free scribbles

2008 Tenney Mountain Cardboard Box Derby

This is a long overdue post, March 15th was one of my favorite events of the year, the Annual Tenney Mountain Cardboard Box Derby. 

For the last five years and four competitions, last year the mountain was closed, we have dug deep to produce what we would call a kick-ass feat of engineering.  The rules are simple, design a racer made of cardboard, duct tape, and paint.  No waxed cardboard, lubricants, and a minimum of two racers. 

The team of participants have changed over the years, this year we added Kacey and Gus (I will say that neither really contributed, but they're both super cute.  Gus is a dog and you all know Kacey).  The Gagnons joined us once again, putting a third notch on their belts. 

Typically, we've had Friday night and all day Saturday to build, paint, and fine tune, unfortunately, they moved the race up a day and we were limited in our ambitions.  Despite the truncation in time, we were able to build a reasonable facsimile of a Fairchild 22, "The Barnstorming Eagle."   Our original plan was to build a Sopwith Camel (I love Snoopy), but as a one seater, it wasn't a possibility, so we we started by building an Avro 504k. I don't want to be bitter, but we did not take the first place trophy this year, robbed by some gibronis in Captain Crunch costumes.  (I'm keeping an eye out for pictures to allow you the readers to be the judge. Tenney is ashamed of their biased determination of most creative and is avoiding posting.)

Okay, so I'm a little bitter...

I've posted all the pictures in the gallery from that day.

Past Galleries:
2006 Race (First Place - Most Creative: The Jolly Eagle. Scourge of Tenney Mountain.)
2005 Race (First Place - Most Creative: Tenney Mountain Trucking; First Place - Best Crash: The Eagle Racer)
2004 Race (Second Place - Most Creative: The Bombardier) 

The Evolution of Creativity

Going through the reader this morning, I was enraptured by a guest post from David Armano on the Influential Marketing Blog.  David is a talented blogger in his own right at Logic+Emotion, but his post regarding the evolution of creativity inspired me. 

I don't like to be confined to one discipline in anything.  I'm aware that I don't know everything and must leverage those experts I work with to complete projects, but the notion of being more of an active participant in the design, interface, and development of a campaign is enticing.  Through observation I have learned much of each discipline and at points I may think that if I just did it all myself it would get done a lot quicker.  I say quicker and not better because as the notion of collaboration and networking hierarchies gains ground, leveraging the intellectual capital of others provides a stronger and better marketing campaign.

In the traditional construct, my job role is that of client relationship, deliverable managements and marketing strategy.  But, that's not how I want to think, nor should, and neither should the team I work with.  This sort of new thinking becomes an internal wiring of the brain, which is analogous to the working team mechanism necessary in the coming years: collaborative innovation and participation, where job title does not define the team role.

By stimulating each of these lobes, we not only improve ourselves, but the products that we produce.  The above image's final sentence states, "The result is a holistic approach to creativity that is effective across multiple touchpoints and experiences."  Thus, it serves the wider community and leads to further individuals to work with, learn from, and hopefully teach. 

Creativity will take a while in this new model, but it will gradually move at a more rapid pace as each individual's brain becomes more intuitively collaborative and each team begins to adopt the ability to step into another's shoe and resolve the conflicts between an Information Architect's logic and an Art Director's quest for beautiful aesthetic. 

 

Qualities of Leadership; Leadership of Qualities

In times of turmoil we seem to seek out those who can guide us through the troubled waters, providing us the security we need and a focal point of anxiety.  Those who rise to the challenge earn the accolades of their peers and the admiration of their subordinates.  And in times of peace, we want to be left alone.

The concept of leadership has been on my mind a great deal lately for a variety of reasons.  Those around me (and me) seem to be seeking this individual out as our agency is going through changes.  While, we know the hierarchy that is in place and who the leaders are, a recent article in Scientific American Mind (SAM) has me thinking differently.

We are seeking out one individual or a small group who will set the principles that we are to follow, when instead he or she should be looking to us and learning our values, unifying these qualities and building the agency, while working on those weaknesses that we hate to admit that we have, but we do.  The SAM article states that no one set of leadership traits will work in all organizations, but I argue that certain characteristics must be evident in some fashion. 

These characteristics, such as charisma, are almost considered obvious, but more importantly competency, honesty, respect, and a work ethic must be present in a strong leader.  Temper this with the willingness to do the real work and make the tough decisions and you will earn the respect of those below you.  Ad Age's Talent Works wrote about this very same notion this week (further leading me to riff) as it appears that many CMOs have been pulling shenanigans and we can all learn from their blunders.  While these individuals who have risen to the top have had all the charisma to bend people to their will, play the right game, and talk the bullshit, they didn't have the abilities to seriously deal with people.  By deal with people, I am referring to the ability to delegate responsibility, build teams of complementary individuals and create a whole stronger than any one part. 

The SAM article really carries weight in today's society of the Web 2.0 where the value of societal influence has increased as each person's voice has been able to gain worldwide reach.  Social networking sites such as facebook and digg have gained value as users have helped to provide the content and build the relationships that make these site successful.  The influencers of these sites, like the good leaders in an organizations are able to guide the direction of the site's content without dictating and thus more people are comfortable using the site, knowing that they can carve out there own niche but still contribute to the overall success.  Again, this notion is built on the idea that the whole is greater than any one part, but somewhere in the mix are those who have made it so, the influencers.

