“Understanding the Collaborative Dynamics of Creative

Team: Implications for Creative Advertising Design”

Wisal AhmadAssistant Professor, Institute of Management Sciences,

Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat, Pakistan. Email: wisalkust@hotmail.com.

Abstract

Creativity in advertising is considered the barometer of advertising agency performance and hence a better understanding of the creative process that leads to creative advertising is crucial for every advertising agency. Based on Schrage (1995) conceptualization of collaboration, this study explores the creative process of advertising design by looking at how creative team members collaborate during the development of creative advertising in four advertising agencies using a qualitative comparative case study approach. The basic purpose was to determine the process that produces the most or least creative advertising design. Data was collected from creative directors, copywriters and art directors in four advertising agencies using semi-structured interviews followed by observation of the respective team members’ interactions during the development of an experimental advertisement. Based on the creativity assessment of these advertisements by an independent jury of creatives, interview responses, and observation of the actual process of ad-design in four ad-agencies, the study findings reveal that the most creative advertisement follows a substantially much richer collaboration among the creative team members compared to least creative advertisements. Based on the actual interactions of the most creative advertising team, a preliminary model of creative advertising process is proposed that emphasizes on balanced configuration of domain competency of creative team members which plays a detrimental role in developing an interactional environment among creatives that leads to a creative advertising design. The study presents both theoretical and practical implications with future research directions.

Keywords: Collaboration, Creative Process, Creative Advertising Design, Domain Competency,

Interactional Environment.

INTRODUCTION

Advertising creativity plays a central place role in the advertising world. The nNovel and

creative ideas provides a variety of benefits for both the clients and advertising agencies.

Researchers argue that creative ideas can increase the company’s sales of a company by five

timesfive fold (West, 1999, Buzzell, 1964). From the advertising agency’s point of view, creative

ideas can attract many new clients and the allow them to winning recognition through of

creativity awards. The importance of advertising creativity can be well understood from the fact

that each year, hundreds of creativity excellence awards are given to the most creative and

outstanding advertisements (Till & Baack, 2005). These awards are considered the barometer of

performance in the advertising industry, which has significant implications for the clientele and

recognition of an advertising agency and its employees.

Research on advertising creativity is, however, abstract as well as limited due to the abstract

nature of creativity. An extensive review suggests three main streams of research on attempting

to explain advertising creativity: 1. the personality traits of creative people; 2. the process which

generates creativity; and 3. the characteristics of creative outcomes (Haberland & Dacin, 1992).

Of the three approaches, the creative process of advertising focuses on understanding the

processes that generate creative outcomes (Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001; Till & Baack, 2005;

Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1962). Due to the ambiguous nature of creativity and hence the process

that leads to such creative outcomes, the creative process is not fully understood. There are even

considerable disagreements about the nature of the creative process, with some considering it an

instantaneous moment of creation (Guilford, 1950; Wallas, 1926; Campbell, 1960), while others

considering the creative process as more structured and meticulous, with in which the mind

producinges creative outcomes by fulfilling structural boundaries like creative briefs, and time

and budgetary constraints (Perkins, 1981; Weisberg, 1993; Dasgupta, 1994; Finke, Ward &

Smith 1992). Yet another view of the creative process states that it is in fact the combination of

the earlier two approaches, and that creative process lies somewhere in between the freedom and

constraints view of the creative process and believe that the process is unbalanced if there are too

many restrictions or too much freedom (Hofstadter 1985; Finke, Ward & Smith, 1992).

Nonetheless, creative processes are not fully understood, leaving some key unanswered

questions: “Are there processes which produce a more creative outcome?”, and “Are these

processes different for less creative outcomes?” (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). Such

questions are more relevant to advertising organizations where creativity is considered a central

element for the organization’s performance.

Much earlier theorizing conceptualized the , creative process has been conceptualized as the sum

of sequential steps that an individual passes through while generating creative outcomes (Wallas,

1926; Taylor, 1959; Young, 1976). These stages take a creative person from the stage of

preparation through incubation, epiphany and, lastly, exposure (Wallas, 1926). Young (1976)

considers the stages of ingestion and digestion instead of the preparation stage suggested by

Wallas (1926) and the rest of the process is similar to Wallas. According to Young (1976), a

creative person has to catch a unique idea by following a narrow and straight linear approach

across these steps;, however, Bengtson (1982) has emphasized that either these stages are

incomplete or not universally applicable (Vandern Bergh & Stuhlfaut, 2006) as many brilliant

ideas are not always the result of Youngs’ model of creative stages (Rio Perez, 2006). As a

matter of common sense and also supported by the researchers’ community, tThese stages in the

creative process are more of a generic form that all people may go through, but which produce

different levels of creative outcomes (Kilgour, 2006).

In contrast to the process approach toMoreover, previous research on advertising creativity,

though much scarce, somewhat more rarely we’ve seen researcher has looked into the creative

process from an individualistic perspective (Rio Perez, 2006; Vandern Bergh & Stuhlfaut, 2006;

Fourquest-Courbet, Courbet & Vanhuele, 2008). This individualistic and unilateral approach to

creativity implies that the creative process is an isolated activity where creative individuals are

not interacting with one another (Rio Perez, 2006). However, the current trend towards creativity

research consistently points towards a more holistic and integrated approach toof studying

creativity (Hirschman, 1989, Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001; Rio Perez, 2006; Fourquest-

Courbet, Courbet & Vanhuele, 2008). Researchers argue that creativity in organizations is the

result of a combined effort of a team where everyone contributes from their own respective

domain. Barron (1999) while referring to this point used a biological metaphor that every

individual is the creative product of two parents, which Vandern Bergh and Stuhlfaut (2006)

haves termed collaboration. Hence, the current research attempts to adopt a broader teamwork

perspective of studying the process of creative advertising design with the aim to address the

unanswered questions of whether and how differences in the a more or less creative process that

results in differences in a more or less creative outcomes (Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001).

Creative ideas are developed at advertising agencies by a creative team consisting of a

copywriter, art director and creative director who collaborate on the task (Hirschman, 1989).

Each one contributes to the development of the creative outcome bringing expertise from their

own domain, as well as helping one another mutually; hence, the nature of the creative process is

more of collaborative than individualisticon. Researchers from several other disciplines

including organizational behavior, information sciences and educational psychology stress that

synergy is a prerequisite for creative outcome (McGrath, Arrow & Berdahl, 2000; Young, 2000).

However, little to no research has been conducted to study creativity in advertising from this

teamwork/collaboration perspective (Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001). This study focuses on the

creative process by looking at how a creative team collaborates during the development of

creative advertising in a field real advertising agency setting using a qualitative comparative case

study approach. More precisely, the study draws from on the teamwork collaboration literature

with particular focus on Schrage’s (1995) dimensions of collaboration and investigates how

creative team members collaborate during the process of creative advertising design.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research will primarily address the following main question:

1. How prevalent are the different dimensions of collaborative dynamics in the process of

developing more or less creative advertising?

2. How the different dimensions of collaboration can be related to develop a preliminary

model of collaborative creative process in advertising agencies?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this research are.

1. To better understand the creative process in advertisements by looking at the

collaborative dynamics of creative team members while designing a more or less creative

advertisement.

2. To understand the prevalence of different dimensions of collaboration in the development

of a more or less creative advertisement.

3. To develop a preliminary model of collaborative creative process in advertising agencies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Despite the widespread recognition of advertising creativity as a significant indicator of agency

performance, the area of advertising creativity has not been adequately addressed and more

surprisingly, research on the process of creative advertising development is then further limited

and abstract. Even in the field of advertising, very little research has been carried out on the

process of creative advertising design. Besides other factors, the complex nature of the creative

process has been stated to be the most important factor for the lack of research. There is

considerable disagreement about the distinctive nature of the creative process (Johar, Holbrook

& Stern, 2001; Kilgour, 2006). Some researchers believe that the creative process is different

than a routine, and day- to- day thinking and that it is mostly unstructured and thus cannot be

measured. They believe creative process is analogous to a flash of light when the idea comes to

mind (Guilford, 1950). They consider great freedom of thought and a lack of structural

regulations as necessary for creative development. In contrast, reductionist researchers propose

that the creative process is more meticulous and carefully thought outconsidered (Johar,

Holbrook & Stern, 2001). Here creative idea generation occurs because of the mental constraints

and thinking boundaries. They believe more in formulaic and structural views of the creative

process. A third perspective is more integrative and suggests that creative process is a balance

between freedom and constraints and that the process becomes unbalanced if there is complete

freedom or complete constraints (Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001; Hofstdter, 1985; Finke, Ward

& Smith, 1992). The difficulty with this perspective is, then, specifying where the balance point

between freedom and constraint lies.

Because of such global differences about the nature of the creative process, researchers have

turned to identifying and understanding its parts rather with the whole (Wallas, 1926; Taylor,

1959, cited in Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001). Much earlier, Wallas (1926) provided a four stage

model of the creative process namely involving preparation, incubation, epiphany and exposure,

which is widely acknowledged by advertising researchers. According to Young (1976), creative

ideas emerge as a result of five steps covering ingestion, digestion, incubation, epiphany and

exposure. More recently, Kover (1995 cited in Johar et al, 2001) studied the implicit theories of

communication used by copywriters in the creation of advertising and formulated a post-hoc

developmental sequence based on the copywriter’s internal dialogue with an implied reader.

Then Johar Holbrook and Stern (2001) studied the process of creating an advertising by

attempting to find a relationship between the creative process and creative advertising design.

However, there has been little recent no further research on understanding the creative process

has appeared within the field setting real-world environment of an advertising agency. Rio Perez

(2006) has given a conclusive view of the advertising creativity literature and states that during

the entire period of 1972 to 2006, creative process has been neglected and if studied, only the

individualistic perspective of the creative process has been studied. The same concerns over the

individualistic perspective of creativity study have also been stated by other recent researchers

like Fourquest-Courbet, Courbet and Vanhuele (2008), Rio Perez (2006), Vander Bergh and

Stuhlfaut (2006) and many others. This study begins with such an exploration of the process of

creative advertising design by looking at the creative process from a teamwork interactions

perspective. As stated by Chung (2009), little attention has been given to the creative synergy

generated by teams during the creative process.

