creative conversations - an integrative approach to co-creativity

8/17/2019 Creative Conversations - An Integrative Approach to Co-Creativity

1/113

2


2/113

1

Contents

Acknowledgments 4

Introduction

Introduction 6-8 Literature Review

Part 1 - Integrated Marketing and Communications (IMC) – An Exploration of Theories and

Concepts

IMC – A Marketing Perspective 10-11

Figure 1. The IMC Process Model 11

IMC - Within a Socio-Theoretical Framework 12

Problematic Integration (PI Theory) 13-14

IMC – As Process 14-16

Figure 2. IMC Strategy Hierarchy 15

Part 1.1 Creative Collaborations/Stakeholder Engagement – Layers within LayersStakeholder Management/Engagement/Involvement Theory 17-18

Figure 3. Power/Interest Matrix 19

Creating and Developing Authentic Relationships – a dialogic approach 19-22

Figure 4. Attributes of Dialogic Engagement 19

Figure 5 Stakeholder Salience Model

21

The Business-to-Business Relationship 22-23

Figure 6. B2B Relationship Marketing 22

Defining and Measuring Relationship Quality in the B2B Relationship 23-25

The Client/Agency Relationship 25-27 Part 2 Deconstructing Discourse During the Creative Collaboration Process

The Role of Visual Discourse in the Co-Creative Process 27-29

Figure 7. Perception Integration ™ Feedback Diagram 28

Tools of the Trade - Channels and Management Systems Used to

Mediate the Co-Creative Process 30-31

Part 2.2 Communications and Discourse Structure – Organisational Discourse

Defining Organisational Discourse 32-33

The Role of Organisational Discourse in the field of Communications 33-34


3/113

2

3. Research Report

Research Methodology 36

Figure 8. Research Process Map 36

Research Philosophy 37 Research Process 37

Communications Auditing – Team Structure and

Orders of Discourse 37-38

Data Collection and Content Analysis 39

Evaluating Perceptions 39-40

Figure 9. Question/Option Matrix 39

3.1 The Case Study –

Creative 1 Place in Print 41

Business Model 41

Figure 10. Place in Print 41 Business Model

Creative 2 Pate On Toast 42

The Brief 42

Figure 11. Partner/Activity Matrix 42

The Channels used to Mediate the Process 42

Perception Integration™ 43

Figure 12. Perception Integration™ 43

Open Coding – identified themes 43-44

Final Questionnaire – Perceptions of the final product 44 3.2 Evaluation

Business Model 45

Shared Language 45-46

Responsibilities 46

Perception Integration™ 46

Channels 47

Figure 13. Email Exchange

Bar Chart 48

Other Technology 48

Identified Themes 48-49 The Role of Visuals 50

Questionnaire 51-52

3.3 Conclusion 53-55

Bibliography 57-63

Appendix

Learning and Reflection Journal (PDP) 65-80

Research Methodology (extension) 81-85 The Case Study (Illustrations and email exchange) 86-99


4/113

3

Administration 100-109

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


5/113

4

I would like to express my thanks to the following individuals;

My dissertation supervisor Rudiger Thielmann, for his support, guidance and patience

throughout the research journey. Ed Povey (Place in Print) and Paul Pateman (Pate on

Toast) for agreeing to take part in the research and keeping me updated on their

progress. (Thanks guys)!


6/113

5

CREATIVE CONVERSATIONS -AN INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION


7/113

6

Introduction

In understanding how the integrative process in creative communications evolves, the element of

discussion and collaboration during the process plays an integral part in the creation of marketing

collateral1. The conversations and channels used to communicate a vision, steer and influence (to a

large extent) the outcome of a specif ic project. The perception of “success” as defined by the client

and the creative is dependent on whether;

Both visions of the final product have converged

The key messages and objectives of a particular project have been successfully translated from

business to business

The target audience has a positive perception of the final product and subsequent interest in the

product demonstrated by purchase or observation. (Dependent on the objectives of the business)

Taking an integrative approach to communications, the concept of Integrated Marketing and

Communications (IMC) and engagement play an important role in collateral development.

