Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was an English naturalist and biologist who is widely recognized as the father of the theory of evolution.

Darwin’s theory proposed that “species evolve through a process of gradual change driven by the mechanism of natural selection. Gradual changes accumulate over generations, resulting in the formation of new species.” (Natural History Museum)

While Darwin’s name is synonymous with the idea of evolution, it should be noted that another English naturalist and biologist, Alfred Russel Wallace, deserves almost equal credit. Darwin and Wallace jointly presented their findings in a scientific meeting in 1858. The following year, Darwin published his masterpiece, “On the Origin of Species.” From then on, Darwin overshadowed Wallace and it has usually been Darwin’s name alone associated with the theory of evolution.

Perhaps, Darwin was very good at PR.

Speaking of which, next week (June 19–23, 2023) will be the 70th edition of Cannes Lions, the International Festival of Creativity, and the mecca of PR for numerous agencies, networks, media companies, and tech giants. Tens of thousands of creatives, non-creatives, and various types of species of advertising, media, and technology worlds will descend onto the French Riviera for a week to award, schmooze, and congratulate each other.

The evolution of the business of creativity

The first time I went to Cannes was back in 2005. I was a young-ish designer with a focus on digital. The festival felt like a gathering of creatives for the sake of creative work.

The festival, as well as the industry that surrounds it, has evolved drastically. There have been numerous pieces of great creative work in the last two decades that were extremely memorable and had an impact on the industry. However, there are only a few pieces of work that I think caused an evolution and in some cases, structural changes in the way brands and agencies thought about and approached brand-building and advertising, or what one historian would describe as “upgrades to our cognitive OS.”

Each piece also represents a kind of creative archetype. Over time, these archetypes evolved as well, indicating what kind of skills creatives needed to pick up along the way.

BMW Films (2001)

“A series of short films produced for the Internet. A form of branded content, the shorts were directed by popular filmmakers from around the globe and starred Clive Owen as “the Driver” while highlighting the performance aspects of various BMW automobiles.” (Wikipedia)

Why it mattered: This was before YouTube. Watching videos online wasn’t a thing yet. You could watch these films in super low resolution on the BMW site or get them on a CD-ROM from a BMW dealer. A clever tactic to drive traffic to dealers.

It was the first example of this millennium that demonstrated and proved to brands that they could, as opposed to distracting an audience, attract them by leveraging a very new distribution mechanism called the Internet. Instead of spending millions of dollars on paid media, why not use it for production? From around this time, we started to hear “zero media dollar spent” in case studies almost as a badge of pride.

This work was the catalyst for the Cannes Lions’ Titanium category: “breakthrough ideas which caused the industry to stop in its tracks and reconsider the way forward.” (Cannes Lions)

Since then, many brands and agencies have tried to create branded content that would outdo BMW Films.

I don’t believe anyone has.

The creative archetype: Storyteller

Burger King “Subservient Chicken” (2004)

“On the site, visitors saw a sparsely decorated living room, with the submissive mascot standing in the middle of the room. The submissive chicken would respond to hundreds of commands that visitors typed, i.e. ‘do the Moonwalk,’ ‘turn off the lights,’ or ‘jump rope.’” (AdAge)

Why it mattered: Completely the opposite of BMW Films in terms of its production value. Extremely crude on the surface but surprisingly sophisticated in its reaction to human prompts. This was 18 years before the ChatGPT craze. It was also so odd yet so captivating.

It was just so different from anything else before it. The idea of a subservient chicken still delivered on “Have it your way,” Burger King’s tagline. This work turned the meaning of “creative” upside down. Being different was the new cool.

The creative archetype: Hacker

Nike+ Running (2005) and Nike Fuelband (2012)

Nike+ Running was a piece of software that tracked and analyzed running activities, providing personalized coaching and social features for runners. Nike FuelBand was a wrist-worn device that tracked daily activities, converting them into a proprietary metric called Nike Fuel to measure overall physical activity. Both aimed to enhance fitness and motivate users. (Wikipedia)

Why they mattered: Modern advertising was defined by agencies on Madison Avenue for so long. R/GA, the agency that developed Nike+ Running and Nike Fuelband, was an early adopter of digital and one of the leaders of the anti-advertising movement. It “ stood with one foot in Madison Avenue and one foot in Silicon Valley, and then pushed the two together. “ This work expanded what a creative agency can do for its client.

It also questioned what advertising was. Advertising was no longer about just telling stories about a product or a brand. It could engage an audience in a meaningful way and create a direct and personal connection with each consumer.

Somewhere along the way, Cannes Lions dropped the word “advertising” from its name and replaced it with “creativity.” it’s clear that work like Nike+ Running influenced that change. Traditional creatives had to accept what they thought wasn’t creative had become creative, or even transcended what it meant.

The creative archetype: Designer & Engineer

2022: Patagonia “Earth is now our only shareholder”

“If we have any hope of a thriving planet — much less a business — it is going to take all of us doing what we can with the resources we have. This is what we can do. — Yvon Chouinard” (Patagonia)

Patagonia’s ownership

Why it mattered: This wasn’t an ad, nor was it a PR stunt. But it was the best version of an ad or a PR stunt precisely because it wasn’t. It wasn’t even awarded anything. Patagonia didn’t bother trying to win a creative award.

But I do believe this is one of the most creative acts any company has done.

The reason why I list this as something that caused/is causing a structural change for brands is this: brands need to have a point of view, a clear stance on issues, and be willing to be on onside, not both. When they try to cater to all and are indecisive or vague in their stance, they lose ground. CNN as of late is an example of that.

The creative archetype: Business Owner

Creativity no longer belongs to creatives only

Creatives, for a long time, were a protected species. We stayed up late and even showed up late. We wore baseball hats to work. We worked hard and played hard. We acted like kids. Adults tolerated us for the most part.

After digital made things radically transparent, AI is now causing the deindustrialization of creativity. Creativity no longer belongs to creatives only. It never did, some would argue. People with no discernible artistic talent can now create things that are pretty good. For free. It’s not AI that’s going to eat the creative species alive. It’s the non-creative species that masters AI that’s going to make us extinct.

So what do we need to do to evolve?

As I highlighted above, the role of a creative used to be simpler: create a compelling story. Over time, creatives evolved from storytellers to hackers, designers & engineers, to now business owners, not so much in what they did but rather how they thought. Like in evolution, species inherit previous characteristics and build on them.

So this brings me back to the topic of evolution.

The bad news about evolution is that it takes too long. It could take multiple generations for change to materialize because it is mostly based on adaptation. “An adaptation is a physical or behavioral characteristic that helps an organism to survive in its environment.” (Natural History Museum)

I recently came across a concept of exaptations. While adaptation is when “a feature is produced by natural selection for its current function,” exaptation is when “a trait, feature, or structure of an organism or taxonomic group takes on a function when none previously existed or that differs from its original function which had been derived by evolution.”

Here’s a simple example:

“Feathers were an adaptation for thermoregulation — their use for flight only came later. This means that feathers are an exaptation for flight, rather than an adaptation.”

- Natural History Museum

Birds, before they were birds, developed feathers to keep themselves warm. They became birds when they realized that feathers can help them fly. Flying wasn’t part of nature’s plan.

For those of us facing extinction, we need to start taking the skills we have and figure out a new way to use them in new and different ways.

Use our feathers not just to keep ourselves warm but to help us fly.