Lurking on every creative brief is a question that seems remarkably simple:
Who are we talking to?
A more honest question would be: who do we think we’re talking to?
The determinations we make about who might be buying what we’re selling are jam-packed with assumptions, bias, ageism, sexism, racism and other man-made myopia.
Did Taylor Swift expect to see so many fathers’ faces in her summer tour crowds?
Did Barbie’s very own studio lowball predictions for its opening weekend? $155 million later, are they meeting in happy disbelief that a movie about a doll could possibly compete with movies about destruction?
My friend Cindy Gallop has been getting extra mileage lately out of this evergreen tweet:
(Cindy also tweeted earlier today that 9 out of 10 of the top non-English shows on Netflix are Asian.)
Can you feel the creative briefs bursting in flames as they’re proven wrong with every movie opening, product release, car sale, fashion launch…?
What if we amended our creative briefs to reflect how little we actually know about who might be the consumer we’re seeking? Much like the Progress Brief that The 3% Movement created in partnership with Grey to ask creatives to answer how their idea reflects and respects the world’s diversity, I think we need another edit to our briefs. Make our teams justify their assumptions about the target and possibly interrogate their own beliefs.
Who might we be talking to and why do we think this?
Let me leave you with a story.
Last year I was wine tasting at Reynolds Winery in Napa Valley. Our host for the day was a young man named Jesus. He was a gifted and charismatic host. I asked “What’s your story, Jesus?”
He was surprised I asked but began talking. He shared how when Covid hit he’d been working in another industry that got hit hard, and he got laid off. A friend told him Reynolds was hiring in their production facility. He started working there.
Fast forward to when wineries opened for tastings again and a large group arrived one day at Reynolds for a scheduled tasting. No one had mentioned that the group were Spanish speakers. Jesus received a frantic call asking if he felt he could conduct a tasting in Spanish for them. He rushed out to help.
After the group left, Steve Reynolds, the winery owner, called Jesus into his office. Unbeknownst to the Reynolds team, they were the last stop on a wine tasting tour that spanned many wineries for this group. They were looking for the wines to serve at their upcoming wedding in Mexico. And they ordered 30 cases — the largest sale in the winery’s history.
Jesus? He’s now taken his rightful “front of house” placement as the Tasting Room Manager at Reynolds. Cheers to that.
Until next time, remember that culture is the new creativity.
This is one of the parts of the brief I always struggle with. Sometimes we get basic, hollow demographic data. Sometimes we get more colorful insights, with needs, barriers, challenges, etc. All of the psychographic (and sometimes ethnographic) elements that we're taught to use. But you bring up such a great point. How do we even know that the targets we're starting with are right? Even when the data shows that young, diverse women 25-39 are the sweet spot, aren't their expectations of beauty brands different than that of clothing brands? We can't make blanket assumptions about their overall habits based on siloed data. I wish there were more opportunities for shopper/consumer ride-alongs, or in the nonprofit world where I live, impact-alongs? I know that even the most well intended "observational research" isn't perfect, but no matter how many interviews you do, or surveys you field, you can't replace being in a space with real humans and watching them engage in a (mostly) real-life situation. You're almost guaranteed to walk away with an unexpected insight.
Love all of this, especially because I work in an industry whose regulations bar us from thinking about or marketing to people based on our biases around race, gender, etc. Instead we make assumptions about why they are looking for our product or that they might it "derogatory" to mention they might need financial help (when they're looking for a loan?!?!). It handcuffs our content strategy and is based on socioeconomic and educational biases that assume "I know you" without any real consumer research. I wish leaders would dive in to your suggestions.
All that said, why is Cindy still on Twitter? Why is anyone?