Understanding how relationships are formed and how the structures operate cohesively and

differentially, an emerging picture can be evaluated in order to form conclusions about how structural

discourse and the integration of different elements within the discourse are compounded during the

co-creative process.

Visuals and language are utilised to support co-creative relationships in various ways throughout the

marketing collateral production journey. The objective being to convey an organisation's image, deliver

a message or support a brand. The conversations (discourse) that take place during the creative

process -on many different levels- are designed to ensure that there is a mutual understanding that will

lead to an end product that both businesses will be satisfied with.

The creative will employ varying discourse during the process dependent on their role in a project. A

major component within this discourse will be the use of images and text to communicate visions,

ideas and concepts based on the business’ initial requirements outlined during the briefing phases of a

project.

1 Marketing Collateral is defined as the end product supporting an organisation’s message and brand, e.g. publications, website, brochure.

etc.


8/113

7

The ensuing discourse is also dependent on the tools or channels used to present the material during

the developmental phase.

The interdependent or interdisciplinary approach chosen for this research and the subsequent analysis

and evaluation reflects the multifaceted and flexible nature of the creative collaborative process.

Taking into consideration that co-creation as a definitive area of study within the communications field

is not clearly defined as an individual and separate subject area, it can be observed that the

collaborative process involves the use of IMC techniques to assist co-creative endeavours. It is

therefore my objective in the literature review to outline different IMC theories which contribute to the

overall co-creative process in a business to business relationship, noting the correlative integrative

factors contained within the scope of the research project.

It should be noted that the research is not solely about creativity, but seeks to delineate, define and

evaluate the processes and structures in place, which support the creation of a product.

Valuable insights can be gained through evaluating the co-creative process from conception through to

finality including how the stakeholder relationship develops, the tools and channels used to mediate

the process and the conversations that support the creation of marketing collateral. The perceptions of

success and failure are -in part- dependent on the relationships built and the discourses used during

the process.

The literature review covers the spectrum of IMC concepts and theories, drawing on different

perceptions and models of integration and observing how different stakeholders engage with an

organisation. The analysis of the co-creative approach draws on the themes of dialogue, creativity and

discourse structure within the business-to-business relationship. Part 1 of the review is a journey

through the concepts and theories of IMC at a micro and macro level, delving into dialogic engagement

(which forms the basis of stakeholder relationships), definitions and theories concerning the business-

to-business relationship and an exploration of the working relationship.


9/113

8

Part 2 explores the theory of discourse beginning with the role of visual discourse and how this is used

in combination with text to produce meaning during the co-creative process. Tools of the Trade (a

subheading under Part 2) observes how Information Communications Technology (ICT) plays a pivotal

role in the formation of interpersonal relationships, followed by definitions of organisational discourse

and its correlation with the field of public relations.

NB. Due to the continually evolving nature of the marketing and communications arena and the

expansion and integration of fields, academic references employ the use of different terminology to

describe the same subject area, therefore Public Relations (PR) and Communications as ‘fields’ of

enquiry are used interchangeably in the following review unless explicitly stated.


10/113

9

PART 1 -MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS; A

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

PART 2 - STAKEHOLDER ENGAGMENT

LITERATURE

REVIEW


11/113

10

Part 1 - Integrated Marketing and Communications (IMC) – An Exploration of Theories and Concepts

Marketing and Communications’ integration can be defined in terms of developing a cohesive structure

within a set paradigm. The term or definition has numerous meanings and inferences dependent on

the context in which it is used and these meanings or perceptions can be associated with structural

definition, organisational flow, integrated management systems or varying combinations of all three.

Kitchen and Schultz (2009) note that the term is yet to be defined and the application and perception

of the term is dependent on the user, furthermore they also make reference to the fact that there are

more IMC “voices” than ever before. The point however, is to observe integration within marketing and

communications as a means to provide a systematic and measurable approach to communications

practices and -for the purposes of this research- to evaluate the processes leading to the final

marketing collateral.

A Marketing Perspective

The marketing perspective of IMC places integration at the epicentre of gaining an understanding of

the target audience. Yeshin, T (2003 in Baker, M 2003) notes that if the consumer is placed at the

centre of activity, understanding consumer behaviour is essential and this involves more than the

consideration of the message itself.