Collaborative Teamwork and Creativity

Creative outcomes are not the sole contribution of an individual; rather they are the outcome of a

combined effort of the creative team. Chung (2009) states that the growing interest to in

exploringe creativity in inter-personal settings has led to a recent shift to studying creativity from

a teams’ perspective. As a result, the topic of teamwork and creativity has attracted research

from several disciplines. Advertising researchers are of the view that there is a dire need to

understand the creative process in advertising from multiple perspectives including a team work

collaborative perspective (Oliver & Ashley, 2012; Vandern Bergh & Stuhlfaut, 2006;

Hirschman, 1989). While stressing the need for advertising creativity research, Hirschman

(1989) states that creative ideas do not emerge in isolation;, rather it’s the outcome of social

relationships that affect the process of creative advertising messages. The importance of

collaboration was readily acknowledged in interviews with key creative personnel for the

development of major and world- level famous advertising campaigns for Levis Strauss

(Champa, 1995b), Budweiser (Champa, 1996c) and MasterCard (Champa, 2000a).

Intellectual and artistic collaboration has been studied in a wide variety of other areas of human

endeavor (e.g., jazz composition and new product development ) and defined as “the

interdependence of thinkers in the co-construction of knowledge” (John-Steiner, 2000, p.3).

Reasons to collaborate include an increase in intellectual resource, improved results and

emotional satisfaction (Kraut, Egido, & Galegher, 1990). Smith and Arnston (1991) view

creative collaboration as “a reciprocal, open dialogue which aims at a discovery of self and the

transcendent nature of truth” (p.62) and a method for two people to achieve a state of experience

beyond the material world. As an example, Smith and Arnston argue that the relationship

between the artists Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gaugin enabled each of them to achieve higher

levels of creativity in their art than they would have been able to do alone. This in fact

strengthens the proposition that high creative outcome (and hence a creative advertisement) is

the result of team members’ collaboration.

Collaborative dimensions

The challenge then becomes specifying the dimensions that make team members’ interactions

more or less collaborative. As for the dimensions of collaboration against which team members’

interactions could be evaluated, Smith and Arnston (1991) stated that the criteria for

collaboration include genuineness, empathic understanding, positive regard for the other,

presentness, and a spirit of mutual equality. Barron (2000) studied problem-solving groups and

found that collaboration depends on the degree of mutuality, the amount of joint focus, and the

degree to which the group members hold a collaborative orientation, rather than an

individual one. Schrage (1995) presented the broadest set of criteria in regards to collaboration.

Competence in domain, as evidenced in by individual team memberss is fundamental to the

success of the collaborative team, shared and mutually understood goals, respect, tolerance and

trust, space (which is a physical dimension in collaborative relationships representing as the a

shared area such as a whether it is a room, chalkboard or drawing table), representations of

shared ideas, continuous but not continual communication, formal and informal work

environments, and clear areas of responsibility without strict boundaries.

The Schrage (1995) dimensions for creative collaboration are the is most extensive and covers

almost all the dimensions of collaboration as stated by Smith and Artson (1991) and Barron

(2000). For instance, “the positive regards for others,” and “spirit of mutual equality”

dimensions of Smith and Artson (1991) are reflected by the “respect for tolerance and trust”

dimension of Schrage, the presentness dimension is reflected by “representation of shared

ideas,” and “continuous communication” dimensions of Schrage (1995). Similarly, Barron’s

(2000) the dimensions of “the degree of mutuality,” and “the group orientation towards

collaboration rather individual one” of Barron (2000) are reflected by the “shared and mutually

understood goals” dimension of Schrage, the amount of joint focus dimension is reflected by the

“representation of shared ideas, shared and mutually understood goals, and continues

communication” dimensions outlined by of Schrage (1995). In addition, Schrage (1995) also

highlights the importance of other dimensions for creative and more functional collaboration

including Ccompetence in domain, clear areas of responsibilities but without strict boundaries,

and the domain specific knowledge and competency of the team members. Hence, this study

considers the Schrage model of collaboration as more comprehensive and encompassing for

understanding the collaborative dynamics of creative team in advertising agencies.

Theoretical Model and Research Propositions

This study builds upon the Schrage model of collaboration for understanding the characteristics

of collaboration in creative team members that lead to the design of a more or less creative

advertising. The following section discusses each dimension in detail with its possible linkage

with advertising creativity.

Competence in Domain

One of the foremost dimensions that Schrage states necessary for effective collaboration is

domain-specific knowledge of creative team members. A collaboration among incompetent team

membersof incompetents, no matter how diligent, cannot be successful (Schrage, 1995). A

certain minimum threshold of competence is required for each member of the collaborative team.

The knowledge of a domain refers to the knowledge base acquired to generate new ideas (Sosa,

2007). Effective acquisition of a solid and diverse knowledge foundation has been stated to

increase the chances of generating creative outcomes (Sosa, 2007). Decades of research

evidences that to a very large extent;, success in the fields of music, sports, games and other

complex domains reflects the knowledge and skills acquired through experience. This domain

knowledge helps the creator to relate various concepts from his knowledge pool and transform it

into a novel idea (Sosa, 2007). Besides formal education and training, the experience of the

creator in the respective domain keeps on building his knowledge domain (Simontn, 1999) which

is used on recurring basis for the development of creative ideas. Past research is undoubtedly

clear that one of the largest sources of individual differences in peoples’ performance on

complex tasks is due to the factor of what and how much people know, that is, the declarative,

procedural and strategic knowledge acquired through years of training and practice in their

domain (Hambrick & Meing, 2011). Renzulli and Reis (1991) and Torrance (1962) emphasizes

that past experience in creative involvement is a key indicator of creativity. Similarly, Ericson

and Charness (1994) state that the effects of deliberate practice-engagement in activities

specifically designed to improve performance in a domain are more far reaching than is

commonly believed.

Further, the domain knowledge, including the basic knowledge and skills that individuals acquire

(before and on the job), strongly correlate with the amount of working memory. Hambrick and

Eagle (2002) found that participants having greater baseball knowledge had a strong positive

effect on the memory performance of the participants (recall of baseball information). Thus we

believe that domain knowledge and competence (relevant formal education, trainings, and

experience) would have positive effect on the creative performance of a collaborative group.

More specifically, greater domain knowledge will reflect more creative outcome and vice versa.

Proposition: The domain competence of creative team members will have a greater positive

influence on the creative performance of advertising creative team.

Shared and understood goal

The literature consistently highlights that one of the essential elements of successful

collaboration is its focus toward a common goal and a clear purpose (Fisher, Hunter, &

Macrosson, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Harris & Harris, 1996). This shared understanding

of goal in fact creates a synergy, otherwise every member in the collaboration may not be able to

contribute commonly and the resulting outcome may not truly reflect the aim of the

collaboration, rather a combination of irrelevant pieces. The greater is this understanding of the

project goal; the morest relevant will be the contribution of each collaborator towards the whole.

If a goal is ambiguous or ill-defined, the group will lack motivation and commitment. As

Schrage (1995) states, that the collaborators should be absolutely clear about what needs to be

accomplished. They may tend to indulge in questions and answers about the task of how far

along they (each member) understand the main goal of the task.

Katzenbach and Smith (1993) have described five types of teams and how low performing teams

differ than the high performing teams. The “working team, pseudo team and potential teams are

low performers and their common reason is lacking common focus on the project goal. The

“working group” consists of individuals who come together primarily to share information, best

practices, and perspectives without a real set of group objectives. A“pseudo-team” is where a

team may have a significant performance need but is not really trying to achieve it; and where

there is no common purpose and as such the sum of its whole is less than the individual parts.

A“potential team” is a team that is focused on an incremental performance need but there is a

bias for reaching high performance. As a result, there is no accountability and mutual support for

one another to achieve the group goal. A“real team” is a group of individuals who are equally

committed to a common purpose for which they hold each other accountable (Regan, 1999). Yet

another higher performing team is “high performance team” where the group members are not

only committed to a common goal but also support one another for the combined success of the

project.

Based on Katzenbach and Smith (1993) guidelines, the most effective team will be one in which

there is task clarity as well as the collaborators support one another even in their own respective

areas for the sake of the common success. Thus, we believe that in creative collaboration, the

collaborators will be much clearer about what they are required to produce with greater amount

of support for one another, and they will feel reciprocal accountability to one another since they

will consider the failure of any one member as the failure of the entire collaboration. Based on

this, the following proposition is developed.

Proposition: The sharing and understanding of the advertising goal will have a greater positive

influence on the creative performance of an advertising creative team.

Creation of Shared Space

All collaborations rely on shared space. By shared space, Schrage (1995) means the

collaboration tools used for visual display of ideas and thoughts including blackboards, project

rooms, drawing tables or papers being passed between the collaborators at a coffee bar or lunch

table. Whether physical or electronic, shared space is essential to successful collaboration as it

provides a medium for communication or exchange of ideas. These shared spaces (physical or

electronic shared space) stimulate thinking aloud and creating information together (Bredemeyer,

2000). The shared place should be equally accessible to all team members, dynamic and easily

manipulable and capable of recording and preserving collaboration thought (Bredemeyer, 2000).

Bredemeyer further clarifies that the best shared spaces stimulate the senses and the mind even

when collaborators are separated by distance or time. Thus, we believe that the more shared

space options (physical or electronic or both) are available to a collaborative team (creative

team) and used by that team for idea sharing of ideas, the greater will be the creativity of the

outcome.

Proposition: A rich shared space in advertising agency will have a greater positive influence on

the creative performance of advertising creative team.

Representation of Shared Ideas

Representation of shared ideas refers to the variety of means in how many ways through which

collaborators represent their ideas (Schrage, 1995). Collaborators usually fuse multiple

perspectives of a task and hence they must use multiple representations for each of the

perspectives. Schrage uses the example of molecular biologists complementing their

experimental data and discussions using computer models of organic structures. Similarly,

theater directors rely on critical representations of text, actors’ impressions, set designers, and

possible audience response in order to fine-tune performances. Hence, greater representation of

shared ideas is a significant element of effective and high performance collaboration.

In advertising agencies, creative team members typically express their rough creative concepts

on a piece of paper or some other medium (shared spaces in this thesis) by using multiples

perspectives. Other representations include photographs, typed copy or illustrations that all serve

to express the ideas. They may even use multiple perspectives for a sub-task such as headlines,

story writing (the inherent drama in ad), and visualization. Since more greater representation of

shared ideas about the task (i.e., the ad’s drama, headline or tagline of the ad) helps in finding the

most suitable idea that reflects the goal of the advertisement, the resulting outcome will be more

representative of the collaborators’ collective efforts. More simply, multiple representations of a

task by the collaborators will enhance collaborative discussions on a given task representation

and hence the ultimate outcome will be more representative of the collaborative effort rather than

an individual’s outcome. This also implies that multiple representations increasing the

collaborative discussion will also lead to greater synergy which otherwise may not be possible in

the case of less task representation. Hence, we believe that if the art director, copy writer and

creative director use numerous perspectives to present their ideas, their collaboration will be

more effective and unique.

