# Decisions: Creative Strategy

Critical decision points that determine creative success and effectiveness.

---

## Decision 1: In-House vs. Agency Creative

**Context:** Deciding who creates your brand's creative work.

**Options:**

| Approach | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|----------|------|------|-------------|
| **In-house only** | Brand control, speed, efficiency | Limited range, creative fatigue | High volume, consistent needs |
| **Agency only** | Fresh perspective, capability depth | Cost, less brand intimacy | Major campaigns, capability gaps |
| **Hybrid** | Best of both | Coordination complexity | Most mature creative orgs |

**Framework:**
```
In-house vs. agency decision:

Creative needs?
├── Day-to-day content → In-house
├── Major campaigns → Agency
├── Specialized skills → Agency
└── Volume production → In-house

Budget reality?
├── Fixed budget → In-house team
├── Campaign budget → Agency
├── Limited → In-house + freelance

WHAT TO KEEP IN-HOUSE:
- Brand stewardship
- Social content
- Quick-turn needs
- Ongoing production
- Template-based work

WHAT TO AGENCY:
- Campaign strategy
- High-production video
- Specialized skills
- Fresh perspective
- Big creative bets

HYBRID MODEL:
In-house: Core team, brand guardians
Agency: Strategic partner(s)
Freelance: Overflow capacity

AGENCY RELATIONSHIP:
AOR (Agency of Record): Strategic partner
Project-based: Specific campaigns
Specialist: Photography, video, etc.
```

**Default Recommendation:** Build in-house for consistency and volume. Partner with agency for major campaigns and specialized skills.

---

## Decision 2: Production Investment Level

**Context:** Determining appropriate production value for creative work.

**Options:**

| Level | Budget Range | Timeline | Use When |
|-------|--------------|----------|----------|
| **Lo-fi** | $0-5K | Days | Testing, social, speed |
| **Mid-fi** | $5-25K | Weeks | Product content, social campaigns |
| **Hi-fi** | $25-100K | 6-8 weeks | Brand campaigns, key content |
| **Premium** | $100K+ | Months | Major campaigns, defining moments |

**Framework:**
```
Production investment criteria:

Business importance?
├── Testing/experimental → Lo-fi
├── Regular content → Mid-fi
├── Campaign content → Hi-fi
└── Brand-defining → Premium

Content lifespan?
├── Days (social, testing) → Lo-fi
├── Months (campaigns) → Mid/Hi-fi
├── Years (brand film) → Premium
└── Evergreen → Invest more

Audience reach?
├── Narrow/test → Lo-fi
├── Core audience → Mid-fi
├── Broad audience → Hi-fi
└── Mass market → Premium

PRODUCTION QUESTIONS:
1. What's the content lifespan?
2. How many people will see it?
3. What's the business impact?
4. Is this testing or scaling?

LO-FI OPPORTUNITIES:
- Social content
- Testing creative
- Fast response
- Authentic feel
- User-generated aesthetic

PREMIUM REQUIREMENTS:
- Major brand moment
- Long shelf life
- Broad reach
- Competitive position
- Differentiation need
```

**Default Recommendation:** Default to mid-fi. Go lo-fi for testing and social. Reserve hi-fi/premium for proven concepts at scale.

---

## Decision 3: Creative Testing Approach

**Context:** How to validate creative before scaling.

**Options:**

| Approach | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|----------|------|------|-------------|
| **No testing** | Speed, conviction | Risk of failure | Low stakes, fast execution |
| **Quick test** | Fast feedback, iteration | Limited depth | Messaging, concepts |
| **Full research** | Comprehensive insight | Slow, expensive | Major campaigns, high stakes |
| **In-market test** | Real behavior | Requires spend | Performance creative |

