Over the past few days I have heard comments ranging from “It’s really not very creative” and “You must include creativity as part of the curriculum” to “We have to aim for higher standards of creativity” and, my personal favourite, “The broadcaster is going to love its creativity.” Love what?
Love its innovation, its novelty, its newness, its pretentiousness, its meaningless use of special effects? If we are going to use this word (and, by the way, “programme quality” is another one ripe for the picking), we have to be able to measure it.
We must be able to say, this show has 12 centimeters of creativity, as opposed to another which has only seven centimeters of creativity. Or 45 kg, or degrees, or something.
But we can’t. Let’s deal with it first of all in the training milieu. I have seen the word “creativity” attached to the curricula for camerawork, writing, directing, and even producing. I wonder how these people teach creativity? Is it a skill? Or is it something that you teach everyone equally, for fairness’ sake, so that everyone is treated the same.
The word creativity has been so hyped up by the advertising sector, and I wonder if they don’t just mean “innovative and novel”? Earlier this year, I asked if there really is much novelty. When an advert for a bank first appears with happy, smiling people fishing, running and playing, it seems to set a fashion, and for years afterwards the theme becomes inseparable from “bank”.
In exactly the same way, all television seems to look the same. Of course it does. Broadcasters are careful. If that’s what the public wants, give them more of it. How creative can you then get?
The same issue applies to “programme quality”. There is a move through the many African “integration” initiatives to get local programming across the continent. There seems to be a problem: “Their programming is just not up to our standard.” (Full marks to the reader who correctly guesses which country says that the most.)
What do they mean? Is it technical quality? Can’t be, as that is an international standard which is measured in terms of chrominance, luminance, audio levels and so on. It either conforms, or it doesn’t conform.
Do they mean production values? Can’t be. Production values are a measure of the lavishness, which always costs money, so production values can roughly be measured in terms of budget.
Then what do they mean? No one seems to know. “Well, you know, quality,” is what I got the other day when I queried it.
Or do they mean that in other countries viewers prefer to see it another way? Or that in other countries where resources are more scarce, that viewers are so supportive of their local product that they support it, even though it has low production values? Or do they mean that “it is not our style”. (And because we are the best, our style MUST be right.)
Perhaps the only people who should be entitled to measure creativity and quality are the distributors. After all, they are the ones who buy it and who have to sell it. Just a thought.
Howard Thomas is a media business consultant, trainer and specialist in audience psychology.