Ideas choose people

Here's a thought: It is a fundamental fallacy to think that we people come up with ideas on our own. In fact, ideas find people to manifest themselves. Ideas are processes. They use people as 'petri dishes' or vehicles for their fulfillment. It's ideas who choose people and not the other way around. I guess that means one has to be worthy to be chosen.

Some points on how to stimulate creativity

1. Inhibitory state of consciousness vs Excitatory state.

2. Excitatory is caused by new information stream.

3. To allow the stream into our psyche the Inhibitory must be deactivated.

4. It can be achieved by altering personal state of consciousness.

5. There are many different methods.

6. When Inhibitory dominates Excitatory, synopses of brain cortex become less fluidic and the person becomes more like a robot.

7. When Excitatory dominates, pineal gland is stimulated and the person becomes more free spirited.

8. Creativity is spirit that thrives on irrelevant streams of information.

9. Irrelevant is what is outside the 'Channel Normal'.

Crowd Wisdom doesn't work here. Why?

'Crowd wisdom' always tends to gravitate towards mediocre and safe. And this is by nature. Majority voting might be good for politics or solving communal issues, but it is quite useless when it comes to judging creativity and innovation.

Henry Ford once said about the value of marketing research: if I were to ask my future clients what they really wanted, they would have answered - faster horses!

In my opinion, 'creative' ideas that get the majority vote on 'public creativity' websites (such as Jovoto, My Pitch, Idea Bounty, etc.) are mostly dull and utterly conventional.

(Even public product innovation sites such as Kickstarter or Quirky fail to produce anything original or substantial, beyond ideas for new pen holders or mobile phone covers.)

Why? Good question.

Is it because the majority (by default!) consists of 'amateur creatives' who seek approval by faithfully imitating the 'professionals'? (And we know that the professional conventional advertising is mostly crap.)

Or is it because where there's a big crowd, there always comes element of politics into play?

Or maybe because these platforms aren't about innovation & creative ideas, but just another marketing 'public participation' tools to create 'followers'?

Rant: Why bother to pay for news?

i am subscribed to creativity online free (not spam free!) newsletter. they send me headlines of the news and if i want to read more, i click on the link that takes me to creativity online page... where i am greeted with a message that tells me that i have to pay to proceed further!

i.e. today in their newsletter they mentioned about a new mob app called Starling but wouldnt let me read about it on their page.
so i googled Starling and got tons of info on it: reviews, pics, videos, etc.
(in fact, i have to do this routine all the time!)

my point is:

Why bother with all this subscription paywall at all when it drives its potential readers to other (often better!) sources?

ok, i understand it might work with some sort of exclusive or special content ... but news in general can't be exclusive! And Creativity Online is just all about general news from ad and marketing industry and very little else. anything they report can be easily obtained for free elsewhere online.

... and then all these "only members can leave comments or rate" signs... that alone is so daft!

which brings me to a conclusion:

In the future the news would pay us to read their news!

A Case For Better Ideas and Less Worry About Executions

original article from Creativity online

look what reading it made me do:

click on the pic to enlarge.



my original comment (in case creativity decides not to publish it):

a case for better ideas and fretting less over the executions would do a better job in keeping up with the zeitgeist
which is more about the content and less about the looks, i.e. the message makes the medium viral and not the other way round.
To argue for "fewer ideas" might sell the book to accountants, but i seriously doubt that putting a lid on creativity would make advertising more exciting!

p.s. its ok to have lots half-baked ideas. the more the better. it keeps creative minds sharper.

Idea: Crowdsourced movie trailers

MyBestMovieBits.com is a place to watch free movies and to mark-in and out your favorite scenes from the movie while watching it. The total length of the clip with the best movie bits is limited to 3 min max, or a length of normal movie trailer.

We can also share our custom made “movie trailers” with friends on Facebook, etc using a special notification widget.

And we can upload our own (off site created) movie clips as well (guideline: only footage from one same film per one clip to be used!)

Note: Users can only proceed to watching the next movie online (for free!) when they published their “personal trailer” for the previously watched movie!

Alternatively , Cinemaxx could be a sponsor and use this idea as a platform to promote its own movies

George Lois on great and not-so-great creative ideas

Legendary magazine and advertising designer George Lois doesn't think much of Esquire's recent attempt to promote the battery-powered cover of its October issue as the start of a new age. He said as a former Esquire art director, he was "embarassed" by the "silly gimmick" that was not in keeping with the publication's stature.



and while i was on AdAge website this stupid ad was in front of my face... so i couldn't resist to comment on its lingo ...it's the word "own" that set me off ;))