Brainstorming?

There is alot of chatter in the planning blogosphere about whether brainstorms are good or bad. So I've decided to add my two pennies worth on the subject. The name is certainly misleading...to anyone not working in the communications industry it's sure to instantly raise hackles, it seems to embody everything shallow and fluffy about what it is that we do. In my mind this is a big part of the problem- advertising has corrupted the intention of brainstorming and elevated the word to imply a formalised process - anything to justify to clients that there is technique to what we do and consequently a reason to pay for it.

Inevitably those unskilled in the art of brainstorming (and I do belive it is an art) can come to rely upon the event as a way of solving problems...clearly never what the format was designed to achieve. Alot of what comes out does tend to be the lowest common denominator stuff, some is rubbish and some is distinctly average, but that's okay, they're generative sessions out of which hazy conceptual areas can begin to coalesce and/or diverge. In my experience with a little bit of planning remodelling this agar like solution of rough thoughts and ideas often provides an excellent launch platform off of which the real creative work can begin.

So yeah they are useful. But that isn't to say that getting 2 or 3 smart people in a room isn't just as useful. Certainly the best agencies I've come across all practice this in some way shape or form. Pushing job titles asside, recognising that everyone has good ideas, and just casually discussing the matter in a very open way. Whether the creative comes from the planner or the strategy from the creative truly shouldn't matter. In fact when it's quite hard to separate the two I think that can be a very healthy sign.

So...small groups good, bigger groups also good. It all just depends upon how and when you use them and having realistic expectations of what you hope to get out of each session. They still have a place in my brand of planning.