There was a pretty interesting entry up on CREATIVITY (online) last week. It was about how Arnold, Boston started it's very own Research & Development department, staffed with a couple of young technologist/designers. [read here]
My opinion on this matter is a bit mixed. Part of me is looking at this type of idea with great skepticism, another is looking at it with a little jealousy, and a small part is looking at it with some hope. I'm more curious what other peoples' opinions are on this subject.
Arnold is an interesting entity here in town (I live in Boston), they're one of a couple monolithic agencies that have the reputation, at least in the small agencies world, of being a great place to go before you retire. Now this is only a reputation. I know plenty of people who work at Arnold and they're all great, talented people. They're also all on the account side of things. And I'm not going to lie, I've interviewed with Arnold back in 2006 when I was leaving BEAM.
One reason why I didn't want to take a job with them, although offered, was because their interactive shop seemed small, uncommunicative, closed in, and lacked talent on both the production and direction level. Next to that, their client list wasn't as pleasing as I might think a large agency could be capable of winning. I think back then, their big client was Caribbean or Radio Shack. I'm sure they have won some bigger clients since then. Really, it's a moot point anyway, most of their interesting interactive work is farmed out to smaller chop-shops around town.
Now this leads me to the jealousy side. How did two guys land a job with a large agency and basically get to create a role where they'll get to play all day, but never actually have to make anything that would make Arnold money. I would love a job like that, although I'd probably get bored without any financially driven direction.
I possibly lack the understanding of what Arnold's capabilities are. At least in order to put together how a group like this can exist inside the walls of a company that does PR, print, broadcast, and low-level interactive work. You mean to tell me that they're going to bust out a new creative campaign that works in RFID tags, or motion-capturing computers, similar to something that a group of MIT grads at Small Design would do? And for what client? Tag? Jack Daniels? or truth? (these were the three mentioned in the article, and probably their most interesting)
This skepticism comes from a bigger opinion that larger companies are looking for the new "what's next" to get them on some list of companies who are innovative and thinking differently. They mention Apple as motivation. Really? Apple? Last I checked, Apple wasn't in the market to try to sell body spray to a target demographic of 18 to 22 year old apes. Apple has an R&D department because they make technology and products that people invest time and money in. Such as the iPhone, iMac, iBook, etc...
As I write this, the skepticism is maxing out. Realistically, agency work only resides on a wall, in a magazine, on TV, and on the web for a couple months (tops). I say this because I'm consistently frustrated with the fact that work I do is only live for a short time, after spending so much time and effort building it. This idea is only amplified when you put the words like "non-traditional" or "non-billable" behind it. In my opinion, it's a lot of time and money put in to a hobby that most people of that caliper would do at home on a Sunday and not eight hours a day for five days a week. Or would go work for Apple on products and not spin wheels trying to "think creatively" about alternative ways to advertise body spray.
In all fairness, there is some optimism in my mind for something like this. This is a bold move for Arnold. It takes bold moves to make change. I can even see some similarities to the point in time when a large agency decides that it needs to start hiring nerds to do interactive, but have no idea what it takes. In either situation, the move has been made and people learn what their roles are, or how to deal with the new. Hopefully, at least in Boston, this move leads to results that prove financially worthy of having a group like this in the agency's arsenal, and other companies start to follow. Such interactive groups could lead to more creative and interesting work that we all can imagine designing and building.