Proposition: The greater and multiple representations of shared ideas between creative team

members will have a greater positive influence on the creative performance of advertising

creative team.

Continuous but Not Continual Communication

Another dimension for successful collaboration is continuous communication (Schrage, 1995).

Continuous communication keeps the collaboration alive and its group members active for the

given task. Collaborators create a rhythm and a flow of communication appropriate to their

relationship in which they continuously meet with one another and discuss the issue without a

great time gap. This does not detach the collaborators from where they were discussing the last

time they met compared to continual discussion in which there is a greater amount of

interruptions and time gaps. Since there are no greater time delays in the task related

communication, continuous communication is more task focused. Compared to communication

with many interventions and time gaps, continuous communication takes the project to its end

such that every member of the collaboration contributes effectively due to the avoidance of

frequent interruptions. From the advertising perspective, art directors and copywriters have been

shown to alternate between periods of intense conversation and silence as they grapple with

creative problems. However, the communication link between the two remains active. Based on

this, we believe that creative teams with continuous communication will be more productive than

ones where communication occurs frequently but with much more interruptions (continual

communication).

Proposition: The greater continuous (not continual) communication between creative team

members will have a greater positive influence on the creative performance of advertising team..

Operation in both formal and informal environments

Creative collaboration and hence creative outcome occurs in a multifaceted formal and informal

environment. Schrage (1995) exemplifies suggests that most of the creative outcomes in the field

of art and science -- -from Niels Bohr to Vincent van Gogh --, took place in informal

environments like cafés and wilderness trips. Champa, as reported in a series of articles about

creative inspiration, noted that creative advertising teams work in spaces that range from formal

offices (1999b) to taverns (1991a) and airports (1995b). However, the formal setting has got its

own importance where the need for a creative idea emerges (Schrage, 1995). In fact, working in

both formal and informal environments, especially the latter, provides an opportunity for the

collaborators to discuss freely, brainstorm and create many alternative ideas, which is one of the

principles of creative idea generation. That is, during the creative idea generation process,

creative people try to generate as many ideas as possible through association of various concepts

that reflect the advertisement’s central theme. The greater number of alternatives generated

increases the likelihood that the resulting outcome will be more unique and creative. Thus,

creative teams working in formal settings as well as in informal settings (e.g., break times in

office such as lunch or tea breaks, arranging dinner at a restaurant etc) should lead to more

creative outcomes compared to a creative team working on the advertising project only inside the

advertising agency during official time.

Proposition: The greater involvement of creative team members in both formal as well as

informal environment will have a greater positive influence on the creative performance of

advertising creative team.

Clear lines of responsibility but no restrictive boundaries

The art director and copy writer in an advertising agency are responsible for the visualization of

a creative idea and the verbal and written shape of the advertising idea respectively. Similarly,

the creative director supervises the entire creative project; however, it is not binding that creative

ideas will always come from the art director, copywriter or creative director only. Though their

responsibilities are divided functionally, anyone can make contributions in one another’s areas

during the creative process (Hirshman, 1989; Johar et al., 2001). From Schrage’s the perspective

of Schrage (1995), what makes collaboration more creative and successful depends on how much

one member consults, assists, and solicits ideas from the other member of the collaboration,

irrespective of their functional positions. In other formal settings in some other organizations,

such treatments or interactions may be considered interfering; however, more interference but in

creative collaboration, there is little turf warfare because the collaborations are supposed to

create one single collective solution to a given problem (Schrage, 1995). This view is also

consistent with the “high performance team” concept of Katzenbach and Smith (1993), where the

group members are not only committed to a common goal but also support one another for the

combined success of the project. Thus, it implies that the greater is the reciprocal consultation

and assistance process found in a collaborative group, the more the outcome will be creative.

From an advertising perspective, we believe that the more a creative team is flexible in

consulting and assisting one another in their functional areas (i.e., the copy writer assists the art

director in the visual aspect of the idea, or the art director assists the copywriter in copywriting),

the more creative advertising idea they will produce.

Proposition: The greater cross functional support among creative team members will have a

greater positive influence on the creative performance of advertising creative team.

Decisions are not made by consensus

For an effective collaboration, the decisions may not only be made with simple consensus, rather

there should be positive critique and argument-based reasoning for one another’s ideas. This

argumentative discussion is usually depersonalized since each member of the collaboration

thinks from the perspective of the creativity of the end product, the success of which is the

success of the entire collaborative group. The amount of argument-based reasoning depends on

the number of genuine disagreements, how many perspectives and backgrounds each member

uses, and the depth of discussion by the respective member in defending his point and idea

(Schrage, 1995). It is important to note that collaborators, after argumentative discussion, agree

on the direction they are taking, otherwise their collaboration would ultimately dissolve if the

members consistently diverge (Schrage, 1995). Thus, it is not merely the consensus in its

absolute term that makes an outcome less creative. What makes a consensus more effective is the

way it is developed. If the consensus between the collaborators on an idea is arrived after logical

discussion and sufficient background support aiming at the effectiveness of the final outcome,

the consensus will be termed as more effective and the resulting agreement will contribute to

more effective and higher quality outcome. From the perspective of advertising, possible relevant

argumentation should cover discussion about, for example, the type of drama or story being

made for the implementation of advertising objective, the character being used in the ad, and the

visualization of the drama. Hence, the consensus thus arrived collectively based on objective

ground will be a productive consensus and will result in a more creative and logical outcome

than consensus reached for the sake of one another in any collaboration.

Proposition: The greater argument and objectives based decision making in a creative team will

have a greater positive influence on the creative performance of advertising creative team.

METHODOLOGY

The primary objective of this study is to understand the process of creative advertising design by

looking at the collaborative dynamics of creative teams to find out which type of collaborations

produce more creative ads versus less creative ads. Based on this objective, this study takes a

qualitative approach with a focus on non-participant observation as the most appropriate data

collection approach. A review of relevant literature suggests that when the research is aiming to

answer the “How” type of research question, observation is considered to be the most

appropriate (Kurtz berg, 2000). In order to provide a benchmark for understanding more creative

versus less creative collaborative dynamics, and to address the research questions of this study,

data was collected from four advertising agencies with two agencies having won the advertising

creativity awards and two agencies with no creativity awards. In line with the objectives of the

study, an exploratory research with comparative case study approach was adopted. An

advertising brief written by the researcher and checked by three creatives in two well-known

independent advertising agencies was given to each creative team in these agencies to develop a

print advertisement. The brief asked for designing an advertisement for a newly launching

mineral water brand that contains the extract of Nigella, (cChemically named as Bblack seeds of

Sativa) which strengthens the immune system of body as well as being useful in body healing.

The brief included all pertinent information, such as the brand’s unique selling proposition (USP)

of the brand, the Ttarget market and its specification, and the proposed brand personality of the

brand, possible competitors etc. Data pertaining to the level of teamwork interactions was

collected through semi-structured interviews from creative team members in four advertising

agencies followed by observations of the actual interactions of these creatives during the entire

ad development process.

A total of twelve semi-structured interviews from the creative directors, art directors and

copywriters were conducted in four advertising agencies. During the interviews, creative team

members were asked about their level of interactions during the different stages of developing an

advertisement. Following the interview process in all four ad agencies, the researcher observed

the advertising development process in general and the development of the experimental

advertisement in particular, which took eight to twelve days in each respective agency. Utmost

attempt was made to cover a comprehensive picture of the team members’ interactions which

included physical setting of the ad agency, creatives’ formal and informal interactions and all

types of communications etc. Field notes were written soon after the observations which were

later on made further extensive to describe the observed interactions more detailed, accurate and

easy to read. At the same time, these field notes were consistently compared with the interview

responses of the team members that were previously recorded in each respective agency. Once

the experimental advertisements were developed and the observation phase ended in all four ad

agencies, the interview responses and observation data in each respective agency were together

analyzed for compliance and hence prevalence or non-prevalence of a certain collaboration

dimension in each of the creative advertising team. Further, the developed advertisements were

taken to an independent, well- known multinational advertising agency where each individual

creative team member (art director, copywriter, and creative director) individually evaluated the

creativity of the experimental advertisement. In addition to the novelty, meaningfulness, and

relevancy of the advertisement with the target market (Ang, Leong & Lee, 2007), the

experimental ads were also assessed for its copy-visuals congruency (Yoon & Park, 2011). Out

of four such advertisements, one advertisement was assessed most creative whereas three ads

were assessed more conventional and lessast creative. The findings of the study in terms of

creative team members’ interactions in each ad agency previously covered through interviews

and observations during the development phase of their respective ads were then compared with

the level of creativity assessed for their respective experimental ads. This further leads to the

development of a preliminary model of collaborative creative process in advertising agencies.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

This study aimed at understanding the creative process of advertising design by looking at the

collaborative dynamics of creative team members in advertising agencies. A total of twelve

semi-structured interviews from creative director, art director and copywriter were conducted in

four advertising agencies followed by observations of their interactions during the development

of an experimental advertisement for mineral water. Based on the researcher interviews from

creative team members, and observations of the creative process with special attention to the

interactional dimensions in each of the four ad-agencies, the results of the study are presented

below.

Competence in Domain

As stated in the literature part, this study looked at the domain competence of creative team

members from two perspectives: the team members’ experience in the advertising industry and

their formal relevant knowledge acquired. However, further clarification is needed to know

which of these factors are the predominant contributors of domain knowledge. In fact, it is

increasingly acknowledged that individuals learn far more from experiences at the work place

than through formal trainings and education only (Eraut, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1990). It has

been stated that one’s own work practice is one of the central mechanism of an individual

learning at the workplace (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Boud, Keogh & Walker, 1985). Hence, this

study categorized a creative team member in higher domain knowledge and competency level if

possessing rich industry experience but no formal relevant qualification than the one having a

relevant qualification only (e.g., MBA) with lesst experience in theof advertising field. Similarly,

a creative team member with substantial past experience in advertising and also having a formal

relevant qualification was considered higher in domain competency than the one having a rich

advertising industry experience only.

To understand the domain competencey of creative team members in all four agencies, they were

asked to describe their background such as when did they began start their careers, formal

education, and trainings received. In two of the least creative non-award winning agencies, the

creative teams had were having unequal and imbalanced competency levels, with one team

member being substantially more competent than the other team members. For instance, in one

of these lesssuch least creative agenciesy, the art director had almost twenty five years of

advertising industry experience compared to the copy writer and concept developer who were

only beginning in the start of their careers, having six months’ and eleven months’ experience in

the advertising realm. However, they had sixteen years of relevant qualification in business

administration. In the other lesast creative agency, the creative director had was having sixteen

years of education with qualification in mMass communication and sixteen years of work

experience in well-known ad agencies;, however, the art director only had was having six years

of art work experience and with twelve years of non-relatedevant education. The copy writer

here had an MBA qualification with only four months’ advertising experience only.