Beyond the notion of a social leader, there is the importance of passion, someone who can instill a true sense of purpose beyond the collection of a paycheck.  This is a struggle, according to Ad Age, that is apparently prevalent in the advertising world and why social activism should be used as not only a marketing tool, but a corporate policy. Those who guide the agencies don't take up causes and instead come off as cool creative types with a passion for only the big idea.  While I would say this isn't the case everywhere, as my own agency is active in its local community, I can certainly see a kernel of truth in the statement as I believe that marketers have latched onto the green movement as an advertising mechanism a little too readily and falsely.

So what qualities does a leader need? 

A leader needs to be charismatic enough to guide others to do their best, while removing their own ego from the equation.  They need to have the ability to work harder than their subordinates and honestly use that ability.  This integrity needs to carry into everything in life, because as a leader you need to show that you are an example of what hard work, good ideas, and the ability to build a team can achieve.  Bottomline: As a leader, all actions must be done for the greater good of the whole organization, not just the choice few at the top. 

Argington Furniture

If you had a list of my Google searches over the last 6-8 months, you would find a lot of them contained the word "baby" or some derivation on that theme.  It shouldn't come as a surprise for an expecting parent. 

Early on, while leafing through a magazine, I caught an advertisement for Pixel Organics, a company that designs and manufactures organic bedding and clothing for infants.  Their designs were unique, albeit a little scary for a girl's room, but I appreciated their efforts to make green items. 

While on that site, I saw what I hoped would be the centerpiece of our nursery, the Sahara and the Delphi.   The two pieces molded together effortlessly.  Designed and manufactured by Argington, not only were they aesthetically pleasing, they were sustainable. 

For those who are concerned for the environment and are expecting a child or planning to adopt, I would highly recommend looking at their furniture.  The price was reasonable, the assembly was a breeze (a couple of hex bolts), and it seems incredibly durable.  We are expecting the real test any time now as the real critic makes her arrival, but mom and dad are very happy. 

I will say one thing though, unless you participate in cardboard box competitions, the packaging will incense you, it was a lot of materials and a obscene amount of Styrofoam to get rid of.  But, the actual product uses non-toxic adhesives and recycled woods. 

Dive further into the company if interested and check out their design foundations and efforts. 

Creating & Sharing with All

For readers who haven't noticed, I have already rolled content from my other blog into free scribbles.  That blog was an attempt to talk about marketing, advertising, and the internet.  As if here wasn't a hodgepodge already.  With that said, I wanted to write about the stuff that really pays the bills.  Three things happened recently that have got me thinking about originality and protecting those thoughts. 

The first came from a blog post at Artificial Simplicity, a new blog written by a very smart man, Scott, that I had the privilege to work with, learn from, and run with (often simultaneously).   His post on originality had me thinking instantaneously.  But my response was stuck, second guessed, and ultimately silent (we'll get back to that).

The second thing was a question that came up today during a presentation about the findings from a social media experiment that Scott started before he departed on to his new position.  I had the opportunity to stand in front of my colleagues and help them get a better understanding of social media. While another individual was discussing the photo-sharing site, Flickr, a question was raised about how a photo could be used for an ad, or what would happen if someone republished a photo from another photographer (be patient, i'm building it up).

The final thing came in the form of a column in this week's Advertising Age by Teressa Iezzi about the benefits of loose intellectual property.  Her thesis is that copyrights that work for the creator(s) and bolster creativity in others benefits the economy.

Both Scott and Teressa write about the originality found in the advertising world.  The creative work put out is 100% new and 100% improved.  Original ideas are placed high atop pedestals for all to see.  Kudos are given to those who came up with those brilliant ideas.  But, these ideas often come from those innovators standing on the backs of those who came before.  We appreciate the new because it captures us with the memories of the original, "the movie based on a musical based on a movie."  Or more indirectly, from the literature and great works that were written long ago.  Just like all great science fiction which strings together concepts from mythology, science, and folklore, great ads bring a new twist to a classic idea. 

The question asked today takes someone's contribution and uses it to "sell."  While not the original artistic goal, it serves the greater masses as a beacon of a brand.  And in an ideal world, it benefits the artist, raising their profile and awareness.  But, that's an ideal world. 

I have struggled with a number of people because this sharing of ideas and work is often looked at with a certain level of disdain.  I have to assume that many of the users on Flickr show their work because they want constructive criticism and help.  This helps them hone their craft.  The same idea should be placed behind those in advertising (and some level those who play in this new world wide web 2.0).  Share and share alike.  In fact this is one of the licensing options offered by the Creative Commons Organization, a pioneer in looser intellectual rights and creative control. 

Knowledge has been transferred since the dawn of man through the sharing of stories.  This idea of sharing has what has led to the greatest triumphs of our species.  The Creative Commons license allows a creator to protect their work from exploitation but allowing others to use and learn from. 

My real point of all this, is that if our creative, no matter how original, is loosely based on creative that came before it, why aren't we allowed to learn from and improve the ideas of some?  I say this with some trepidation, because I don't believe that everything can and should be used for marketing.  However, everything should be used as a learning experience. I should note, all this should be done legally.   

That's my two cents, for another person's, keep reading Artificial Simplicity and for those who share their work online, visit the Creative Commons website and learn more about how to best share your work and about their mission and accomplishments.