Yes we camp. Where does creativity stand in public relations practice?

Yes we camp.
Creativity here dramatically overrides any rational argument or concept.

I am sure you saw/heard these three simple words during media coverage of the recent G8 in earthquaked Abbruzzo.

Another example I vividly remember from Milano’s public walls in the early, highly creative, days of student revolt in the late sixties of the last century:

Fascisti porci, domani prosciutti. i.e. ‘fascists pigs, tomorrow hams’.

Entire books, millions of bytes would never have been able to transfer in only four words la statement and a promise.

Where is creativity in public relations practice? Where is it conceptualised? Can creativity in public relations be conceptualised?
Only a few days ago, an Italian MP famous for being the lead legal counsel of our Premier (avv. Ghedini), in a television interview, innocently referred to his more famous Client-while-receiving-the-forbidden-but-highly-paid-for-services for which he has achieved global recognition, as the end user. Now this seems to me somewhat less creative…..

Of course contents can be more or less creative.
Spaces (physical or digital) can be deliberately creative.
But also associations of concepts and processes and their application can be creative.

If you ask three different professionals to propose a solution to any stakeholder relationship issue, it is likely you will receive three different approaches.
This is also creativity.

Yet this aspect is much too often overlooked, not only in day to day practice but also in education.
How do you practice or teach or research looking for creative ideas?
Do you adopt a systematic approach? Do you play it by ear?
Please share your thoughts.

For example, I very much resist (when I have the opportunity) lateral thinking processes when I listen to a brief.

I force myself to refute knee jerk reactions (I have done this, seen that…no problem sort of approach).
Others I know, instead, believe that past experiences (positive or negative) in similar conditions should be replicated or carefully avoided in order to save time and money.
This is rational, certainly.

But is it always a good idea to save time and money?
Or is it not better to look back at experience after having received the brief, gathered the available evidence, tried to understand it leaving prejudices aside and finally, once the evidence has been understood, interpret it with great care before jumping to conclusions based on the last time you did something similar?

Please follow our blog: