Simple is bad

Ian Mackenzie, CCO at FCB/SIX, believes advertising’s simplicity bias is undermining diversity and killing creativity. He put that view out there… and now reviews the response

Simple. Here it is. One of the creative advertising industry’s most powerful ideas. Simple is the answer. It’s the goal. Make it simple. Keep it simple. Simple is good. Simple is great. Simple is the greatest of all time. Got a simple solution to a complicated problem? Good job. You’re done. You’ve won. Take the rest of the day off.

Here’s a counterpoint: Simple isn’t good. Simple is bad. At least an unexamined, overactive bias toward simplicity is bad. And it’s bad because it could be costing us some of our best people and our best ideas.

Here’s how:

1. The simplicity bias perpetuates the digital/traditional divide.

   If advertising is obsessed with simplicity, and simplicity is good, where does that leave digital? Because digital is many things, but simple isn’t one of them. Digital, and its cohort data, are complex and networked almost by definition. And what’s Acxiom data? And do we really need both a UX and a UI? And how do we sequence the campaign story across the consumer journey? The napkin math is this: Digital is complex. And because the simplicity bias says complicated is bad, digital and data are bad by association. And this can cause smart people trained in traditional thinking to avoid or tamp down digital ideas and tactics because they appear to be at odds with the simplicity dogma.
   
   Bust this bias: Test drive a bias toward complexity instead. So, take extra and intentional effort to understand the technical details, the platforms and the inner workings of a digital project, even when it feels like it’s someone else’s job to do it. It’s amazing how many opportunities are sitting in plain sight down there in the wires and the weeds, undiscovered because creative people have been told not to look there.

2. The simplicity bias gets in the way of the simple ideas it’s supposed to help us have. 

   It’s a paradox. But many of the best, simple-looking digital ideas I’ve been a part of (including, “Our Food. Your Questions.” for McDonald’s and “Destination Pride” for PFLAG) share a common characteristic: the thing that makes the finished work look simple emerged not at the project’s outset, but mid-process, discovered through prototyping and iteration. This may be because good ideas that make use of complex platforms often need a runway to find their most simple expressions. The problem comes when we evaluate emerging ideas not on their ability to be simple later, but on their ability to appear simple at the outset.
    
   Bust this bias: Instead of all-or-nothing, gate-based waterfall, experiment with agile-type working methods that favour iteration and prototyping. This’ll give a more complex idea a fighting chance to find its feet.

3. The simplicity bias is at odds with diversity.

   Simplicity is one of those, “I’ll know it when I see it” things. But who decides what’s simple? To a person coming from a non-dominant culture, for example, simple could be a metaphor or reference that looks abstract and over-complicated to the mainstream decision maker. Point being, simple is subjective. And people who already have power also already have their own ideas around what simple is and what it looks like. Creative thinkers from diverse groups may need either to comply with the dogma, face rejection, or risk their ideas not being heard in the first place. 
   
   Bust this bias: Build and work with the most diverse teams you can find. After core capabilities, prioritize different kinds of thinkers, ages, genders and ethnocultural backgrounds. In addition to improving business outcomes, diverse teams have also shown advantages in “generating a wider range of original and useful ideas.”

4. The simplicity bias causes platform-grade systems thinkers to avoid or exit our industry. 

   Is there a less popular advertising persona than the academic? The theory wonk? The cerebral? At its worst, the simplicity bias contributes to a culture of hostility to deeper, slower thinking. A recent LinkedIn study cited “lack of long-term strategic vision” as one of the key reasons people are leaving the advertising industry. A by-product of the simplicity bias? Hard to say. But when we overweight our agencies on thinkers who put simplicity first, we may also be underweighting on more well-rounded, or even complexity-biased thinkers. 
   
   Bust this bias: Don’t let them go! If you’re lucky enough to find effective thinkers who favour complexity, embrace and celebrate them. Pith is powerful. There should also be room for long, slow and thorough.

5. The simplicity bias likes simple problems. 

   This is a bit like deciding the answer will be the number four before knowing the question. Or that the solution to global unity, peace and understanding will be, say, a can of Pepsi. Because if we start with the premise that the solution will be an ad-like-object whose primary characteristic is simplicity, we may be opting out of solving problems that can’t be fixed with simple. When it comes to how brands are allocating their marketing dollars, we’re seeing more CMOs sharing decision-making power with their CTOs and even CEOs. This suggests an increased confidence in marketing’s potential to address a wide range of the organization’s challenges. In this context, settling for simple solutions to simple problems risks eroding the client-agency value equation.
   
   Bust this bias: Just be tireless in pursuit of the clients’ toughest challenges. The great agencies already do it. But, provided we’re doing good work on the core business, there’s no ceiling to the upside of this habit.

