things far bigger than us that were at play. There was a nation wide reconciliation with the fact that everything we believed wasn’t going to happen did happen, and so there was an overall not mistrust, but people were dazed. People didn’t know what to believe, and out of that, became this idea that people didn’t know what to trust. They were trying to reconcile what was true. I think also with the advent of the internet, websites, blogs, it made it feel as if anything could be journalism. We were at a period of time where it was important that the Times take a stand to make it clear that the truth isn’t something that just materializes out of nowhere, it is important, it is hard, it takes hard work and perseverance. It was as much of a internal advertisement as much as it was an external one to remind everyone that it is hard, important, and never before is it more important than now. I think we’d gotten to it by understanding what was going on with them and in the world, a really simple thought that came from the brief. The truth takes hard work. The truth is hard. That’s where it came from. It was really positioned just to remind people that in a stormy sea of untruths, there were still lighthouses of truth that could still guide you to where you need to go.  

 

If you were to describe the Cannes Lion in one sentence, how would you describe it?

 

I would just say it’s illustrious.

 

If you could create your own Cannes Lion award, what would it be and what would be the judging criteria?

 

Ok. Well we did at one point have an idea to create the Caseys, which were just the best case study. Regardless of what the idea was. But that was sarcastic. I think I would--that’s a good question. I’m trying to think; what would I create? I’m sort of-of two minds. I really like the craft, so I would try to think of something that would focus on the craft of things because I think that gets lost a bit. But on the complete other flip side, I would look at (and this is probably what the Titanium is), but I would look at things that are not advertising but that have come out of an advertising agency? I think that is sort of really interesting to me. I think the third one I would create would be if Cannes had a way you could submit and judge the best ideas that never sold. Which I know there would be a whole ton of legal issues with that, but like so much gets left on the cutting room floor at agencies. So many brilliant ideas. So many smart thoughts that it would be amazing to know good ideas that sort of never saw the light of day. For a myriad of reasons. So I’m not sure. I think something between those three, either something about craft a degree of like non-advertising ideas from an advertising agency, or ideas that never sold.

 

What does the Cannes Lion represent to you?

 

Building off my definition, the illustrious-ness of it, I think it is the sort of largest, most prominent, and prestigious award show. I don’t think that takes away from anything like the D&AD, the Webbys, etc who have their own slightly more, I would say, niche. I think the Cannes represents a worldy recognition of your ideas, which is nice because it’s not US-focused, it’s not UK-focused, it’s sort of world focused. I think it does recognize that ideas can create change. And that could be change as the bottom line or it basically, to me, says that creativity can spur change. Again that could be change to your business strategy, that could be change to your bottom line, for the good in general. And I just think it’s a great way to be reminded that creativity can really provide a vision or change and that it can make the world a better place.

 

What do you believe are key elements to a Cannes-winning campaign or idea?

 

I think it’s originality, execution, and context. So I think it’s the strength of the singular-ness of the idea. I think it’s that coupled with how it goes to market and how it’s executed. Because that’s such a big part of it. And then I think it’s the context, in the sense that, the best ideas have a point of view or they have a position on something where they stand for something. So I think when you combine those three things you’ve sort of got a recipe.

 

How do you define innovation?

 

It’s a big word. I would say I think innovation to me is something that moves us forward. It doesn’t have to be a big step; it can be a little step. It could be a large step. It’s an iterative thing that gets humankind (hopefully) to a better place. So I think innovation, in all, moves humankind forward. Whether that’s in art, or medicine, or engineering or society or government or creativity. If we’re all on this rock together, hopefully innovation makes it a little bit better.

 

What do you perceive as the difference between innovation and disruption?

 

I think innovation is pure and it’s an intention. I think disruption is an outcome and byproduct. I had a conversation with someone yesterday about this. I think disruption gets thrown around far too much. I actually don’t particularly, personally, like the word. I think it’s a buzzword that people say. Not to say that good companies are not disruptive, but disruption is a byproduct. I think they looked at the world and said, there’s a better way to do something,  and I have an iterative way to do it, and if it leaves to disruption, great, but I don’t think--I have a hard time believing that your going to get somewhere--you can’t just go around saying, we want to be disruptive. It’s like going around and saying, I want to be cool. It’s like, you’re not. So I think disruption is great, but it happens after you’re innovative or smart. I think it’s a byproduct, or outcome of innovation.

 

What are your thoughts on innovation as recombination?

 

The idea that bringing different things together or being at a 50,000 foot level where you can see disparate bits and bring those things together to create something new and innovative, yeah. I do, to your point, think innovation is probably iterative. The lightbulb moment, while it may happen, is actually probably built on years, and days, and decades of other things impacting your mind. That’s what leads to it, it’s not just a switch, it’s probably a long process. So yeah, I think that that makes sense to me. I think in advertising it is probably right. On advertising, sometimes it does feel like you’re standing on the shoulders of giants, but it’s weird because you’re doing that but also at the same time trying to make sure you’re not that giant at all. There’s probably no industry that prides itself on being different than anything else; it’s the only industry, I’m sure, where you sit around and go, “We can’t do that. It’s been done before.” So, I think that yeah, another way you could look at it is you need to know all the things that have been done and you can’t do, thus you look for the white space.