Ever sat through a creative review where everyone's speaking different languages? The designer's talking about "visual hierarchy" while the product marketer wants more "benefit statements," and the CMO just wants it to be "more impactful." Meanwhile, the copywriter is silently contemplating a career change.
Creatives and stakeholders can sometimes find it difficult to find common ground. However, the creative spectrum can be a game-changing tool for building better relationships (and getting better marketing assets).
If you’re a non-creative, working with creatives (and providing them feedback) can be super challenging. No stakeholder wants to be that person asking for more 'pop' or 'zing', or pixel-pushing on a design that’s not quite sitting right. And hearing 'I just don’t like that word' is like nails on a blackboard to a good copywriter.
But, the fault doesn’t lie solely on the stakeholder side: Creatives sometimes fail to give options that invite the right kind of feedback, leading to the kind of feedback they despise.
Options, But *Meaningfully Different*
Giving stakeholders options is always a great idea. Instead of your one perfect headline, give them 3 or 5. Create decisions you're excited about a stakeholder making.
But when it comes to creating those options, here’s the big mistake I see creatives make: They create 3 options that are slight iterations on the same idea instead of meaningfully different.
For example, here are three options for an article on cash flow for SBOs that all feel like the same-ish SEO hed.
- "Master Your Cash Flow: Essential Strategies for Small Business Survival"
- "Healthy Cash Flow, Healthy Business: A Guide for Small Business Owners"
- "Cash Flow Secrets: How Successful Small Businesses Manage Their Money"
If you’re a stakeholder, you’re probably bummed by these options. I know I am. But it may be tough to articulate what you want to see instead, or why these feel so "blah, snooze, next!"
Using the Creative Spectrum to Get Truly Different Options
Instead of more sameish options, use this creative spectrum and present and ideate creative ideas at each stage. High level, the creative spectrum shows three different types of executions:
- Plain Jane: This is the sort of creative that does exactly what it says on the tin. The benefit of Plain Jane creative is that really doesn’t get in the way and communicates very clearly. The downside is that it’s pretty forgettable and will not help you stand apart from your competitors. Really good Plain Jane creative still has a little more snappiness to it (think Apple). Bad Plain Jane creative feels like a generic stock photography model.
- Looney Tunes: At the other end of the spectrum, we've got the Looney Tunes approach. This is usually very arresting creative that makes users sit up and take notice. But it isn’t always ‘easy’ to scan and skim. Brands like Mailchimp, Tushy and Old Spice tend to lean into Looney Tunes. Done right, it imbues quirk, personality, and memorability. Done wrong, it comes off as a bit “tries too hard.”
- Middle Ground: Here, we have the best of both worlds: plain creative with a memorable touch of flourish. Brands like The Hustle and Wealthsimple tend to have brand assets that sit here. There'll be a little wink of humour, edge, or original turn of phrase without it taking over the key message.
Back to the example: Here are the outputs I got when I asked Claude to ideate instead across the creative spectrum:
- Plain Jane: "Understanding Cash Flow: A Small Business Owner's Guide to Financial Stability"
- Looney Tunes: “Cash Flow Rodeo: How to Tame Your Wild Business Finances Once and For All”
- Middle Ground: “Cash Flow or Crash Flow? How to Keep Your Business Out of the Red”
Now, I’m not saying I want to ship any of these options. But if I’m your stakeholder, I’m going to say I like the middle one best. And then you can ideate more there. For example, I went back to Claude and asked it to give me more middle-ground options, and it suggested “Mind the Gap: Mastering Cash Flow Before It Masters Your Business”... and now we're approaching something decent.
✨ AI Prompt✨
✨ Psst: Here's an AI prompt to ideate executions for copy or creative along each stage of the creative spectrum:
I’m a [marketing writer, designer] working at [company]. I’m going to share a 'creative spectrum model' for you to use when ideating [asset] for [target audience] serving [need/use case].
At one end of the spectrum is “Plain Jane” creative. This is the sort of creative that does exactly what it says on the tin. The benefit of Plain Jane creative is that really doesn’t get in the way and communicates very clearly. The downside is that it’s pretty forgettable and will not help you stand apart from your competitor. Really good Plain Jane creative has a little more snappiness to it (think Apple). Bad Plain Jane creative feels like a generic stock photography model.
