# Creative Communications Anti-Patterns

Approaches that seem like good creative practice but undermine quality, efficiency, or effectiveness.

---

## 1. Creative By Committee

**What it looks like**: Every stakeholder has equal input on creative decisions. Design by consensus. "Let's incorporate everyone's feedback." Six people picking fonts.

**Why it seems good**: Inclusive. Democratic. Everyone feels heard.

**Why it fails**: Committees produce camels, not horses. Conflicting feedback cancels out. Strong creative becomes weak compromise. Decision paralysis. Endless rounds.

**What to do instead**: One decision-maker for creative. Others provide input, decision-maker decides. Creative director owns creative. Stakeholders can raise concerns but not design.

---

## 2. The Perfect Asset

**What it looks like**: Endless refinement pursuing perfection. "Just a few more tweaks." Polish on polish. Missed deadlines for marginal improvements.

**Why it seems good**: Quality matters. We want it to be right. Professional standards.

**Why it fails**: Perfect is the enemy of shipped. Diminishing returns on refinement. Missed opportunities while perfecting. Audiences rarely notice the difference between 90% and 100% polish.

**What to do instead**: Define "good enough" before starting. Time-box refinement. Ship then iterate. Marginal improvement isn't worth missed deadlines.

---

## 3. Spec Work Culture

**What it looks like**: Asking agencies or freelancers to create full creative before awarding project. "Show us what you'd do, then we'll decide."

**Why it seems good**: See actual work before committing. Reduces risk.

**Why it fails**: Devalues creative work. Best talent refuses. Quality of spec work rarely matches committed work. You get quantity of ideas without quality of execution.

**What to do instead**: Pay for pitches or paid trials. Portfolio review + interview. Small paid test project. Respect that creative work has value.

---

## 4. Reference Dependence

**What it looks like**: "Make it like the Apple ad." "We want the Nike feel." Creating based entirely on references to other brands' work.

**Why it seems good**: Clear communication. Proven approaches. Aspirational quality.

**Why it fails**: You can't be distinctive by copying. Other brand's creative serves their strategy. Surface-level copying misses the underlying strategy. End up with knock-offs.

**What to do instead**: References as conversation starters, not templates. Extract principles, not executions. Ask "what do you like about this?" Develop your own distinctive approach.

---

## 5. Big Reveal Syndrome

**What it looks like**: Working in isolation until the "big reveal." No check-ins. Present finished work for approval.

**Why it seems good**: Don't want to show unfinished work. Maintain creative mystique. Big impact presentation.

**Why it fails**: Major misalignment discovered at the end. Expensive revisions. Stakeholder feels excluded. "That's not what I wanted" when too late to change.

**What to do instead**: Frequent check-ins at low fidelity. Show concepts before production. Get alignment on direction before investing. No surprises in final presentation.

---

## 6. Template Tyranny

**What it looks like**: Using templates for everything because they're efficient. Every piece of content fits the same format. Creativity constrained to fill-in-the-blank.

**Why it seems good**: Efficient. Consistent. Fast turnaround.

**Why it fails**: Everything looks the same. No differentiation. Templates optimize for production, not impact. Audience fatigue.

**What to do instead**: Templates for commoditized content. Custom work for hero moments. Balance efficiency with impact. Regularly refresh templates.

---

## 7. Reaction-Driven Creative

**What it looks like**: Changing creative based on every piece of feedback or performance data. Pivoting direction with each comment. "This stakeholder didn't like it, change it."

**Why it seems good**: Responsive. Data-driven. Stakeholder satisfaction.

**Why it fails**: No creative direction survives constant changes. Each reaction contradicts the last. Creative becomes incoherent. Team can't do their best work.

**What to do instead**: Aggregate feedback before acting. Look for patterns, not individual reactions. Trust creative direction unless data is overwhelming. Change based on strategy, not noise.

---

## 8. Efficiency Over Impact

**What it looks like**: Optimizing creative operations purely for cost and speed. Cheapest production always wins. Fastest turnaround is best.

**Why it seems good**: Budget responsibility. Rapid execution. Measurable efficiency.

**Why it fails**: Cheap creative is often ineffective creative. The cost of failed creative exceeds the savings. Impact per dollar matters more than cost per asset.

**What to do instead**: Measure effectiveness, not just efficiency. Invest where impact is high. Accept higher cost for higher-stakes creative. Efficiency serves effectiveness, not the reverse.

---

## 9. Channel Blindness

**What it looks like**: Creating creative without understanding where and how it will be consumed. Designing for the design screen, not the platform.

**Why it seems good**: Focus on the craft. Let the channel team figure out distribution.

**Why it fails**: Creative that doesn't fit the context. Designs that look great in Figma but fail on mobile. Ignoring sound-off, thumb-stopping, scroll behavior.

**What to do instead**: Start with channel understanding. View creative in actual platform context. Design for how people actually experience the channel. Channel constraints inform creative, not vice versa.

---

## 10. The Solo Genius Model

**What it looks like**: Believing creative is the work of individual geniuses whose vision shouldn't be challenged. Star creative director dictates everything.

**Why it seems good**: Clear vision. Strong creative direction. Respect for talent.

**Why it fails**: Single point of failure. Good ideas from anywhere get ignored. Team doesn't grow. Creative serves ego, not strategy.

**What to do instead**: Collaborative creative with clear leadership. Ideas can come from anyone. Creative director synthesizes, not dictates. Diverse input improves output.

---

## 11. Launch and Leave

**What it looks like**: Shipping creative and moving on. No performance tracking. No iteration based on results. Create, launch, forget.

**Why it seems good**: Move fast. Always creating new. Avoid overthinking.

**Why it fails**: No learning from what works. Repeat mistakes. Miss optimization opportunities. Creative doesn't improve over time.

**What to do instead**: Track creative performance. Learn from results. Iterate on what works. Kill what doesn't. Build institutional knowledge.

---

## 12. Brand Police Overreach

**What it looks like**: Brand guidelines so rigid that no creative flexibility exists. Every deviation rejected. Guidelines that prevent good creative.

**Why it seems good**: Brand consistency. Protecting the brand. Standards matter.

**Why it fails**: Guidelines meant to enable become constraints that disable. Best creative often bends rules thoughtfully. Over-policing kills creativity and creates adversarial relationship.

**What to do instead**: Guidelines with principles, not just rules. Room for thoughtful deviation. Brand review as collaboration, not policing. Trust creative partners.
