Aquent got its start in "creative" staffing. Back then we were called MacTemps and our stock in trade was connecting businesses with creative types who could use the Mac to do desktop publishing.
As time went by, we expanded out from what the British call "art workers," what we here stateside might call "print production specialists," to work with graphic designers in the broadest sense, copywriters and their ilk, and, as creative media changed, web designers and developers.
Over the last several years we've moved further out from the creative core and into the world of marketing that, for the most part, "creative" serves. Yet, even though this progression was natural and logical, and sometimes the line separating creative from marketing gets blurry, I've been struck by how different, from dress codes to mindset, the two cultures ultimately are.
I have some half-baked theories to explain the difference but, rather than trot them out here, I'll point you instead to this post entitled, "Separated by a common language," that I found on the adliterate blog.
Although the distinction being drawn in this post is between advertisers and designers, I think it captures some of the essential tension, not to say "conflict," between marketing and creative. This can best be seen in the case of the currently all-important concept, "brand." As the author writes, "When advertising people talk about a brand we mean the set of associations that exist in people's minds. While designers clearly think this is important for them the brand is much more about the mark or identity. Our brand is nebulous their's is concrete - it's what the identity looks like..."
I take that to mean: Designers are focused on creating a "thing," and marketers are interested in creating an "action."
Does that sound right? What do you think?
Leave a comment