In the third least creative agency which lost the experimental competition, but was an award

winning agency within the industry, all creative team members were having had a balanced

competency level. The art director, creative director and copy writer had twelve, eight and five

years of advertising experience along with sixteen years of education with master degrees in

graphic designing, business administration and history, respectively. Similarly in the most

creative agency, creative team members were highly competent in their respective domains,

having higher relevant qualification and substantially rich experience of advertising industry.

The Ccreative director had a bachelor degree and having sixteen years of advertising experience

and enjoyed with a distinctive reputationname for creativity in the advertising industry. The art

director and copy writer had were having twenty and twelve years’ experience in their respective

domains and hadving acquired sixteen years of formal education with master degrees in graphic

designing and business administration respectively from schools of international repute.

Thus, with the more obvious results for creative team members’ domain knowledge and their

respective advertising creativity output in the most creative and the two least creative agencies, it

is substantiated that creatives with greater domain expertise are more likely to involve in a

greater interactive cross functional collaboration and dig into their existing pool of domain

knowledge for finding novel ideas and vice versa. The contradictory result for one of the least

creative agency with team members having almost similar high domain expertise but least

creative outcome is discussed in the conclusion and discussion section. The findings also

indicate that creative teams with members having unequal domain expertise may have greater

chances of suffering from role-centrality by one or few of the team members, and hence this

weakens the collaboration and team creativity. This view has been elaborated in the discussion

section in much detail.

Shared and Understood Goal

The standard process for understanding and sharing the advertising goal in advertising industry

consist of a joint session of all creatives including account manager who briefs the team about

the advertising communication objectives which is followed by some interactive discussion

among creatives over the brief. When asked about the goal sharing mechanism, respondents in

all agencies recorded almost nearly similar responses with the exception of one of the least

creative agency where creative director used to meet with clients to understand the advertising

communication objectives who then briefed the rest of colleagues verbally in one of their offices:

“Madam goes to client company and then briefs us what main theme the ad will cover and how

to cover the theme with advertising copy and ad visuals” (Art Director). “Madam sometimes

also takes me to the client………..When Madam returns, she tells all of us the ad objective and

how to write two or three copies” (Copy Writer).

In the rest of the two least creative agencies, creatives responded that client services department

usually meets with client followed by a short meeting over the brief or handing over of brief to

them by client services department which they read and then have a short meeting over it to

understand how to respond to the brief objectives. However, in one of these two least creative

agencies, the art director (non-award winning agency) being the senior most, confessed that

though there is a standard procedure of creative process in advertising industry, but unfortunately

they don’t involve in such a rigorous process since most of the time, the clients’ brief is not clear

and whatever we develop may not necessarily be accepted by the client. Hence, the time that

advertising brief reaches, he immediately provides surface information about the advertising

brief to other creative members to develop one to two alternative copies and visuals so that it

should be shown to the client for acceptance.

Least

Creative

Agency

(Art Director): “The proper procedure of creative process that should be

followed is that client sends the brief, we sit and brain storm for

idea…………………… but as most of the clients does not give us a well explained

brief, we urgently talk to one another for ten to fifteen minutes about the brief to

understand it and each one develops two to three versions of his part of work and

show it to client so that if the client suggest changes in it, it should be

incorporated well in time before the client totally changes the brief”.

(Copywriter): “Sometimes, the client services department tells us about the

clients’ objectives and sometimes they give us the brief……it’s a written request

by the client and then we sit and share with the art director”. (Concept

Developer / Creative Manager): “When the brief reaches, it is shared with all

departments, we read it then we sit together and discuss it”.

The third least creative but award-winning agency also reported a similar approach of account

manager briefing to the creative team about the clients’ advertising objectives and all other

pertinent information about the clients’ products and client background in a joint session:(Art

Director) “Accounts services send us brief, we read it and every one (copywriter, art director

etc.) develop some questions. Then, we have a debriefing session where the account services

person addresses to those questions…..sometimes accounts person again consults the client for

clarification of our questions”(Copy Writer): “When brief reaches, first it is emailed, then

debriefing………………….all of us come for a meeting and then discuss”. (Creative Director):

“Before we start debriefing, we have a list of questions from the brief which we then discuss in

the debriefing meeting”.

Similar interview responses as recorded particularly in the above least creative award-winning

agency were recorded by creative team members in the most creative award winning agency.

The observation of the actual practice of goal sharing process during the development of the

experimental advertisement in one of the least creative non-award winning agency revealed that

creative director approached and briefed the art director and copy writer about the advertising

brief verbally in their office. Further, no formal joint session was held and the creative hook of

the advertisement and advertising copy developed by the creative director were emailed to the art

director with the suggestions on how to design the visuals around the creative theme of the

advertisement. The final ad designed was emailed by art director to creative director who

suggested few changes for the advertising visuals through phone which were incorporated and

the ad was finalized. In two of the other least creative agencies, the advertising brief was

discussed in a joint session of creatives highlighting its main elements such as target market,

salient features of the experimental product and its possible competitors, and the naming of this

mineral water product etc. However, in both such agencies, creative director in the least creative

award-winning agency, and art director in the least creative non-award winning agency remained

in a dominant position due to their greater domain experience, and substantially influenced the

team overall interactions such that the final creative theme to be written, the copywriting and the

ad visuals were reflecting the major suggestions of one of the team members in these two least

creative agencies. It is also important to mention that in the least creative award-winning agency,

the art director did not participate in the debriefing session due to personal involvement outside

the agency and the ad brief was discussed by creative director and copywriter only. Its possible

repercussions have been stated later in the discussion section. Procedurally, almost similar

approach was observed in the most creative award-winning agency, dissecting the ad brief which

covered the target market discussion, unique selling proposition for the product, the packaging of

the mineral water, and the naming of product. However, in terms of the level of interactivity in

the most creative agency characterized by no role-centrality and questions-answers, seriousness

in thought and the greater use of cognitive resources followed by cross team discussion, and the

total time spent (more than two and a half hour session), this creative team was dealing with the

advertising brief much differently than the least creative agencies. Three times, tea was served

and they smoke continuously while they were thinking of a creative theme for the advertisement.

It is also worth mentioning that understanding of advertising goal is based on the amount and

richness of advertising information shared, and the interactivity of team members. Hence, it is

important that the word “shared goal” in collaboration, especially in the field of creativity should

not be narrowly looked as the only sharing of information and getting to know about simply what

to accomplish, rather it should be looked from a broader continuum perspective which should

include other factors such as critical questioning and team interactivity. Hence, it can be

concluded that though procedurally the goal sharing mechanism was similar in the most creative

and least creative agencies, the level of goal understanding could be cautiously interpreted for

the most creative and least creative outcomes. Thus, based on the observation of the goal sharing

process in the most creative agency, the researchers’ judgment is that creatives in this agency

deeply knew the ad brief compared to other least creative agencies.

Creation of Shared Space

To judge whether the advertising agencies differ in their efforts to have a shared space for

sharing of ideas, all creative team members in the four advertising agencies were asked about

what type of physical as well as electronic sharing tools (Schrage,1995) are available to them and

how often they use these resources. For instance, these resources could be computers,

multimedia, conference room, and overhead projectors. In the most creative agency, respondents

stated that they have a conference room equipped with all communicative tools such as

conference room and multimedia.

Copy

Writer

We have a separate conference room equipped with multimedia, white board and

overhead projector. We discuss the things and develop initial understanding of the

client brief and we also sit for a brain storming and big idea.

Creative

Director

We have all the necessary state of the art facilities in our agency… board room,

beautiful long table and comfortable chairs, multimedia………we discuss there and

sometimes use white board..

Art

Director

Our agency is a beautiful place to work…here we have twenty four hours internet,

comfortable offices, computers and much more.

In line with the particular nature of advertising agencies, a shared space was also existing in

other three least creative agencies including a conference hall, internet facility, multimedia,

white board, creative exhibits and written quotes in the agency conference rooms. However, its

utilization in most creative agency and least creative agencies differed which is discussed in the

next section.

Multiple Forms of Representation

How ideas and mental thoughts are shared and represented have a greater influence on the final

outcome of a creative team. The creatives’ responses in all four agencies revealed different

responses about the use of creative shared spaces. That is, the responses in the least creative

agencies revealed that they mostly rely on verbal discussion, internet, laptops and, paper and

pencil sketches.

Least

Creative

Agency

(Copy Writer): “We use laptops only ……and sometimes paper and pencils

sketching only”. (Art Director): “Mostly we use computers, paper and pencil

sketching for sharing our work………..you can assume the use of multimedia

only once in two months when we are in meeting”. (Creative Manager): “In

brain storming, we discuss the things in meetings (verbally), when copy is

written or visuals are developed, we share it through emails”

Least

Creative

Agency

(Art Director):”We mostly discuss verbally or through emails. Sometimes, we

use papers and pencils sketching too”. (Creative Director): “Internet has made

the job very easy. We have a small office, and can share with one another by

visiting one another offices or they come to my office”.(Copy Writer): “We

mostly use one another offices for discussion (verbal) or internet when we have

to send our work”

However, creative team members in the most creative agency stated that they have all state of the

art facilities including multimedia, internet, separate conference hall, gadgets and illustrator and

they use these most often.

Most

Creative

Agency

(Creative Director): “We discuss brief, do ideation in the agency state of the art

board room, or even in my office. We use internet, multimedia, sketches, and most

often white board. (Copy Writer): “During ideation and brief session, we use

verbal discussion, white board, paper and sketches and when concept is written or

visuals are developed or storyboard is discussed, we use multimedia, PowerPoint

presentations, and verbal discussion. (Art Director):“We have conference room,

multimedia, white boards, fully loaded accessories, gadgets …….everything. We use

White boards, we use multimedia connected with TV, internet…we look at

competitor’s products’, their packing……………. During idea generation we use

white boards for points recording”.

The observation of the ad development process in the four agencies further revealed remarkable

differences in how team members actually represented their ideas. In one of the least creative,

non-award winning agency, the team members used to exchange their ideas by personally

visiting one another’ offices. They did not use any joint setting except the initial goal sharing and

brain storming session, which was also not so cohesive and involving, rather dominated by one

of the senior creative team member. The team only relied on oral face- to- face discussion with

no other medium for ideas representation. Almost similar observations were recorded in the

second least creative non-award winning agency. Here too, the agency relied mainly on oral

discussion with a one- sided dominant communication from the creative director towards the art

director and copy writer. The creative director used to personally approach and guide the art

director about how to design the ad visuals. The ad-copy was even written by the creative

director without any collaborative efforts with her team. Similar practices of only oral discussion

were also observed in the third least creative award winning agency.

