It starts innocently enough. Your client thinks he can build some "brand equity" by developing an animated spokescharacter to better "connect with customers." But pretty soon you’ve got the product itself, dressed up with an insipid smiling face, mouthing the brand strategy through copy-tested dialogue and executing a clumsy, inoffensive joke in a lame attempt to end the commercial with "a little smile."
As the producer, you are feeling a little trapped. If you fail, you’re faced with, "What was so difficult about that assignment?" And if you succeed, you are in danger of getting pigeonholed as the agency’s "animation expert," which means you can forget about any more trips to New Zealand in February with Joe Pytka.
But don’t despair. There is a way out of this box canyon. And lest anyone forget what it is, we have a big banner hanging in our Character Development Lab that reads, "It’s the story, stupid!"—an eternal truth, albeit one that we have to learn over and over again. In fact, it’s rare that a week goes by without someone from a major agency presenting me with a variation of this familiar question: "Our client has a character [spokesman, icon, mascot, etc.] that is feeling a little dated. Do you think if we execute it in CGI we can give it a more contemporary feel?"
The problem with that question, as the president of McDonald’s explained to me several years ago, is that it gets the tactics ahead of the strategy. He meant that asking if a character should be realized in computer animation before reaching a consensus on the underlying story framework is like working on the menu for a party without knowing what the occasion is or who is coming. "But wait," you say, "there is a story, because my creative team has already written scripts for a couple of spots."
Well, maybe, but usually not. Most of the scripts and storyboards I see—including those that clearly have the potential to become award-winning spots—do not come with a clear understanding of what is compelling about the larger story framework. Equally important, they do not come with an authentic connection between the story framework and the brand promise.
So, what do I mean by "story framework?" Well, story is about character, and character is revealed through conflict. For a character to live beyond an initial clever spot idea, we need to understand the ongoing sources of conflict, and we need to know how they are connected to the brand. Take the computer-animated M&M’s, for example, as they have been brilliantly developed by BBDO New York. Emotionally, Red is desperate to be the center of attention. But he is, after all, delicious, candy-coated chocolate. Anyone who does notice him wants to eat him, and he has to run away. It’s a great example of a perpetual conflict because it is internal to the character, is derived directly from the core attributes of the brand, and is ultimately unsolvable.
Without this kind of robust and authentic story framework, development of an advertising character frequently devolves into what we refer to as "twelve people sitting around a table arguing about the size of the nose." In other words, it becomes a purely subjective exercise, with no common vocabulary. On the other hand, with a strong consensus on a compelling story framework, questions of style ("edgy" vs. "elegant") and technique (CGI vs. puppets vs. live action, etc.) tend to fall into place quite naturally.
So here’s the opportunity. As a strong, creative producer, you have a chance to lead both your creative team and your client from what started as a rather uninspired individual spot all the way to a new brand strategy with a solid creative foundation. I see it happening every day. Just remember: It’s the story.
