Each member of the internal team prefers a different style: choose based on criteria.
Disagreements in preferences within the team are normal, but mishandling them can lead to a bland campaign that serves no one.
Do not choose a direction based on personal preference or majority vote; establish a set of criteria based on the core message and target audience from the outset, and use that criteria to evaluate each direction. There should be one person responsible for the final decision, avoiding collective decision-making that obscures accountability. If internal discussions remain stalled, the most reliable arbitrator is feedback from the right target audience, not the preferences of the highest-ranking person in the room.
- real estate regarding the criteria set to address the target
- real estate that clarifies the core message before retreating strategy
- extending the experiment quickly with real subjects to gather data
- choose the safest direction for the ballot without being the weakest
- The person with a high position may personally conceal strategic objectives
When the concept review session ends and each person in the room prefers a different direction, the most natural feeling is to find a way to compromise or vote quickly. Both paths lead to the same outcome: a bland campaign, unclear voice, and failure to serve the original goals. The issue is not that the team disagrees, but that the disagreement is handled emotionally rather than based on principles.
Why voting doesn't solve anything
Majority voting in a creative meeting has a fundamental issue: each person votes based on their own taste, not the campaign's goals. Those who prefer minimalistic visuals vote for a minimalistic direction. Those accustomed to colorful ads vote for a vibrant direction. The result reflects the composition of the room that day, not the target audience outside.
More dangerously, voting creates an illusion of consensus. After voting, the losing side still does not truly believe in the chosen direction, leading to half-hearted implementation or continued attempts to steer it back in their favor in every small detail afterward.
Arbitration tool: criteria before direction
How to escape the cycle of emotional debate by establishing evaluation criteria before exploring options. Sinh Vũ often uses Kantar's Meaningful, Different, Salient framework (meaningful to the audience, different from competitors, easily recognizable and memorable) as a filter. For each option, the team answers these three questions specifically, avoiding vague responses.
- Is it meaningful to the target audience: does this approach resonate with what they care about, or is it just appealing to those in the room?
- Difference from competitors: If you remove the logo, could this direction belong to any brand?
- Is it easily recognizable and memorable? Can this direction build a distinctive asset that lasts over time?
When the team answers these three questions for each direction, the discussion shifts from "I like" to "how does this direction meet the criteria better in what way?" This is a conversation that can be resolved.
A final decision-maker: cannot lack.
Clear criteria are necessary but not sufficient. A person with decision-making authority is still needed, usually the creative director, marketing director, or project owner. This role is not to impose personal taste but to break deadlocks when the criteria have been sufficiently considered but the team still cannot reach a consensus.
Collective decision-making may seem safe because no one has to take responsibility if things go wrong, but that is precisely its problem. When no one is accountable, projects drift, progress slows, and the final direction often becomes the one with the least opposition, not necessarily the best.
When internal discussions are at an impasse: the real subject acts as the referee.
If the criteria have been used and there is a final decision-maker but a direction still can't be reached, that deadlock usually means the two directions are actually very close in quality, or the core message isn't clear enough to resolve the issue.
In this case, instead of continuing to debate, Sinh Vũ encourages quick experimentation with the right target audience: have a small representative group view two directions and gather specific feedback. This does not need to be large-scale market research. A few real conversations with typical customers are often enough to uncover insights that an entire internal meeting could not.
Common errors and the price to pay
- Combining directions: taking part A from one direction and part B from another so that everyone sees their input used. The result is something lacking a unified logic, not strong in any direction.
- The high-ranking person with a personal preference: The CEO or director chooses a direction they like without providing reasons linked to objectives. The team silently accepts but does not truly believe. Implementation lacks enthusiasm.
- No one dares to finalize: projects drag on through many rounds of minor edits, gradually eroding to the point where the original idea is unrecognizable.
A great advertisement cannot be created by a committee.
David Ogilvy
The viewpoint of Sinh Vũ
When working with the client's internal team, Sinh Vũ places the core message and evaluation criteria on the table right from the first meeting, before presenting any direction. This is not to control the process, but to ensure that the subsequent direction-setting meeting is based on objectives rather than individual preferences.
The creative leadership role of Sinh Vũ is to protect a strong direction from being diluted, and to provide reasoning based on principles rather than emotional arguments. As a neutral third party, Sinh Vũ also helps to resolve internal tensions that can be difficult to address directly among those within the organization.
Decision checklist
Topic: Which direction to choose when each team member prefers a different style. Sinh Vũ guide, sinhvu.com
Select each item you find appropriate, then print or save as PDF to take with you.
If you have marked most of the signs above, this is the time to discuss in more detail. Sinh Vũ can help you review and propose a direction.
References
Mark Ritson, Distinctiveness is marketers' main challenge, Marketing Week; Kantar, Meaningful Different Salient framework; David Ogilvy, Quotations of David Ogilvy.
Frequently asked questions
Should we combine both directions to make both sides happy?
No. Combining two directions to please everyone often results in a mediocre outcome that lacks the strength of either direction. Each direction has its own logic, and mixing them breaks that logic. Choosing one direction and defending it with clear reasoning is much better than creating something called 'the best of both worlds'.
Is majority voting within the team a fair way to make a decision?
Majority voting may seem democratic but often selects the safest direction, not the strongest. Voters rely on their feelings rather than the campaign's objectives. A better approach is to agree on criteria first, then use those criteria to evaluate each direction based on evidence.