In the most creative award winning agency, the ad briefing was jointly discussed followed by

intense discussion in the agency conference room. The discussion was mainly verbal and much

of it cross-functional with the use of laptop and internet by the creative director. One of the

creative team members (copy writer) was using the white board when communicating her point

of view. Further, these creatives were also found to represent their creative input by narrating

their cultural stories when substantiating their point of view. For instance, while responding to

one suggestion about choosing an herbal brand name for the experimental mineral water product,

the art director discussed how (in a joking mood) the target group of customers for such mineral

water associates a negative perception towards locally available herbal products. Creative

director in the same session narrated his story of how his suggested name, “Santurus,” won an

entire advertising campaign for the first ever uniquely designed shopping mall in Pakistan.

In addition and specific to this advertising agency, a brief overview of the advertising idea (after

the idea generation session) was designed by the art director in a power point form which was

sent to all the team members including the researcher. This was followed by a joint session

presentation in the agency conference room for mutual sharing and verbal discussion. The aim

was to see how the advertising idea approached in the earlier brain storming session looks like.

Such type of presentation is usually prepared for client as stated by the art director. This

presentation of the proposed ad and its ability to reflect the central theme of the proposed

advertising idea proved to be a best platform for cross functional discussion over the final

advertising copy and its congruency with the advertising visuals. Once the advertisement was

finally developed, it was further brought to an informal joint meeting of creatives and was

finalized.

To conclude, the most creative agency had a greater variety and forms of ideas representations

than the least creative agencies that mainly relied on internet and face to face verbal discussion

usually in one another’s offices. Further, the practices of sharing and discussion over the

preliminary developed visualized form of advertising idea in a joint multimedia presentation

session also seemed to be much instrumental in rich collaborative discussion which seemed to

have facilitated the team in designing a more creative advertisement.

Continuous but Not Continual Communication

Continuous but not continual communication means how frequently and without significant time

delays, the creative team members interact during the stages of creative product development. To

judge the spontaneity and flexibility in the creative teams’ pattern of communication, the

interview participants were asked about the number of average days usually required for ad

development, the average number of meetings during this period and the average day’s gap

between each respective meeting. The interview responses revealed that team members in both

the most creative and less creative agencies have almost similar average of meetings’ frequency

and gap days in their meetings during the entire ad development period. In all the least creative

agencies, the average numbers of days for development of an ad (Print Ad) were stated as five to

seven working days with almost three meetings with an average of one to two working days gap

in each meeting. In the most creative agency, similar responses were recorded with an average of

seven days for ad development having a total of average four meetings with one to two days gap

in each meeting.

The observation during the actual ad development stage substantiated that all agencies had

almost similar pattern of continuous communication characterized by flexibility, approximately

same meeting intervals and day gaps, and the total number of average days for ad development

(See Figure 2). In the most creative agency, the communication pattern remained almost similar

in frequency and day’s interval to that in the least creative agencies, however, these

communication sessions were found to be comparatively more involving, cohesive, logical and

interactive. These communications (in the most creative agency) covered the goal sharing and

brain storming session for big idea generation, the email of ad-copy statements to creative

members (after two days) followed by joint discussion over it (after three days), the

communication of ad-visuals to team members followed by joint discussion over it (after five

days), and final discussion on the prototype ad to finalize the advertisement respectively (after

one day). Among the least creative agencies, as already stated, similar task pattern was observed

covering initial discussion on advertising brief and idea generation, writing and email of ad

copies to the team members, and visuals design and email of ad visuals to other members. The

continuity pattern of the team communication whether through email or personal visit of team

members to one another offices also remained similar to the most creative agency (with slight

differences) in terms of communication frequency, days gap in each communication and the total

number of days the ad was finalized. In the least creative agencies, four communications

(interactions) were held respectively during the entire ad development period with an average of

3 days gap in each meeting (See Figure 2-b to Figure 2-d).

Operation in both formal and informal environments

When asked about the typical work environment for the various ad development tasks including

big idea, copy writing and ad visuals, creative team members in both the most and least creative

agencies responded almost similarly. High level of work commitment was stated by each

creative in all the four agencies. When asked about the type of discussion that usually take place

among creatives during lunch break or teatime, responses in both type of agencies revealed that

there is no fixed timing for tea or lunch; eating and tea goes on the whole day, and an idea can

come to their minds any time while they are at home or office. When asked about performing

tasks outside the office such a hotels, parks or other events of gathering with colleagues, majority

of creatives in the three least creative agencies revealed that their work operation is mostly

restricted to office only. In the most creative agency, with the exception of copywriter stating

that she gets completely annoyed to receive calls at home, the art director and creative director

stated that advertising is a twenty four hours job and idea conception remains open the whole

day. If they conceive an advertising idea or attractive ad visuals, they text it or mail it to other

colleagues but interaction outside office does not take place in hotels or other places. It’s rather

through emails or messaging.

Most

Creative

Agency

(Art Director): “After the whole day office work, Ideas are running in your

mind even in dreams….We do interact with each other but it varies…….If it’s 3

o’clock at night, we wouldn’t text a message or email”. (Copy Writer): “It’s

more of a personality trait not an industry norm…I have to pick up my daughter

at 6 and after that I am a mother. They know how much I fell annoyed to receive

call at 9 onward” (Creative Director): “Advertising is a twenty four hours job.

You cannot shut the creative process. While we are in car, home…..ideas’

conception is on. We remain in touch through text, messaging…..”

Least

Creative

Agency

(Art Director): “On my part, I never work at home….though Ideas are running

at the back of your mind even at home…. I usually share ideas on next day with

madam in office”. (Copy Writer): “No, I don’t work at home”(Creative

Director): “I don’t like to spend time at home as that is my family time and I

have to do many other jobs. My children also need my time, attention and care”.

Least

Creative

Agency

(Creative Director): If I am not feeling asleep, yes, I try to think of ideas and

how to do things……..Yes, also sit with few of my colleagues sometimes but

don’t discuss about creative ideas (Copy Writer): No, usually we interact three

to four times daily but not during lunch….No, If I am out of office and they feel

my need, they call me otherwise I don’t work at home. (Art Director): “Since I

am now-a-day alone, I usually take office work to home and work at night. We

usually share copy or art work with one another through email”.

The observation of the ad development process in the four ad agencies further substantiated this

formal working pattern. Most of the employees including creative team members in both types of

agencies were found staying for night in their offices to finish their tasks and meet the deadlines.

Most of the tasks were discussed in meetings and performed in offices; however, personal

movement to one another offices remained a working norm. In fact, all agencies had working

setups which facilitated free flow of information and informal discussion both verbally as well as

through personal movement. To this end, informality existed in work environment; but the

dominant working practices in all the four agencies remained limited to performing tasks in

official formal setups. In order to know about creatives’ involvement with their work outside the

offices, researcher used to ask creatives in each agency an informal question of how they spent

their time with families the past day so that the required information about work operation in

informal environment could be understood. During the researcher stay in each agency, the work

pattern remained limited to formal office environment with very limited interactions outside

offices. Hence, this collaborative dimension did not vary across the most and least creative

agencies.

Clear Lines of Responsibility but No Strict Boundaries

When asked about the role and support from other creatives in the team in areas other than the

specific responsibilities assigned to him / her, the respondents in all four agencies stated a

general response stating that every team member has his own area of expertise. To further probe

the reality, they were asked to what extent a copy writer or art director can give suggestions for

some modifications in the copy or visuals of the ad respectively. In the most creative agency,

respondents stated that when the copywriter writes the copy or art director designs the visuals of

the ad, they go for a meeting including creative director to discuss it so that if there are any

pitfalls, it should be removed and hence finalized: “the sequence is that a copy is written, we

gather, discuss it to see how it looks like. Its pitfalls and gets finalized….so is for visuals” (Art

Director). The art director further stated that another of his team member can suggest for changes

and if such changes have a logical ground, he adopts those changes. In the least creative

agencies, respondents revealed that copy writers and art directors honor one another’s’ respective

expertise (copy / ad visuals) meaning that they only work on their own respective tasks.

The observation data provides further close insight to this collaborative dimension of the creative

process. During the observation phase of the creative advertisement design process, this

dimension appeared in two different scenarios, the goal sharing and idea generation session, and

the completion of individual parts such as copy statements, visuals design. In the most creative

agency, the creative team members intensively shared their ideas around the central theme of the

advertising brief irrespective of their designated role. The discussion was more of a cross

functional domain and everyone was giving feedback on how to set a unique brand name, shape

of the mineral water bottle, and more importantly, the “big idea” around the main theme of the

brief. For instance, the brief was asking for a unique selling proposition which could position this

water brand as an attractive and trendy brand having extract of black seeds of Sativa (Kalvangee)

that boost the immune system of the body and keep the body fit in a hectic daily routine. The

copy writer got the “hook” for creative idea by picking the word “healing” from the brief. She

said: “In developed countries, there is a process of detoxification in which people do overhauling

of the different organs of their body such as detoxifying liver, heart, brain” . This discussion

triggered the creative director and he got another word “Kalvangee water once a day” from the

brief by quoting example of “Nestle Everyday” and soon the copywriter said: “yes, daily

healing” which lead to daily detoxification and hence “DayTox” was finalized by the creative

team. Discussion then turned towards how to visualize this creative theme of daily healing. The

art director stated that the theme can be captured by showing a person going to and the coming

back from office crossing road and much tired in a crowded traffic and then he takes the DayTox

mineral water which was stated as a more routine presentation. The copy writer said why not the

theme be related with yoga such that a woman is shown practicing yoga and alongside a DayTox

bottle is shown. This idea was accepted.

After the brainstorming session, the copy writer wrote the concept of the ad which emailed to all

including the researcher and then was discussed in the meeting. This phase involved almost

similar intensive discussion as in the idea generation stage. Once the theme was finalized in this

meeting, the art director was told to design the visuals of the ad which was also discussed in the

meeting exactly in a similar way as the advertising concept In the final stage, the completed

prototype ad was put for a joint session discussion where every creative again participated in

logical discussion over the copy and visual elements respectively and how it conveys the theme

stated in the experimental advertising brief. The ad was accordingly finalized.