At the other end of the spectrum is “Looney Tunes” creative. This is usually very arresting creative that makes users sit up and take notice. But it isn’t always easy or quick to understand. Brands like Mailchimp, Tushy and Old Spice tend to lean a little bit into Looney Tunes. Done right, it imbues a lot of quirk, personality and memorability. Done wrong, it’s a bit “tries too hard.”
In the “Middle Ground” we have we have the best of both worlds. The plain copy with a little bit of a memorable touch of flourish. Brands like The Hustle, Wealthsimple tend to have copy that sits here. There'll be a little wink of humour, edge or original turn of phrase without it taking over the key message.
Our brand voice is [attribute 1, attribute 2, etc.] Please ideate 3 [asset type] for each stage of the creative spectrum. Balance creativity with [goal, constraint, e.g. CRO, SEO, space constraints]
Other Ways to Use the Creative Spectrum
The creative spectrum is a tool for everyone in marketing. It encourages marketing creatives to ideate meaningfully different options and gives them a framework to present to clients. It also gives stakeholders a way of articulating what they want to see more or less of without getting into that pesky, prescriptive feedback.
Establishing a shared language is empowering! On past teams, I used to be able to say, “Let’s pull this a bit more left” or “Let’s let the copy be on the right but keep the supporting creative on the left,” and we all knew what was being asked for.
Let's look at some of its further uses:
For Stakeholders
Creatives should surprise you, presenting options that push your ideas further. But you need to be able to push back. Using the creative spectrum enables you to:
- Rein in the cray: Sometimes you have a creative who loves being capital-C creative and you want to pull them back. This model can help you show them where they are and where you want them. Just say, "I find these options a bit too far to the right of the spectrum, can we pull them back to centre a bit" or "can we find a way to stay right, but tone it down a bit".
- Push past the blah: If you have a creative who tends to be more “basic” in their designs and copy and you want them more in the middle, you may find that pulling them all the way to the right can help them find that middle sweet spot more than just coaxing them to centre.
For Marketing Creatives
All creatives have a default style. I've seen copywriters who will always start with something a bit 'out there' and ones who will always start with something much more straightforward. The creative spectrum is a tool to push your own creativity.
- Push past your default: Know your default and make sure you’re giving stakeholders options outside of it too. I don’t think you can be a truly great creative until you can produce amazing creative (that's still on brand) at all three levels.
- Better dialogue with stakeholders: Giving your stakeholders all three options will sometimes embolden them to make more interesting choices. If you give them 3 Looney Toons suggestions, they’ll pull you back to basic. But if you give them all three, odds are they’ll choose middle-to-left. Hashtag mindgames 😉
The Spectrum x Your Brand
It's worth noting that there's no “bad level” on the creative spectrum. People tend to think Plain Jane is to be avoided, but it plays a role and is sometimes just what an asset needs
💡 Remember there are many things working in an asset: copy design, illustration, photography. Everything firing on Looney Tunes all the time would be chaotic. So embrace the Plain Jane when that’s all that’s needed.
Finally: One thing I hear from a lot of clients is that “our brand sits in the middle.” But actually, you should be able to simultaneously adhere to brand guidelines and push up or down the spectrum depending on the asset, execution, and even component. Every brand will have its own ‘comfortable’ version of Looney Tunes.
For example: Let’s look at the much-admired Wealthsimple brand. They might seem perfectly in the middle of the creative spectrum. But plenty of their web copy is Plain Jane but effective (e.g., “Low fees meet higher yields”), and they also have their Looney Tunes moments too (e.g., the FOMO Index in their TLDR newsletter).
As long as you stay on brand, you can flex up and down the spectrum. And that’s where you can have a tonne of fun, while still working within the constraints of a brand.
Ultimately, what I love most about this model is its flexibility. It works across mediums, from email subject lines to billboard designs. It scales from solo freelancers to enterprise teams. And it creates space for creative exploration while honoring business constraints.