**Framework:**
```
Testing approach selection:

Stakes level?
├── Low stakes → Ship without testing
├── Medium stakes → Quick test
├── High stakes → Full research
└── Performance → In-market test

Budget available?
├── None → Ship and learn
├── Some → Quick testing
├── More → Proper research
└── Significant → All of the above

QUICK TESTING:
- Concept boards to target audience
- 5-second test (first impressions)
- A/B social ads (small budget)
- Internal feedback (fresh eyes)

FULL RESEARCH:
- Focus groups
- Quantitative concept testing
- Brand lift studies
- Pre/post awareness

IN-MARKET TESTING:
- Small budget campaigns
- A/B testing at scale
- Performance metrics
- Real behavior data

TESTING WHAT:
Always test: Message comprehension
Sometimes test: Emotional resonance
Rarely test: Creative execution details
Never test: Innovation (too risky to test)

TESTING RISK:
Research can kill good ideas.
Balance testing with conviction.
Test to validate, not to decide.
```

**Default Recommendation:** Quick test for important concepts. In-market test for performance creative. Full research only for major campaigns.

---

## Decision 4: Brand Consistency vs. Creative Flexibility

**Context:** Balancing recognizable brand identity with creative exploration.

**Options:**

| Approach | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|----------|------|------|-------------|
| **Rigid consistency** | Recognition, efficiency | Boring, limited | Early brand building, recognition priority |
| **Loose guidelines** | Creative freedom, freshness | Inconsistency risk | Strong brand equity |
| **Structured flexibility** | Balance of both | Complexity | Mature brands |

**Framework:**
```
Consistency vs. flexibility:

Brand maturity?
├── New brand → More consistency (build recognition)
├── Growing → Structured flexibility
├── Established → More flexibility (equity to spend)

Context?
├── Brand campaigns → Must be consistent
├── Product campaigns → Can flex more
├── Social content → Most flexibility
├── Experimental → Freedom to explore

BRAND ELEMENTS HIERARCHY:

NON-NEGOTIABLE:
- Logo usage
- Core colors
- Legal requirements
- Brand voice principles

FLEXIBLE:
- Secondary colors
- Photography style
- Illustration approach
- Tone variations

EXPERIMENTAL:
- New visual territory
- Format exploration
- Collaborations
- Limited editions

FLEXIBILITY FRAMEWORK:
Brand campaign: 90% consistent
Product campaign: 70% consistent
Social content: 50% consistent
Experimental: 30% consistent (still recognizable)

BRAND RECOGNITION TEST:
Cover the logo. Is it still recognizably your brand?
If yes: Consistency working.
If no: Need more consistent elements.
```

**Default Recommendation:** Structured flexibility. Lock non-negotiable elements, allow experimentation within recognizable framework.

---

## Decision 5: Concept Development Process

**Context:** How to generate and develop creative concepts.

**Options:**

| Process | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|---------|------|------|-------------|
| **Solo creative** | Speed, vision | Limited perspectives | Small projects, clear brief |
| **Team brainstorm** | Diverse ideas, collaboration | Can be unfocused | Complex problems |
| **Pitch process** | Competition, options | Expensive, wasteful | Major campaigns |
| **Iterative** | Refinement, evolution | Slow | Unclear brief |

**Framework:**
```
Concept development approach:

Project scope?
├── Small/quick → Solo creative
├── Medium → Team brainstorm
├── Major → Pitch process
└── Exploratory → Iterative

Brief clarity?
├── Clear direction → Execute quickly
├── Strategic options → Explore concepts
├── Unclear → Research first
└── Open → Wide exploration

BRAINSTORM RULES:
1. Quantity over quality (at first)
2. No criticism during ideation
3. Build on ideas
4. Wild ideas welcome
5. Evaluate after, not during

CONCEPT EVALUATION:
Score against:
- Strategy delivery (does it deliver?)
- Distinctiveness (is it ownable?)
- Extendability (can it flex?)
- Feasibility (can we make it?)
- Memorability (will it stick?)

CONCEPT REFINEMENT:
Round 1: Wide exploration (10+ ideas)
Round 2: Narrow to 3-5 territories
Round 3: Develop 1-2 concepts
Round 4: Refine chosen direction
```

**Default Recommendation:** Team brainstorm for concept generation, then solo refinement. Pitch process only for major campaigns.