Taking a broader view of IMC, Hutton, G (2001 quoted in Heath, R 2001 pg. 209) makes reference to the

debate between traditional marketing techniques and the convergence with public relations and refers

to IMC as “a wild card that has complicated the relationship between the 2 disciplines”. In some ways

this supports Problematic Integration theory (PI theory)2 as IMC, in this particular instance is viewed

from the perspective of creating a dissonance between 2 practices inferring that the role of the

practitioner takes on a problem solving dimension. Hallahan, K (2007 in Toth, E pg. 311) notes the

disparity between public relations and marketing, observing that marketing theorists are more open to

developing a connection to other disciplines and suggesting that IMC provides a “paradigmatic

alternative to public relations”

2See pg.13 for further information on PI Theory


12/113

11

Olander and Selin (2002) offer 3 clear definitions of communication's integration from a marketing

perspective;

1. The market control of marketing communications

2. Ensuring that the brand position, personality and messaging are delivered synergistically across

every element of communications and are delivered from a single consistent strategy

3. The strategic analysis, choice, implementation and control of all elements of marketing and

communications, which efficiently, economically and effectively influence transactions between

an organisation and its existing and potential customers and clients

Supporting Olander and Selin’s vision of IMC within the marketing paradigm, Briggand et al (2004) note

that IMC consists of customer centric processes defining the relationship as circular rather than linear.

Duncan (2002 quoted in Briggand et al 2004) proposed an IMC process model outlining the

cross-functional process contained within IMC.

Figure 1

The IMC Process Model (Duncan 2002)


13/113

12

Duncan’s model illustrates the flow of considerations involved in co-creativity. The considerations

highlighted in the diagram are also taken into account from an organisational discourse perspective and

form part of a conscious or unconscious process during the creative process.

IMC within a Socio-Theoretical Framework

Outside of the corporate view of IMC, an alternative perspective coming from a sociological context

focuses on 'integration' from the position of the individual. Wigand, R (2006) observes integration in

terms of how individuals come together within a group. Blau, (1960) looks at integration from the

perspective of “bonds of attraction uniting members”. Interpersonal bonding theory, which Varey, R

(2002) observes derives from Carl Rogers school of thought, notes that bonding in individual

relationships can also be transferred to marketing in terms of behaviour and attitudes; encouraging

trusting bonded relationships and using a mix of resources to foster mutually beneficial commitment in

support of creation value. This inherently supports the idea that the PR field is as much concerned with

the individual if taken within the context of groups or organisational activities. It could be argued that

sociology underpins all communications, therefore the roots or basis in which public relations

practitioners operate derive from an individualistic stance before corporate structures are taken into

consideration.

Hallahan, K (1999) aptly refers to public relations work as “the construction of social reality”. This view

draws upon a constructivist approach; which Hallahan notes is derived from the symbolic

interactionism school of sociology. This particular school of thought focuses on human behaviour in

terms of how people interact and their “use of symbols to create meaning.” Hallahan’s framing devices

within the context of public relations seeks to define the psychological processes through which

meaning is created. It could be argued that the co-creative relationship is concerned with generating a

specific meaning (as shown through the end product) and the development of a product takes shape

through a combination of different perceptions adhering to the concept of shaping and defining

meaning. The sociological reference contained in this perspective places the PR practitioner (or creative

for the purposes of this research) in the role of creating meaning for a target audience. Hallihan notes

that this could be viewed as manipulation, however it would depend on the ethical stance of the PR

practitioner and the boundaries of framing utilised.


14/113

13

Problematic Integration Theory (PI Theory)

Problematic Integration (PI) theory is also concerned with the way in which communications are

integrated. The cross fertilisation of PI theory broadens the context of communications moving it

beyond the discipline and practice led theoretical framework and extending the definition of

communications as a dialogic and interpersonal activity encompassing a range of dilemmas.

Babrow, A (2006) defines PI theory in terms of “dilemmas of integration and seeking solutions which

transform those problematic integrations”. Bradac, J (2006) notes that the key components of

integration theory as described by Babrow (1992) relate to complexity, dynamism and simultaneity. He

notes that communications is integral to PI processes and that it is a source, medium and resource in

experiences with problematic integration.