Contrary to this, in least creative agencies, the process of goal sharing, and idea generation was

not much involving. For instance, in one of such award-winning least creative agency, the copy

writer looked at the word “black seeds of sativa” and derived the name “Sehteeva” which was

straightly accepted by the creative director. Similarly, the tagline was also decided unanimously

in one go without objective and critical discussion. As a subjective opinion of the researcher, the

tag line “drink sehteeva, live fit” is more of a usual nature and is commonly stated for all mineral

water brands in Pakistan. The art work depicting the natural benefits of Sativa seeds wrongly

associated the brand with a mineral water bottle coming out of rocks (Figure. 3) as commented

by the independent jury member. One of the main reasons for this could be the lack of discussion

between team members during the brain storming session and hence lack of understanding of the

brief by the team members (which substantiates the real meaning of goal understanding as

discussed in the section “shared understood goal”). In another least creative non-award winning

agency, every member of creative team contributed in their respective areas such that the concept

developer (here the creative manager) made contribution towards the brand name of the product

K-H2O with “K” for Kalvangee and “H2O” for water. This was straight away accepted without

much feedback or other alternate brand names. The art director emphasized on simplicity and

suggested that unlike usual mineral water visuals in a print ad, the visuals of K-H2O ad should

include bottle with a short copy suggesting health related benefits which was accepted. Pertinent

to mention is that such ideas were also not objectively discussed and perhaps were assessed as

much usual and conventional by the independent creative jury.

In another least creative agency, the art director dominated the advertising goal sharing (ad brief

discussion) and idea generation session where as in the third least creative agency; the creative

director not only dominated the session but also wrote a copy statement as well as directed a

creative idea to art director and even suggested visuals around it. Further, none of the creative

team members in these least creative agencies raised any concern or involved objective

discussion about the respective work of other team member such as copy writing or designing

ad-visuals.

Thus, based on the interview responses and observations of the creative advertising design

process in four agencies, it can be concluded that besides other factors of team interactions, the

most creative advertising as found in this study is the result of a more cohesive interactions in

terms of cross functional dialogue and support as compared to least creative advertising in other

agencies where the members were mainly confined to their respective professionally assigned

tasks only.

Decisions are not made with Consensus consensus

Creatives in four agencies were asked about the pattern and authority of final decision making in

any of the advertising tasks such as creative idea, copy, and ad visuals around the idea etc. The

interview responses in one of the least creative agencies reveled that they work in team,

however, they also stated that the final decision about a certain task such as copy or ad-visuals

rests with the creative director.

Least

Creative

Agency

(Copy Writer): “My job is copywriting; art work is done by Mr.__and Madam

(Creative Director) looks at the creative concept. I write two or three copies and

send it to madam, but since madam has a vast experience, she looks at these and

sometimes asks for changes which I incorporate”. (Art Director): “We work in a

team but everyone has his own area of expertise……..The chances that art director

has any say in the copy work is minimal”. (Creative Director): “Though my job is

to look at every aspect but we work in team……… See, everyone has own expertise

and we try that everyone contribute, but I have to ultimately check at the end”.

Least

Creative

(Art Director): “If the copy writer convinces me that if we slightly change the

visuals, it will more clearly reflect the big idea, I agree, but if convince me”

Agency (Copy Writer): “I write copy, approve it from creative director and send it to

art director. He designs visuals and approves it from creative director. I have

no concern with him and he has no concern with me”. (Creative Director):

when the copywriter sends the copy to visualizer, it’s better that he

“should”…he “should” consult the visualizer to get feedback to see how it

looks like………….the copywriter “should” give feedback about the visuals” .

In another least creative agency, creative team members frequently referred to teamwork as well

as also emphasized the individual domain expertise as the major factor that influence the final

decision for a given advertising task such as copy or visuals. Similar responses were also

recorded in the third least creative agency.

In the most creative agency, responses were quite different, believing on teamwork and cross

functional debate of every team member on any given task related to domain expertise of any

team member: (Creative Director): “We don’t like copywriter writing only copies or visualizer

only visualizing…….we need all-rounder…………our copywriter should know media planning,

rates, even production………………………………………………..…“We don’t care who is giving

the idea…………………we would love to see if our peon even give us a wonderful idea”.

However, as a natural response, the domain expertise was also highly regarded but it did not

undermine the contribution of other members:

Most

Creative

Agency

(Art Director): “See, first of all we agree on an idea….then copywriter develops a

concept on it (Copy)………….then we sit, copywriter shares it in meeting and when

all agrees, then discussion comes how to design visuals on it…..again when the art

department designs it, after two three days we share it in a meeting to see if there is

any deficiency in it or any visual is not appealing”. (Creative Director): “If the ad

copy or visuals are made by a junior creative then we go through it with a lot of

details, if written by a seasoned creative, then most of the times things they come up,

we don’t need much playing around because they had enough experience”(Copy

Writer): “I give input to the art director, but nobody tells me write this copy in this

way or that way rather they would say that this thing is missing in copy or make this

copy more attractive……I solely write the copy”

However, It is also very important to keep in mind that though, the word “teamwork” was often

stated in both the most and the least creative agencies, the gestures of creatives as well as the

observation of actual process of advertising design in these agencies revealed remarkable

differences in their sayings and actual practices in terms of the pattern and authority in their

decision making. For instance, compared to the more involving, cross functional, and critical

discussions in the most creative agency during different sessions such as sharing the advertising

goal and big idea development (brain storming session), and then other joint session meetings in

subsequent stages of ad development (e.g., joint session on ad-copies, ad visuals, and Prototype

Ad), the discussions in least creative agencies were more of a short time interval and very much

less involving. As a result, final decisions about an advertising task in these least creative

agencies such as big idea or theme of the ad, copy, and visuals etc. were either influenced by a

creative member with high domain expertise (as in the two least creative non-award winning

agencies) or by the creative members who solely worked on their respective tasks (e.g., ad copy

by copywriter, etc.). In the latter case, the completed ad was much like the combination of

different parts such that the ad copy was written by copywriter and sent to art director who

designed the ad visuals accordingly and were combined without some objective discussion over

it. Contrary, in the most creative agency, the final decision about different tasks such as

advertising goal sharing and big advertising idea in the brainstorming session and other

advertising tasks in the subsequent meetings involved much logical argumentation by the

respective creative members in support of their point of view for its possible acceptance by the

team. It is also important that the level of openness of discussion and the respective team

members’ contribution differed across the stages of ad development process such that the

intensity of discussion and cross functional support was high in initial goal sharing, much higher

in idea generation, moderate in ad-copy and visuals testing sessions and low in the final session

of ad finalization. The reason is quite obvious that things needed more time and discussion in the

start than at the end. Thus, in the light of the interview responses which were also substantiated

by the actual observations of the ad development process in the most creative award-winning

agency as compared to least creative agencies, it can be concluded that creative advertising is the

result of a more logically developed thought of the entire team and not of any one dominant

member due to his high domain expertise or the creative team where the different sections of the

advertisement are combined with lesser objectivity.

MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE CREATIVE PROCESS

Based on the interviews of creative team members including copy writers, art directors and

creative directors in four advertising agencies followed by their interactions during the ad

development process covering idea generation till until the final ad, a preliminary model of

collaborative creative process is proposed in figure 1. Before describing the collaborative

creative process model, it is important to assume that there is an underlying motivation purpose

for creative team members that drive the collaborative creative process. The model describes

collaborative creative process as a cyclic movement going through one of the primary

component of collaboration, the creative team members’ competence in their respective domains

which plays a crucial role in establishing a creativity conducive environment which is

characterized by continuous cross functional support among creative team members,

representation of ideas from multiple perspective, shared and understood goal and argument

based objective decision making. The model depicts that during the different stages of creative

process such as brain storming sessions for idea generation, copy writing and art design, creative

team members involve in cross functional dialogue using multiple forms of representation such

as verbal discussion, demonstration such as the use of white boards and paper sketches etc for

sharing of their views. This multiple representation by creatives not only foster creative process

by enhancing team members’ understanding and sharing of the team goal to be accomplished,

but also serves as a guiding light for objectivity in decision making by collaborating members.

The model also suggests that besides the indirect influence of creatives’ multiple representations

of ideas on objectivity in team decision making, it also directly results in teams’ argument based

decisions. This sort of collaborative environment covers both divergent and convergent thinking

which is considered central to creative outcome

Stages in Creative Advertising Design

Final AdAd-Visuals DesignAdvertising Copywriting

Goal Sharing and Creative Concept

Multiple Forms of Representation

Continuous Communication

Another very important aspect of the model is the greater potential of the cross functional

collaboration to further the domain competencies and skills of the creative team members in the

form of new knowledge learnt as a result of collaboration and this further accelerates the process

of collaboration and creativity. This view is substantially supported in teamwork and

collaboration literature (Schon, 1983; Quinn, 2000; Lerdahl, 2001; Finlay, 2008). Further, the

observation data reveals that the stage of goal sharing and idea generation (creative concept

development) covered comparatively much greater collaboration than in copywriting and ad-

visuals design. Hence, the model indicates the intensity level of this greater interaction by three

different arrows having a thicker arrow for creative concept development than other stages of the

creative process. In addition, the two-sided arrows between copywriting and ad-visuals design

indicate that this sequence may reverse in different times such that a creative concept may be

captured first by advertising copy followed by ad-visuals and vice versa.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

This study describes creative advertising process as a collaborative effort among creative team

members and explores how collaborative dynamics in creative team members in four advertising

Multiple Forms of Representation

agencies lead to creative advertising. Based on the interview responses followed by rigorous

observations of the collaborative dynamics of creative team members during the actual

development process in four ad agencies, the study proposes a model of creative process in

advertising design (Figure. 1). The model states that creativity flourishes as a result of cross

functional collaboration among team members which is characterized by team members’ cross

functional dialogue and support which may take the form of verbal talk and multiple

demonstration techniques. This cross functional collaboration should be on continuous basis and

not continual meaning that team members should interact frequently, but with equal intervals.

This leads to team members’ greater understanding and sharing of team goal which serves as a

benchmark for argument based decision making. There is substantial evidence from team based

literature that such atmosphere of freedom enhances divergent thinking (Nemeth, Personnaz,

Personnaz & Goncalo, 2004) and hence creativity flourishes (De Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen,

1999; Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003). It is however important that the level of domain

expertise of each team member in the creative team is the major detrimental factor in

establishing such a cross functional collaborative environment as depicted in the model and

found in the most creative and least creative agencies in this study. Such collaborative practices

and the generation of new ideas add further to the domain expertise of each creative team

member.

The study findings reveal that creative team members in most creative advertising agency were

possessing greater and balanced expertise in their respective domains which was found to play a

determining role in establishing a conducive environment for cross-functional collaboration

practices. It was found that during the preliminary sessions over the ad-brief understanding and

idea generation, creative team members in the most creative agency involved in a much

involving and logical discussions over the advertising brief without any care or fear for their

respective domains. They discussed different approaches, narrated their past experiences as well

as possible social issues while suggesting a unique idea to present the advertising message.

