Each member of the internal team prefers a different style: choose based on criteria.

When the presentation ends and everyone in the room prefers a different direction, the natural feeling is to find a compromise or vote quickly. Both paths lead to the same outcome: a bland campaign, unclear voice, and failure to meet the original goals. The issue lies not in team disagreement, but in handling that disagreement 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.

Judging tool: separating taste from criteria

The way to escape the cycle of emotional debate is to record all feedback in a table, with each line containing the speaker's name and role, then ask each piece of feedback one question: which criterion in the brief does it point to? If it does, that is feedback based on incorrectness and must be addressed. If not, it is feedback based on dislike.

A commonly used framework for filtering criteria is Kantar's Meaningful, Different, Salient (meaningful to the audience, different from competitors, easily recognizable and memorable):

• 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 lasting identity asset over time?

For feedback based on dislike, ask further: does it reflect a new and important criterion? If so, that changes the brief, and the scope needs to be recorded and discussed again. If it remains a matter of taste, the professional should clarify what is lost by making changes according to it, and then the decision-maker chooses. The taste of those without decision-making power should be acknowledged, but not automatically included in the revisions. At that point, the debate shifts from "I like this" to "how does this direction meet the criteria," leading to a productive conversation.

One decision-maker: cannot be missing

Clear criteria are necessary but not sufficient. A decision-maker is still needed, usually the creative director, marketing director, or business owner. This role is not to impose personal taste, but to break the deadlock when the criteria have been sufficiently considered and the team still cannot agree, and to bear the cost of choosing based on taste if that is the chosen path.

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 team has separated taste from criteria, and there is a decision-maker but still no direction is reached, that deadlock often means the two directions are close in quality, or the core message is not clear enough to make a judgment.

In this case, instead of continuing the debate, try quickly with the right target audience: show a small representative group two directions and gather specific feedback. This does not need to be a large-scale market research study. A few genuine conversations with typical customers are often enough to uncover insights that the 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.
• Address all feedback in the order it comes: after three rounds, no one remembers which proposal is solving which problem.
• High-ranking individuals impose their taste: choosing the direction they prefer without providing reasons linked to the goals. 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

This article is for reference. The scope, pricing, and specific commitments of Sinh Vũ are detailed in the proposal and signed contract.