Communications (as a discipline or practice operating within a field) seeks to address “issues” of

communication from a macro and micro level and understanding the complexities in interpersonal

communications (which could be defined as operating on the micro level) can go some way in

addressing dissonances in integration. This theory somewhat turns other theoretical models contained

within the socio-theoretical framework on their heads, however the means of addressing problematic

integration are perhaps very similar if not the same when looking at the resources and tools available

to the practitioner within the field.

It could be argued that IMC (from a practice perspective) is concerned with reducing uncertainty and

problematic integration sits within the theoretical boundaries of uncertainty theory. Babrow makes

reference to the potentialities that exist in the “cross fertilisation” of disciplines – specifically PI theory

with communications, and notes IMC’s broad conceptual definition encompassing ideology, as well as

structure and theory. From an organisational perspective, McPhee and Zaug (2006) refer to social

constructs pertaining to organisational structures through institutional process (and its participants) as

stimulating problematic integration. They go on to acknowledge members of organisations and

subgroups within the organisation, noting that different members learn different facts, have different

issues and strive to meet different goals. This could be taken to define stakeholder relationships and


15/113

14

the importance of understanding and addressing stakeholder needs3

On a practical level, practitioners may conduct a communications audit as part of an overall strategic

plan in order to define the role of public relations within an organisation, as well as draw upon the use

of stakeholder maps to observe the various interdependencies between groups and individuals that are

connected to an organisation in order to understand how these people function, thereby defining the

probability of successful engagement and enabling the practitioner to reach their stakeholders at

different levels using integrative approaches.

There are different views and perspectives regarding the definition of IMC, which come under the

scrutiny of diverging/converging practices. Hutton, G (2001) quoted in Heath, R 2001 pg. 209) observes

that the definition is superfluous, but the underlying factors connecting the numerous translations of

IMC within the conceptual framework defines integrative factors as being synergistic in nature and

function in contrast with a practice which is dissonant and component led, or what Brignell et al (2004)

define as “separate marketing functions operating with varying degrees of autonomy”. The fluidity in

the usage of the definition implies a certain amount of adaptability within whatever framework this

concept can be applied to.

IMC as Process

IMC in conceptual terms is an emerging and fairly new trend borne from the necessity for

communications practitioners to develop more cohesive, or seamless structures within their working

practices. This has become even more relevant with the technological boom. Prior to this new

concept, marketing and communications was lead via segmentation of audiences and segmentation of

tools and channels to reach those audiences. Fill, C (2008) suggests a framework for the strategic

management of integration, whilst acknowledging that identifying appropriate elements may not be

ideal. The diagram on the following page demonstrates some of the considerations taken within an

IMC strategy.

3 See Stakeholder Engagement Theory pg. 17-18


16/113

15

Figure 2

Adapted from Fill, C (2009) Marketing and Communications – Interactivity, Communities and Content

Pg. 258

An alternative view of IMC from a process perspective observes IMC in terms of a feedback loop that

creates what Broderick & Pickton define as brand equity.

Sender – Message - Media – Receiver - Receiver response – Brand equity.

In this instance, IMC is placed within the framework of customer relationship and brand management.

Kitchen and Procter (2002) also view IMC within this context marking a differentiation between

marketing communications and corporate communications with a call to “travel the road together” in

terms of exploring IMC in conceptual terms. Duncan & Caywood (quoted in Moore and Thorson 1992)

note that IMC is a concept and a process; they also make reference to both the concept and process

being in a state of evolution.

IMC Strategy


17/113

16

Whilst IMC as a process can be defined and demonstrated within various contexts, these variables

themselves determine the structural processing contained within the definition. Hughes, G (2009

quoted in Tench, R & Yeomans, L 2009 pg. 500) notes that the term “integrated” is open to

interpretation which include “co-ordinated, holistic, embedded and combined” they observe that

whatever term is used [within various contexts] success is measured in terms of effectiveness and

addressing those terms produces measurable results.

