Take a look at the image above. You may well have seen it recently already and know the context. Regardless, what was your initial reaction?
Did you see a metaphor for empowerment and confidence?
Or did you see something more questionably suggestive and inappropriate?
Well, you’re not alone if you thought the latter. Many more did, and told Audi so when it ran the ad on social media the other week. The company has since apologised and taken it down, and it should be said they handled it well. Commenting directly to the original post with hands-up conversational language acknowledging they got this one wrong.
But this post isn’t about Audi. Though their situation does provide a good case for the argument I’ll make — that of a Devil’s Advocate.
The Vatican had a formal position titled advocatus diaboli. The sole purpose of this senior position was to put across arguments against the canonisation (or sainthood) of a candidate. The idea being to encourage the critical case by identifying character flaws or misrepresentation of evidence.
You won’t be surprised to hear the position no longer exists — or it certainly doesn’t hold the influence it once did.
I probably don’t need to paint much more of a picture for you to see how a role like this could work in the creative process — and how it could have been instrumental in avoiding the situation Audi found themselves in.
Think about it… positions like proof readers or UAT are fairly common in mid-large agencies. Roles there to provide quality assurance and as a catch all to ensure what is released into the wide world is free of mistakes and of the highest standards. But these roles operate in a way that assume the subjective core of an idea is solid. They are generally less objectively critical.
In an industry built on output which is inherently subjective, surely this would be valuable and lead to more robust work? At the very least it would encourage debate amongst creatives/strategists and force them to put their cases forward and fight for their work. Without it, are we not all just marking our own homework, leaving ourselves susceptible to the opinions of a very broad and, nowadays, actively vocal majority?
It’s not to say that every negative opinion is right. You’ll always get some ill-informed loudmouth. But we’ve all seen or heard ads produced by big blue chip brands and thought ‘how on earth has that managed to make it so far??’
I present well-worn exhibit B:
So where’s the harm? It could lead to uncomfortable conversations. Dent fragile ego’s. Maybe even come across is deliberately antagonistic. But all of this is supposed to contribute to great work. A critical eye is essential in bringing out the best.
And it could go even further. There’s an opportunity for it to have an impact on organisational culture. By breeding an atmosphere that actively encourages objectivity —so much so, there is a role dedicated to it. Then people start to see there really are no right or wrong answers and constructive criticism is valued. Critical thinking becomes a more engrained natural behaviour.
Breeding a culture of openness can only be a good thing. It avoids the trappings of wilful blindness, and encourages people to speak out against more than just the work. Diverse perspectives are given opportunities to speak up, express their opinions and feel represented — something that most agencies have been at pains to claim they encourage since the BLM movement ignited, but in reality is often little more than a purpose manifesto on paper.
So consider a role for the devil’s advocate. Historically, it worked for the catholic church… OK, not a great example to circle back to, but you get my drift.