Creatives used different ways to pass their message and make it more convincing and acceptable

for other team members such as verbal talk and demonstration. While discussing, they were

trying to connect to and say “yes” or “no” to and disconnect with one another ideas. For

instance, while setting the name for the mineral water product in the experimental ad such that

the brand name should reflect its use at least once a day that will strengthen the immune system

and keep the body safe from germs , the creative director referred to Nestle Everyday milk brand

which became the focal point of discussion (since it contained the notion of daily use) and the

copywriter while forwarding the discussion narrated the process of detoxification mostly in the

developed countries in which people overhaul a part of their body, and stated that why not we

should name the product as “DayTox” meaning daily detoxification of body with “DayTox”.

This name fully matches with the theme of the proposed advertising brief. However, when one of

the team member during this session proposing a herbal name for the brand which was also

capturing the central theme of the ad brief, the art director narrated some cultural stories about

how such brand names are known for poor and low quality, and also targeted at segments

different than the one mentioned in the proposed advertising brief. Both from the interview

responses and the actual observation, the team members’ high domain expertise was found to be

detrimental in developing this cohesive and interactive culture of idea generation. Contrary, in

the least creative agencies, the study found that team members having imbalanced domain

expertise with one member dominating the others due to high advertising experience, and hence

influencing the interactions resulted in one sided interactions where the information were

flowing mainly from the senior towards the junior creative team member. Decisions were mainly

based on the inputs of senior creative member such that the other members were at the receiving

end of the interaction. For instance, in one of the least creative agency, the art director said that

creative director being highly expert in creativity told him to design the ad visuals in such and

such way. In other least creative agency, the copy writer and the creative concept developer said

that the final decision about a given advertising task (e.g., copywriting or ad-visuals) is taken by

the art director having twenty five years’ experience in the advertising business. Overall, the

interactive process in most creative agency was very much involving and objective with multiple

forms of representations used by creatives compared to least creative agencies dominated by one

or two creatives due to imbalanced configuration of team members domain knowledge, making

the collaborative more subjective and less interactive.

The contradictory result in one of the least creative award-winning agency with team members

having almost similar and high domain expertise needs special attention. There can be some

possible reasons for this. Unlike the study of a phenomenon in science, studying human behavior

is complex and operates under certain assumptions and hence cannot be so linearly predicted.

The model proposed in this study assumes a certain minimum level of team members’

motivation while collaborating. This motivation may be high or low depending upon the type of

organization policies, its work environment covering the management attitude, team members’

interpersonal relationship, and even the social factors that each team member is confronted with.

Hence, the influence of team members’ motivation, social and personal factors surrounding the

team members cannot be ignored. Further and very important, due to personal involvement

outside the agency, the art director in this least creative agency did not participate in the

preliminary session of ad-brief understanding and idea generation, though; he participated in the

later stages of ad development as usual. The researcher believes this factor could be the major

reason for such contradictory results. However, future researchers are highly encouraged to also

look at the motivational, social and personal factors of creative team members while studying

teams’ collaboration and their respective domain expertise.

Literature on teamwork evidences that team members with their respective domain knowledge

form a knowledge relationship system and this team-level knowledge system or relationship

affects the level and pattern of team members’ interactivity (Schon, 1983; Quinn, 2000; Wasko

& Faraj, 2005). Hence, team members possessing high or low or imbalanced domain knowledge

is more likely to have different effects on team members’ interactivity and so on cross functional

collaboration and team creativity. This study found that creative advertising teams in two of the

least creative agencies were having imbalanced domain knowledge with one team member

having high domain expertise and the other two members having less than one year domain

expertise level. Hence, the pattern of team members’ interactions in these least creative agencies

was more centrally focused revolving around the most expert team member respectively such

that the information were flowing from his side towards team members having low domain

expertise. In such a scenario, the goal understanding level among all the three creatives including

the more senior creative in both the least creative agencies could be at stake due to lack of

interactions and critical discussion on the advertising brief. Contrary to this, team members with

high and almost similar level of domain expertise would decrease the influence of role- centrality

of a single creative member and team members will more likely contribute equally by sharing

their own point of view from their past domain experiences respectively. This implies that a

more collaborative environment will evolve that would serve as the base for more novel ideas.

The findings of this study fully substantiate these views. Wasko and Faraj (2005) study on why

people share their expertise found that people share and contribute their knowledge when they

perceive that they have experience to share, and when it will enhance their professional

reputation. This study found that creative team members in the most creative agency were deeply

involved in cross functional discussion especially in preliminary sessions on goal understanding

and idea generation respectively. In fact, knowledge is deeply integrated in an individual

personality and identity (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) and each individual evaluates his self on the

basis of competence and social acceptance which is an important source of inspiration and

motivation that drives ones engagement in knowledge sharing (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Thus,

team members having high domain knowledge are more likely to involve in greater interactive

discussions to contribute and mark their presence and social acceptance as compared to a team

where few members are highly expert and others are not (as in the two least creative agencies).

This study found that the greater cross functional collaboration in the most creative agency was

characterized by team members’ representation of their ideas and point of views using multiple

ways such as talks and different demonstrations. This multiple representations not only make the

accomplishing goal more understood and shared among the team members (Schrage, 1995), but

the resulting outcome is also based on arguments and critical reasoning. Literature further

evidences that shared goal guides the team members in testing and evaluation of ideas and that

creative process produces more effective outcome when the team members have goal clarity

(Harvey & Kou, 2013). This may be so because shared understood goal in team strengthens the

base for argument based decisions. There is substantial literature support which states that when

a team is working objectively and free of any subjective influence, an atmosphere of freedom

and divergent thinking develops (Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz & Goncalo, 2004) which

enhances the generation of creative ideas (Moscovici, 1980; Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown,2003; De

Dreu, Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999). Hence, it is concluded that when team members with high

domain-related competencies collaborate and involve in a debate using multiple perspectives for

a given task, it creates better understanding of team goal which serves as a benchmark for

objective rather subjective based decision making and hence this type of team members’

interactions generate more creative ideas.

The creative process model further states that cross functional collaborative practices enhance

each member’s domain competency. The reflective practice theory sufficiently elaborates the

creation of new knowledge while practitioners are gaining new insights by using their past

knowledge and experiences (Finlay, 2008). While gaining new insights, practitioners consciously

review, analyze and evaluate their past experience which is termed as reflection-on-action

(Schon, 1983) and retrospection (Quinn, 2000). Schon further states that with reflection-in-

action, professionals learn from their current experiences as they occur concurrently, whereas in

reflection on-action, professionals learn from their previous experiences. Both “reflection-in and

reflection-on action” support practitioners to revise and improve their domain expertise (Schon,

1983). Conclusively, the degree of growth and improvement in practitioners’ domain expertise

depend upon the degree of their involvement in team activities (such as cross functional

collaborations) that require them to use reflection practices (Lerdahl, 2001). This implies that as

represented in the model by a dotted arrow from creative idea towards domain competency, the

collaborative practices among creative team members that result in more novel ideas further add

to their professional expertise both individually as well collectively. This further enhances the

interactivity of team members during the creative process and hence increases the chances of

generating more novel ideas when such team members further collaborate.

This study contributes to extant literature on advertising creativity as well as provides practical

insights to advertising professionals. Past research on creativity reveals that the process of

developing a more or less creative outcome is not fully understood (Johar, Holbrook & Stern,

2001). Most of the researchers studying creative process have suggested a range of stages in the

creative process such as preparation, incubation, epiphany and exposure (Wallas, 1926; Osborn,

1953; Taylor, 1959). However, these sequential stages in the creative process are more generic

that all people may go through but produce different level of creative outcome (Kilgour, 2006).

Hence, the current research contributes to creative advertising process literature by making it

explicit that rich collaboration among creative team members can further enhance their

performance at each individual stage of the creative process which will ultimately improve the

creativity of the resulting outcome. Further, most creativity researchers are of the view that the

stage of evaluation in the creative process comes at the end of the process (El-Murad & West,

2004), however, the collaborative approach to creative process as studied in this research

indicates that creative team members continuously discuss and evaluate at each stage of their

collaboration such as idea generation, copy writing, and designing of advertising visuals until the

final ad is developed. Even in the advertising context, literature on advertising creativity reveals

very little research on the actual advertising production process that covers the interactions

among copy writer, art director and creative director (Fourquest-Courbet, Courbet & Vanhuele,

2008; Johar, Holbrook & Stern, 2001). Hence, the proposed model of collaborative creative

process itself contributes significantly to the already scarce literature on advertising creativity

which identifies the domain competency and cross functional collaboration of creatives as the

two primary factors that impact the development of a more or less creative advertisement.

Further, the findings of this study reveal that domain competency of creative team members

plays an instrumental role in teams’ interactivity such that team members with high and similar

level of domain competencies are more collaborative, and hence more creative than a creative

team with imbalanced configuration of domain expertise. However, creatives in different

advertising agencies may not necessarily possess similar level of domain expertise. It is therefore

very important that in order to enhance team level collaboration and hence creativity, the

management should promote a more democratic culture where each individual creative,

particularly with low domain expertise should be encouraged by senior creatives to openly

contribute. Measures such as workshops and trainings on participative management, and constant

reminders in meetings for team spirit and mutual contribution can further minimize the role-

centrality influence of senior creatives.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Though with the obtained evidence, the proposed model is plausible, however, as with all

qualitative research studies, the superiority of the proposed model cannot be established without

its empirical validation. Future research should therefore empirically test the model with a large

sample size of creative teams in sufficient number of advertising agencies. To do so, it is

suggested to preferably follow the methodological approach of Harvey and Kou (2013) due to its

simplicity but more rigor in capturing team members’ interactions. Second, the present study was

conducted in four advertising agencies in Pakistan, a country of true reflection of Asian culture.

The advertising industry of Pakistan and so its professional practices are still in infancy stage

with comparatively low level of professionalism. Organizational practices in Asian cultures

significantly vary from those in other developed cultures such as Europe, America, and Germany

etc. Hence, it raises the question of transferability of such results to other such cultures. Future

researchers should study the replicability of the collaborative creative process model proposed in

this study in more developed cultures. Third, this study looked at the collaborative dynamics of

creative teams while designing print advertisements. While the components of creativity may not

vary, the nature of creative elements may substantially vary in print and television

advertisements such as the actual demonstration of creative message, advertising tone and jingles

etc. in television advertisements which are not required for print advertisements. Hence, a

creative team may require a richer collaboration to design a television advertisement. Thus, to

understand the creative advertising process in a more integrated and holistic way, future

researchers should study the creative teams’ interactions while designing television

advertisement. Fourth, as discussed above in detail, the proposition of greater domain expertise

and cross functional collaboration was not supported in one of the least creative award-winning

agency. Previous research on teamwork in organizations and creativity states that perception

about the work environment affects teamwork (Goold, Craig & Coldwell, 2008). Future studies

should therefore also consider the effects of team members’ perception about work environment

on team members’ motivation to engage in cross functional collaboration and its ultimate results

for creativity.