Heath and Coombs (2006) use the MAPs approach in terms of defining integration within an

organisation as a means to “integrate communications into one planning system” The Maps approach

observes internal and external contact points in an organisation giving the practitioner an overview of

interrelated systems, people and functions. Baines, P et al (2004) place the communications audit

within the strategic process of IMC, following a similar approach to Heath and Coombs.

Taking into account the levels and sub levels contained within the definition, IMC can be viewed

through a macro and micro lens. Caywood, C (1997) looks at communications ’ integration or what he

terms as public relations Macro/Micro Integration at 4 different levels.

Societal Integrations

Corporate Structure Integrations

Management Function Integration and

Stakeholder Relationships Integration

These definitions of Macro and Micro level integration structures are again dependent on the context

within which they are defined. Kitchen, P et al (2009) suggest that IMC needs further exploration

within the framework of business practices, one of which is stakeholder engagement, explored in the

next section.


18/113

17

Part 1.1 Creative Collaborations/Stakeholder Engagement – Layers within Layers

Stakeholder Management/Engagement/Involvement Theory

Stakeholder engagement and involvement is a crucial element and key consideration for any

organisation. Engagement, ideology, politics and the economy are determinants that form the basis

and structure of this theory and practice. Gregory, A (2004) describes the interdependency between

stakeholders and organisations, noting that organisations are dependent on a group who can affect or

is affected by the actions, decisions, policies, practices or goals of an organisation. Supporting this

definition of engagement, Cornelissen, J (2011) notes that those who generally influence or affect, or

are influenced and affected by the organisation define stakeholder groups.

The 2 definitions highlight the co-dependency between organisation and “other(s)” and the

acknowledgment, understanding and internal organisation (or categorisation) of stakeholders supports

an organisation's business practice. The term stakeholder (to have a stake in) has broad implications

and there are various matrices that can be formed to express a categorisation process within the

stakeholder landscape that support the organisation in defining the people and groups who are

connected, either internally or externally to the organisation. As noted in the introduction of this

research project – definitions of the term stakeholder are relevant and even though this particular term

may not be recognised or used in some fields to describe a co-creative or collaborative relationship, it

can be argued that stakeholder theory, as well as the theoretical model associated with the Business -

to - Business relationship (see pgs. 22-27) is equally relevant to the exploration of the subject.

It has been implied that the term ‘stakeholder’ has evolved over recent years with the stakeholder

previously being defined as an individual who had a financial tie, or stake in the organisation, (such as a

shareholder or stockholder). Kruckenburg & Stark (2001) observe the differentiation (and similarities)

between the stakeholder and the stockholder – both being integral in terms of accountability of profit

and loss. The stockholder/shareholder’s interests lay in financial and economical considerations,

however the stockholder/shareholder is also a stakeholder, so this term has been used to define

anyone who has an interest (financial or otherwise) in an organisation.


19/113

18

This implies that the term itself has broadened - becoming more inclusive in view of what stakeholders

represent and the contributions and interests they hold, which Cornelissen notes ranges from

economic to moral interests and anything in-between.

The definition of stakeholder within the context of the research conducted was interesting. The

research highlighted that the relationship between client and creative (or creative and creative in this

instance) conferred an equal status if we observe this through the lens of the stockholder/shareholder

parameter. Whilst a 'Lead' within the research project could be identified, both parties had an equal

financial vested interest in ensuring that the project was successful due to the structure of the

businesses involved and the commission based agreement between the 2 collaborators. It can also be

argued that a different business model would have the same or similar objectives, however the

perceptual differences and understanding of the target audience between the 2 stakeholders can be

further defined by the Perception Integration diagram. (Pg.’s 28/43)

Stakeholder Mapping: Purpose, Process & Planning – Defining the Stakeholder Landscape

Whilst it is important to define the stakeholder in conceptual terms and acknowledge the important

role that stakeholders play in any organisation, it's also important to look at how those stakeholders are

visibly organised and categorised in an organisation. Freeman et al (2007) observe that businesses can

be defined by their relationships among groups who have a stake in the organisation.

Understanding and visualising the interconnected relationships give the organisation a framework that

can be used to add overall value through understanding the various interactions that take place.