Ok. Of course, simple isn’t bad. Simple is good. For all the reasons everyone already knows and agrees on. But complex is also good. And in a world with an overactive simplicity bias, complexity needs more champions.

Ian Mackenzie is Chief Creative Officer of FCB/SIX in Toronto, Canada.

Simple is still bad

Since writing this piece in early 2018, the response to it has been vigorous, voluminous and could be categorized within two broad categories: Hearty agreement and staunch rejection. 

Those who agree tend to, at some point in their journey, have had simplicity weaponized against their ideas and creativity. This group tends to self-identify somewhere along the “digital” spectrum, as in they see themselves as digital thinkers. 

Among the rejectors, a common refrain is a version of this: “Consumers don’t want complexity. They want simplicity. So whether you like it or not, simplicity is here to stay.”

This push-back indicates either my shortcomings as an essayist — or is just more evidence of status quo simplicity bias. 

If I’m fair, it’s probably a mix of both. Either way, I’ll attempt to clarify. 

Of course, and despite my click-bait-y headline, simplicity is a critical component of almost all great marketing. But somewhere along the line it went from being a healthy creative impulse to a crutch for an industry under fire from change. 

Here’s a napkin sketch of the sequence of events as I see them (also well documented elsewhere):

Somewhere around the 1990s, our once-stable advertising industry, like many others, became destabilized by a technological shift. Headlining this shift is a frothy mix of the Internet, procurement, programmatic, data, technology, and ideas about gender, sexuality and ethnocultural diversity. 

As market demand for our product shifted – and with it ideas about who should be making that product – powerful factions within our industry’s base dug in. And as we’ve seen with other conservative movements, once powerful groups become destabilized, it’s common for them to advocate for a retreat to the times when things were better. “To Make _____ Great Again.” Here, simplicity becomes a handy antidote to technological disruption, and then complexity. Because simplicity is a cardinal rule of creativity – a sacred cow – it provides a bulletproof rebuke of the very thing that’s challenging the power base. “All this disruption is just fine, but it’ll never be good at simple. And simple is what we’re all about around here.” 

And so, our industry’s once-healthy relationship to simplicity has changed. Become a crutch. An easy out. A way to avoid looking into the heart of the problem, or, as I see it, at the heart of the opportunity.

Worth noting, this conservative movement isn’t limited to the proverbial old white guys who once held power. It’s also young people, just coming to the industry, but who studied under the altar of the greats, and have ingested the simplicity dogma, but without the context of how it might also be a destructive force. This is another common argument against the ideas at the heart of my argument. “I’m not a creative conservative.” It goes. “I’m a young, progressive creative leader. I just happen to believe creativity, not technology, is the single most powerful force in business.” Sure. But it’s a false dichotomy – and framing it in those shades is an act of dogmatic conservatism in my view. 

Another reader accused “Simple is bad” of mixing up the inputs with the outputs. “Our industry already recognizes the need for complexity. Just not in the end-user experience. No one is out there arguing for simpler media plans.” I disagree. Have you sat in a media meeting lately? The more complicated the plans and options have become, the more tempting it is for agency partners to lean out, missing vital opportunities to find connection points between all that complexity and the creative idea.  

Here, however, it’s important to acknowledge that a lot of great work is still being done under the old simplicity-biased way of thinking. But evidence that old ways of working still produce good outcomes does not preclude the possibility that new models can add tremendous value. As with most innovation as I know it, the way forward probably involves adjacencies. A mix of the past, present and future. Of simple and complicated. 

Also since writing “Simple is bad” we’ve had a chance to field test its thinking and approach on additional creative campaigns. Most recently, with a provocative campaign for the American travel brand Black & Abroad called, “Go Back To Africa”. The idea here is a relentlessly positive pan-African tourism campaign built on a racial slur. It’s a simple idea with a complex execution. It won the Grand Prix in Creative Data at the 2019 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity. (Editor: It went on to win the special Jury Prize at Cresta.) Rejecting the simplicity bias, even just a little, has many dimensions. And it works.  

If you happen to find all this intriguing, here’s how I’d recommend applying the ideas at the heart of the argument to your own work. Next time you hear the word “simple” used as a compass in the shaping of work, put up a little resistance. Allow yourself and your team to imagine the opposite for a minute or two. Then apply that instinct to other moments that look and feel like simplicity bias. Just a little resistance. Permission, for even a moment, to look through the window the other way. Not to worry… simple will be there waiting for you when you’re ready to invite it back into the room. 

Ian Mackenzie is Chief Creative Officer of FCB/SIX in Toronto, Canada.