---

## Decision 6: Creative Approval Structure

**Context:** Defining who approves creative and how.

**Options:**

| Structure | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|-----------|------|------|-------------|
| **Single approver** | Speed, decisiveness | Risk of blind spots | Clear leadership |
| **Small committee** | Balanced perspectives | Slower | Medium stakes |
| **Stakeholder review** | Broad buy-in | Design by committee | High stakes, many owners |
| **Tiered** | Right rigor for stakes | Complexity | Mature organizations |

**Framework:**
```
Approval structure design:

Stakes and risk?
├── Low stakes → Single approver
├── Medium → Small committee
├── High → Structured review
└── Very high → Executive approval

APPROVAL TIERS:

Tier 1: Social content, minor updates
Approver: Creative lead
Timeline: 1-2 days

Tier 2: Campaign creative, product content
Approvers: Creative lead + marketing lead
Timeline: 3-5 days

Tier 3: Major campaigns, brand work
Approvers: Core team + exec
Timeline: 1-2 weeks

Tier 4: Major brand changes
Approvers: Full leadership
Timeline: 2-4 weeks

APPROVAL PRINCIPLES:
1. Fewer approvers = better creative
2. Clear criteria (strategy, not preference)
3. Time-boxed reviews
4. Single final decider
5. Trust the creative team

REVIEW QUESTIONS:
Not: "Do I like it?"
But: "Does it deliver the strategy?"

FEEDBACK RULES:
Specific over vague
Objective over subjective
Direction over prescription
```

**Default Recommendation:** Single approver for routine, small committee for campaigns. Always identify the final decider before starting.

---

## Decision 7: Video Length and Format

**Context:** Choosing appropriate video duration and format.

**Options:**

| Length | Best For | Platform | Attention Span |
|--------|----------|----------|----------------|
| **6-15s** | Awareness, social | TikTok, stories | Thumb-stop |
| **30s** | Standard advertising | TV, pre-roll | High attention |
| **60-90s** | Story, emotion | YouTube, streaming | Engaged |
| **2-5min** | Education, consideration | YouTube, website | Intentional |
| **5min+** | Deep content | YouTube, owned | Committed |

**Framework:**
```
Video length decision:

Objective?
├── Awareness → 6-15s
├── Engagement → 30-60s
├── Education → 2-5min
├── Entertainment → Varies
└── Conversion → 30s-2min

Platform?
├── TikTok/Stories → 15-60s
├── In-feed social → 15-30s
├── Pre-roll → 6s, 15s, 30s
├── YouTube → Any (2-5min sweet spot)
├── TV → 15s, 30s, 60s
└── Website → 30s-2min

Audience stage?
├── Cold audience → Shorter
├── Warm audience → Can be longer
├── Engaged/known → Longer acceptable

VIDEO STRUCTURE BY LENGTH:

6s:
[Hook] → [Brand]

15s:
[Hook] → [Point] → [Brand/CTA]

30s:
[Hook] → [Setup] → [Payoff] → [Brand/CTA]

60s:
[Hook] → [Story setup] → [Conflict] →
[Resolution] → [Brand/CTA]

2min+:
Full story arc possible
Build tension and resolve
Value-first for longer content
```

**Default Recommendation:** Create at multiple lengths from same shoot. Lead with 30s as versatile default, create 6s/15s cutdowns.

---

## Decision 8: User-Generated vs. Professional Content

**Context:** Balancing professional production with authentic UGC.

**Options:**

| Type | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|------|------|------|-------------|
| **Professional only** | Quality control, brand consistency | Expensive, less authentic | Brand campaigns, high production |
| **UGC only** | Authentic, cost-effective | Quality variance, less control | Social, testimonials |
| **Mixed** | Best of both | Coordination | Mature content program |