Stakeholder mapping is relevant from an internal and external perspective. During the research

process, it was important to understand how the two businesses (stakeholders) interacted by mappingtheir connections at meso level (via visualisation using tacit knowledge rather than diagrammatic

representation) in order to gain a richer insight into the co-creative relationship and processes between

the 2 individuals. Tench and Yeomans (2009) make reference to the relevant factors that can be taken

into consideration during the mapping process, including impact, interest, expectations, needs and

power. They use the power/interest matrix to define stakeholder interest within a situational context

and the interpretation of stakeholders’ needs in order of importance and level of accountability can be

useful in determining specific levels of engagement within the stakeholder landscape.


20/113

19

Figure 3

Low HIgh

Adapted from Yeomans, L & Tench, R Stakeholder Power/Interest

Matrix Exploring Public Relations PG 185

Creating and Developing Authentic Relationships – a dialogic approach

Authenticity within the stakeholder relationship is an important component in developing reciprocal

trust with the people and networks connected to an organisation. The dialogic approach to

communications as described by Bebbington et al (2007) observes relationships as being reflexive in

nature. The pedagogic perspective taken in their paper contends that learner and teacher operate

within an interchangeable cycle in the transfer of knowledge. Bebbington et al illustrate the attributes

of Dialogic Engagement below;

H i g h

L o w


21/113

20

Figure 4 Attributes of Dialogic Engagement; Bebbington et al pg. 365

These attributes of dialogic engagement can be applied to communications practices. Piecska, M (2007)

writes extensively about the connections between public relations and dialogic expertise arguing that

dialogue is at the “conceptual centre of gravity” in public relations. Grunig (2001 quoted in Piecska, M

2008 pg. 109) notes that the two – way symmetrical model4 allows practitioners to use research and

dialogue to bring about symbiotic changes in the ideas, attitudes and behaviours of both their

organisations and publics. This infers that the dialogic approach to communications supports a process

of change, making it an active component within marketing and communications practice.

The concept of “dialogue” has its roots in many disciplines. Kent & Taylor (2002) make reference to

dialogic discourse being present in philosophy, rhetoric, psychology and relational communications.

This moves dialogic engagement beyond the strategy driven management approach and into the

realms of mutuality, respect and collaboration based on 2-way communications. This is perhaps why

dialogic engagement has also been closely associated with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or

authentic communications.

Relational Communications places an emphasis on the virtues and values contained within dialogic

exchange. Johannsen (1996) notes that Martin Buber’s dimensions of what is termed “true dialogue”

can be viewed as “ethical character, authenticity, inclusion, confirmation and “presentness“ but it could

also be argued that “dialogic engagement” is a neutral term and the way that is understood, perceived

and embedded into the public relations discipline is very much dependent on the practitioner.

Highlighting the dialogic approach, Cornelissen, J (2008) defines this as the “dialogue strategy” which

observes the different types of communication that exists from a symmetrical and asymmetrical

perspective.

4 Grunig’s interpretation and differentiation of the symmetrical models although classified in more detail correspond withCornelissen’s stakeholder salience model (see pg 23)


22/113

21

Figure 5

Informational strategy: One-way symmetrical model of communications

Persuasive Strategy: Two-way asymmetrical model of communications

Feedback

Dialogue Strategy: Two-way symmetrical model of communications

The Stakeholder Salience Model adapted from Cornelissen, J (2008) Corporate Communications pg.50

Grunig and White (2002 quoted in Kent & Taylor) refer to dialogic engagement as “conversations

between different groups”. They use the example of engagement and dialogue between a tobacco

company, smokers and anti smoking groups. Kent and Taylor also note that dialogue can be interpreted

as debate. In whichever way it is understood, the dialogic approach to communications fosters

collaboration at a level beyond monologic, push/pull mechanisms. Christians, C (1988) observes, in

what he terms the “dialogic tradition” that, taking this concept into account enables us to look at one-

way media and upstream signalling from a different perspective. He notes that an intellectual goal

centres on the premise of refinement and examination of our basic ideas about our freedom and

responsibility in different cultural settings. In whichever way dialogic engagement is viewed and

understood, the concept seeks to open up discussion or provide a framework for open forums in which,

it could be argued that stakeholders inform, develop and influence business processes and practices.