Acknowledgement

We whole-heartedly thank Dr. Nancy Johnson, Dr. Joe Labianca, and Dr. Mark Stuhlfaut for

their consistent support and expert feedback during the entire period of this research. We are also

much thankful to all the advertising professionals in Pakistan who enthusiastically gave us time

and developed the experimental advertisements for this research. This research was supported by

the KPK-University of Kentucky Business School Partnership Program (USA 2013).

REFERENCES

Ahmad, W. & Mahmood, Z. (2010). An Empirical Investigation of the Association between

Creative Advertising and Advertising Effectiveness in Pakistan. International Journal of

Marketing Studies, 3 (2), 32-52.

Ang, S. H., Lee, Y. H. & Leong, S. M. (2007). The Ad Creativity Cube: Conceptualization and

initial Validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (2), 220-232.

Bengtson, T. A. (1982). Creativity’s paradoxical character: A postscript to James Webb Young’s

techniques for producing ideas. Journal of Advertising, 11(1), 3–9.

Buzzell, R. D. (1964). Predicting Short-Term Changes in Market Shares as a Function of

Advertising Strategy.Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (3), 27-31.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other

knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.

Chung, S. E. (2009). Supporting Creativity in Interdisciplinary Teamwork: Examining

Relationships among individual Traits, Group Characteristics, Team Process and

Creative Performance in an Applied Setting. Unpublished Master dissertation.

University of Florida.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Harinck, F., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Conflict and performance in

groups and organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review

of industrial and organizational psychology,14, 369–414. Chichester, United Kingdom:

Wiley

El-Murad, J., & West, D. C. (2004). The Definition and Measurement of Creativity: What Do

We Know? Journal of Advertising Research, 44(2), 188-201

Finlay, L. (2009). Debating Phenomenological Research Methods. Phenomenology &

Practice, 3(1), 6-25.

Fourquest-Courbet, Courbet & Vanhuele. (2008). Creativity and E-Advertising: A Qualitative

Study of Art Directors’ Creative Process. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 26 (1), 5-13.

Goold, A., Craig, A., & Coldwell, J. (2008). The Student Experience of Working in Teams

Online. Proceedings ascilite Melbourne.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity.American Psychologist, 5 (9), 444-454.

Harvey, S., & Kou, C. Y. (2013). Collective Engagement in Creative Tasks: The Role of

Evaluation in the Creative Process in Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3),

346-386.

Dasgupta, S. (1994). Creativity in Invention and Design-Computational and Cognitive

Explorations of Technological Originality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Finke, R.A., Ward, T. B. & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and

Applications, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Haberland, G. S. & Dacin, P. A. (1992). The Development of a Measure to AssessViewers’

Judgment of the Creativity of an Advertisement: A Preliminary Study. Advances in

Consumer Research, 19 (1), 817–825.

Hayes, N. (1997). Successful Team Management. London: International Thompson Business

Press.

Higgins, J. M. (1994). 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques, Winter Park, FL: New

Management Publishing Company.

Hirschman, E. C. (1989). Role-Based Models of Advertising Creation and Production, Journal of

Advertising, XVIII (4), 42-53.

Hofstadter, D. R. (1985). Metamagical Themas, London: Penguim Books.

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, XXX (2), 1-25.

Kilgour, A. M. (2006).The Creative Process: The Effects of Domain Specific Knowledge and

Creative Thinking Techniques on Creativity, Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Waikato.

Kover, A. J. (1995). Copywriters’ Implicit Theories of Communication: An Exploration. Journal

of Consumer Research, 21 (4), 596-611.

Kurtz berg, T. R. (2000). Creative styles and teamwork: Effects of Coordination and Conflict on

Group Outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston,

IL.

Lerdahl, E. (2002). Using Fantasy Story Writing and Acting for Developing Product

Ideas. Proceedings of EURAM

Marra, J. L. (1990).Advertising Creativity: Techniques for generating ideas, Prentice Hall, New

Jersey.

Nemeth, C., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than Individuals? The Potential Benefits of

Dissent and Diversity for Group Creativity.InP. Paulus, &B.Nijstad (Eds.),Group

Creativity.63–84.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.

McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The Study of Small Groups, Past, Present,

and Future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95–105.

Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a Theory of Conversion Behavior. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 13, 209-239.

Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of

conflict in group creativity: A Study in Two Countries. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 34(4), 365-374.

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C. & Simon, H. A. (1962). The Process of Creative Thinking, In H. E.

Gruber, G. Terrell & M. Wertheimer (Eds), Contemporary Approaches toCreative

Thinking. New York, Atherton.

Oliver, J. D. & Ashley, C. (2012). Creative Leaders’ Views on Managing Advertising Creativity.

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20 (3), 335-348.

Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied Imagination(3rd ed). New York: Scribners.

Perkins, D.N. (1981). The Minds Best Work, Boston: Harvard University Press.

Quinn, F. M. (2000). Reflection and Reflective Practice. In C.Davies, L.Finlay and A. Bullman

(eds.) Changing Practice in Health and Social Care. London: Sage. (Original work

published in 1988 and reproduced in 2000).

Reid, L. N. & Rotfeld, H. J. (1976). Toward an Associative Model of Advertising Creativity,

Journal of Advertising, 4, 24-29.

Rio Perez, J. D. (2006). Research in Advertising Creativity in the Journal of Advertising (1972-

2006). Journal of Advertising, 1-18.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Vol.5126).

Basic books.

Schrage, M. (1995). No More Teams!: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration. New

York: Currency Doubleday.

Taylor, I. A. (1959). The Nature of the Creative Process, In P. Smith (ed) Creativity: New York:

Hastings House, 51-82.

Till, D. B. & Baack, W. D. (2005). Recall and Persuasion: Does Creative Advertising Matter?

Journalof Advertising, 34 (3), 47-57.

Reid, L. N. & Moriarty, S. E. (1983). Ideation: A Review of Research, Current Issues and

Research in Advertising, 1, 119-134.

Vanden Bergh., Brush G., Reid., L. N. & Schorin, G. A. (1983). How Many Creative

Alternatives to Generate, Journal of Advertising, XII (12), 46-49.

Vandern Bergh & Stuhlfaut, M. (2006). Is Advertising Creativity Primarily an Individual or a

Social Process? Mass Communication and Society, 9(4), 373-397.

Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and

Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly, 35-57.

Weisberg, R.W. (1993) Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. New York: W.H. Freeman

West, D. C. (1999). 360 of Creative Risk, Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (1), 39-50.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Towardsa Theory of Organizational

Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18 (2), 293-321.

Young, J. B. (1960). .A Technique for Producing Ideas, McGraw Hill, New York.

Final Ad: The Ad developed by the Art director was sent to Concept Developer and the researcher.

Visualization of Copy and the Big Idea

Client Brief Arrives

Internal Discussion on Brief

Copy Writing around the Big Idea

Communication Three: After four days, One Visual around the copies and big idea was developed and sent to Concept developer and the researcher as a final ad.Communication Four: After three days, The concept developer approached the art director and told about the background of the three copies and which one she likes more that could be adopted with the consent of art director.

Communication Two: After three days of the brief / brain storming session, three Copies were written by the Concept developer (Not the Copy writer) having no discussion or updates about it with the copy writer and were emailed to Art Director.

Communication One: The Researcher shared the advertising brief with the creative team including concept developer, art director and Copy writer. Brainstorming session was held for an hour suggesting the name for the research product and the big idea. Concept developer noted the main points of the ad big idea in her note pad.

Figure 2 (b): Diagrammatic Representation of Creative Team Communication during the Ad Development Process (Least Creative Ad Agency)

Final Ad emailed to Copywriter, Associate Creative Director and the Researcher

Visualization of Copy and the Big Idea

Client Brief Arrives

Internal Discussion on Brief

Copy Writing around the Big Idea

Communication Four: After five day gap, Initial Visuals around the copy and big idea emailed to Copy writer and Associate Creative Director. On the same day, a short joint session was also held between copy writer, associate creative director and Art Director and few changes in visuals were discussed. Communication Five: After one day Final meeting of copywriter, art director and creative director was held tofinalize the Ad.

Communication One: Brain storming session was held and Brief points of the Brief / Brain Storming Session emailed to Copy Writer for Initial Copywriting Next Day.

Communication Two: After two day gap, Initial Copies emailed to Art Director and others.Communication Three: After three day gap Rigorous discussion on initial copies held.

Figure 2 (a): Diagrammatic Representation of Creative Team Communication during the Ad Development Process (Creative Agency)

APPENDIX A

Final Ad: The Ad developed by the Art director was sent to Concept Developer and the researcher.

Visualization of Copy and the Big Idea

Client Brief Arrives

Internal Discussion on Brief

Copy Writing around the Big Idea

Communication Three: After four days, Creative director briefed the art director about the advertising brief and its detailed points (as he was not present in the initial briefing session).Communication Four: After three days, The art director developed the ad visuals for the ad-copy and finalized the ad.

Communication Two: After two days of the brief / brain storming session, two Copies were written and emailed to creative director and art director.

Communication One: The creative director and art director discussed the ad-brief and brainstormed for creative idea.

Final Ad: The Ad developed by the Art director was sent to Concept Developer and the researcher.

Visualization of Copy and the Big Idea

Client Brief Arrives

Internal Discussion on Brief

Copy Writing around the Big Idea

Communication Three: After four days, the art director designed visuals for the ad around the ad theme suggested by the creative director and was emailed to her.Communication Four: After two days, The creative director called to the art director on phone, suggested few changes which were incorporated and the ad was finalized.

Communication Two: After three days of the creative director verbal briefing, ad-copies written by creative director were emailed to the art director along with suggestions about the required ad-visuals.

Communication One: The Creative director briefed the art director and copywriter verbally about the advertising brief, its main points etc. in their office.

Figure 2 (d): Diagrammatic Representation of Creative Team Communication during the Ad Development Process (Least Creative Ad Agency)

Figure 2 (c): Diagrammatic Representation of Creative Team Communication during the Ad Development Process (Least Creative Ad Agency)