**Framework:**
```
UGC vs. professional decision:

Platform context?
├── TikTok → UGC feels native
├── Instagram → Mix works
├── YouTube → Professional for long-form
├── TV/OOH → Professional required
└── Website → Professional primary

Content type?
├── Testimonials → UGC preferred
├── Tutorials → UGC or mix
├── Brand → Professional
├── Social → UGC or lo-fi
└── Advertising → Depends on channel

UGC OPPORTUNITIES:
- Customer testimonials
- Product demos
- Social content
- Reviews and reactions
- Community content

PROFESSIONAL REQUIRED:
- Brand campaigns
- Product photography
- Broadcast advertising
- Brand films
- Major launches

UGC MANAGEMENT:
Source: Customers, creators, community
Rights: Clear usage agreements
Quality: Curation and selection
Amplification: Paid and organic
Incentives: Products, features, payment

MIXED APPROACH:
Professional: Hero and brand content
UGC: Supporting and social
Integration: Professional structure + UGC moments
```

**Default Recommendation:** Professional for brand content, UGC for social and testimonials. Integrate UGC into professional frameworks for authenticity.

---

## Decision 9: Campaign Duration and Timing

**Context:** How long to run campaigns and when to launch.

**Options:**

| Duration | Best For | Budget Efficiency | Impact |
|----------|----------|------------------|--------|
| **Burst (1-2 weeks)** | Launches, events | Lower efficiency | High spike |
| **Flight (4-8 weeks)** | Campaigns | Moderate | Sustained |
| **Always-on** | Brand building | Highest efficiency | Compound |
| **Pulsing** | Mix of above | Balanced | Peaks + base |

**Framework:**
```
Campaign duration decision:

Objective?
├── Launch/event → Burst
├── Campaign → Flight
├── Brand building → Always-on
├── Seasonal → Pulsing

Budget?
├── Limited → Burst (concentrate)
├── Moderate → Flight or pulse
├── Significant → Always-on + campaigns

TIMING CONSIDERATIONS:

Launch timing:
- Avoid major holidays (noise)
- Consider news cycles
- Competitor activity
- Audience availability
- Day of week (B2B: Tues-Thurs)

Seasonal timing:
- Category peaks
- Budget cycles
- Audience behavior
- Creative relevance

CAMPAIGN RHYTHM:

Burst: High frequency → Stop
[████████] → [ ]

Flight: Moderate frequency → Pause → Repeat
[████] → [ ] → [████]

Always-on: Consistent presence
[██] → [██] → [██] → [██]

Pulsing: Base + peaks
[██████] → [██] → [████] → [██]

OPTIMAL: Always-on base + campaign pulses
Maintains presence + drives peaks
```

**Default Recommendation:** Always-on foundational presence with campaign pulses for major moments. Avoid pure burst unless event-specific.

---

## Decision 10: Creative Refresh Frequency

**Context:** How often to update creative and when to retire.

**Options:**

| Frequency | Channel | Reason | Creative Investment |
|-----------|---------|--------|---------------------|
| **Weekly** | Social | Feed algorithm, freshness | Lo-fi, volume |
| **Monthly** | Paid social | Ad fatigue | Mid-fi, rotating |
| **Quarterly** | Display, video | Seasonal, optimization | Hi-fi, refresh |
| **Annually** | Brand campaigns | Major update | Premium, significant |

**Framework:**
```
Creative refresh decision:

Performance signals?
├── CTR declining → Time to refresh
├── CPM rising → Ad fatigue
├── Engagement dropping → New creative
├── Still performing → Keep running

Channel demands?
├── Paid social → Monthly refresh minimum
├── Display → Quarterly rotation
├── Video → Can run longer
├── Brand → When message changes

REFRESH VS NEW:

Refresh: Update existing
- New visuals, same message
- Seasonal adjustments
- Format variations

New: Different creative
- New campaign concept
- Major message shift
- Performance-driven change

AD FATIGUE INDICATORS:
- CTR decline
- Frequency > 3-4
- CPM increase
- Negative comments
- Performance plateau

CREATIVE TESTING CADENCE:
Social: Test new weekly, kill losers fast
Paid: Rotate monthly, test variations
Brand: Longer commitment, seasonal refresh

WINNING CREATIVE:
Don't refresh winners prematurely
Scale what works
Add variations vs. replace
```

**Default Recommendation:** Refresh paid social monthly, display quarterly. Let winners run until fatigue shows. Test constantly, kill quickly.