Organisation Stakeholder

Stakeholder

Organisation

Organisation

Stakeholder


23/113

22

Moss and Desanto (2011) refer to the four models devised by Grunig & Hunt, (1984) taking the use of

dialogue in communications’ practice and evaluating, not only “how far they used dialogue, but to

what end”. They viewed the 2-way symmetric approach to communication, -which involved genuine

open-ended discussion- more advanced. The concept or definition of dialogic engagement and the

'philosophical leanings' implied within many scholars’ definition, take this beyond the persuasive and

spin orientated view of public relations that -it could be argued-, has tainted the field. Moss & Desanto

also note that “Persuasion” communication ranging from spin, manipulation, propaganda and even

brain washing is a form of communications used to change attitudes and influence people.

The Business-to-Business Relationship

In defining stakeholder relationships, the Business-to-Business (B2B) relationship has been categorised

and analysed as a separate and distinct form of engagement that employs different levels of

relationship building. Blythe and Zimmerman (2005) note that, what they term “The business market”

includes organisations that buy goods and services that are sold, rented or supplied to others. They go

on to further define the business customer as one who buys on behalf of an organisation rather than

for personal purposes. Dwyer & Tanner (1999) observe that the business relationship goes beyond the

transactional and becomes more inclined towards partnerships. They go on to define the difference

between B2B relationships and consumer relationships, referring to the fact that demand in the B2B

arena is based on demand for consumer products [or consumption]. Ellis, N defines B2B marketing as

the activities of any organisation that has an exchange relationship with other organisations or

businesses.

Figure 6 – B2B Relationship Marketing Adapted from Ellis, N (pg.

69) B2B Relationship Marketing

B2B

Relationship

Marketing

Communication

Customer Service

Mutual Benefits

Commitment

Trust

Long term

Perspective


24/113

23

Taking into account that a differentiation lays within the process and theoretical concepts of managing

B2B relationships (which could arguably be applied to relationship building with stakeholders ingeneral, as each business is a stakeholder to the other) allows us to draw parallels between the 2

disciplines however, the theoretical concept of B2B relationships lays within the marketing arena.

Further distinctions are made between the research subjects’; creative (C1) and creative (C2)

relationship (the focus of this dissertation), explored further in the research report. ( Pgs 36-40)

Defining and Measuring Relationship Quality in the B2B Relationship

Measuring quality in terms of relationships can pose some difficulties, mainly because quality

(especially in relation to art and design) is relative and based on perception and personal taste.

Gummesson, E (1992) notes 5 generic types of quality definition. The ‘type’ worthy of note,

(specifically in relation to the theme of this dissertation) is Transcendent Quality Perceptions, which is

based on taste and personal preference. The other types are categorized, as Product Based Quality ,

Manufacturing Based Quality , User Based Quality and Value Based Quality. All are measurable and

related to the product and service as opposed to the relationship between businesses. Gummesson, E

(1992 quoted in Bowen, D et al 1992) also observed a chain of influence in the customer identification

process that affects quality dimensions;

Service provider A is a Customer to Service companies B C and D – their quality influences A's ability

to deliver to his customers E, F and G. Gummesson, E pg 178 in Bowen, D et al 1992

It could be argued that relationships within the B2B arena are an integrated feature in terms of

assessing and evaluating quality. Ennew & Woo (2004) note that there is some confusion or [different

perspectives] as to the directional relationship between relationship quality and service quality

offering a number of different theories relating to the subject. (See table on pg 24)


25/113

24

Author Theory

Crosby et al 1990 Stress that relationship marketing is critical

when the service is complex, delivered over a

continuous stream of transactions and involves

many relatively unsophisticated buyers

Smith 1998 Relationship quality is a central construct in the

relationship marketing literature

Naude and Buttle (2002) Within the rapidly expanding literature of

Business to Business marketing, supply chain

management, relationship marketing and

customer relationship management, there is

remarkably little attention paid to the issue of

relationship quality

Crosby et al (1990 quoted in Ennew and Woo 2004) also note that there are unresolved issues

between relationship and service quality. They make reference to the fact that there is a lack of

consensus regarding the dimensions of relationship quality, as well as noting that the directional link

between relationship quality and service quality is not defined. We could view this as a “chicken/egg”

scenario in terms of which dimension affects perceptions of service quality due to a lack of clear

consensus about what the consumer values most. The exploration of relational quality and product

quality would be an interesting study. Even though this falls outside of the dimensions of the research

conducted for the dissertation project, the author of this dissertation notes that there may be some

correlation. (The measurements would have to be perception based and a definitive conclusion would

be difficult to draw).

