The excellent PRmoment.com e news bulletin has resurrected the industry debate about how do you encourage creativity in PR and is there a role for a ‘Creativity Director’.
I cover this subject extensively in my book ‘Creativity in Public Relations’.
My contribution to the on-line debate was:
The problem with this debate is the interpretation of the word ‘Director’. There is a need for ‘Creativity Champions’ at every level of a business, but the title ‘Director’ can mislead in PR for 2 reasons:
1. It implies it is mimicking the traditional advertising agency model of the ‘Creative Dept.’ headed up by a ‘Creative Director’ which has an ownership of the creative product. Yet, PR people are in effect one person ad agencies – they manage the client interface, the planning and the creative – all functions delivered by different people in the ad agency model.
2. The title of ‘Creative Director’ can be useful in the selling of the creative product, and in positioning an agency as ‘creative’, yet the reality is that creativity is delivered at every level in the PR operation. There is a danger that having a ‘Creative Director’ implies that ownership and responsibility for delivering creativity rests with that one individual.
I would strongly challenge that creative people are born and not made: we are all fantastic creativity machines, and the realm of creativity covers many different parts of the delivery of an idea, and that we all have different creativity styles.
I passionately believe it is possible to train people to have a more innovative mindset through flexible thinking, and that we could all benefit from improving our creative thinking management and in knowing how to use different creativity tools for different situations.