Auruskeviciene et al (2007) observe that the concept of relationship marketing and the correlations

between this type and transactional marketing are somewhat nebulous. Their research (conducted on

the IT market) show that all 4 types of approaches; transactional, database, relationship and network


26/113

25

are used fairly consistently in the B2B market with a slight emphasis on relationship marketing.

The correlation co-efficient showed that there was no difference between marketing types and

performance in terms of success however, there was bias towards using relationship marketing

(inclusive of network and database marketing which the authors place under the heading of

relationship marketing in accordance with Coviello's (1996 quoted in Auruskeviciene 2007) integrative

approach).

Gummesson, E (1992 quoted in Bowen, D et al 1992) brings a bit of ‘love’ into the quality dimension

debate describing quality as a matter of personality and a need for “care, compassion, ethics, tacit

understanding and intuition” Gummesson uses the word ‘love’ in the wider sense of the word stating

that quality needs to be approached from a deeper humanistic perspective. He takes this rather

religious and philosophical perspective of quality in marketing a step further by equating what he

terms “the golden rule of Christianity, Do unto others what you want others to do unto you!”

We can surmise that relationships within the B2B arena are the foundation of B2B marketing practices

going beyond the transactional and entering the sphere of social interactivity and mutual benefits.

The Client/Creative Agency Relationship

The Client/Agency relationship is another form of the Business-to-Business relationship however; there

are some key differences in terms of the function and relationship formation that adds further

emphasis to the notion of co-creativity.

An element of translation within the discourses occurs on both sides. McIver, C (nd Pg 15) notes that

“[an] agency’s creative department has to be the interpreter who translates one view point into terms

acceptable to the other” It is this translation which, could be argued occurs at both ends of the

relationship, that forms the foundation of the co-creative partnership. This translation process was

less evident in the research for this dissertation due to the fact that one creative commissioned

another creative to do the work. It was evident that both businesses working in the same field and

towards the same objectives used a shared language during the developmental phases of the work.

The mutual understanding of the software used to develop the work enabled both creatives to

“converse” using technical descriptors to support changes to the project, therefore interpretation was


27/113

26

not a requirement at this level. (Though it could also be argued that at another level, both businesses

still needed to convey their ideas in a way that was understandable to the other).

Hill et al (2006) note that; what they term “creative arts marketing” works through mutually satisfying

exchange, placing a particular value on reciprocity. Kamoun et al (2007) make reference to the

client/agency collaboration as being based on an “interactive relationship”, (this could also be defined

as the co-creative relationship) and service marketing viewed as taking an “interactionist approach.”

This implies that the relationship is very much based on the dialogic model using Grunig’s 2-way

symmetrical approach as a basis for developing the relationship. Supporting this theory, (Mills and

Marguiles 1980 quoted in Kamoun et al 2007) note that interaction lays the foundation of the

relationship and is defined as “an open system” in which an organisation has a direct influence on its

client and is itself influenced by its client’s behavior and characteristics. Quality in this instance then

becomes a measurement of relational success.

Paliwoda & West (2005) note that, within the client/agency relationship an appreciation of

interpersonal influences has progressed into literature, fusing the process between the buying and

supplying organisations. This suggests that the relationship is not simply a transactional one and

moves into the realm of co-production. They also make an interesting observation, correlating

interpersonal relationships within the client/agency relationship as a collaboration that reduces risk.

This infers that dialogue is important in establishing how a specific project will progress in relation to

key messages and objectives as defined by the 2 parties. The discourses are informed by the

participation and level of technical and creative understanding possessed by the client (as noted

above), as well as how much input the client will add to the overall process. This may not be easily

identifiable at the onset and could be a process that evolves alongside the co-creative process.

Paliwoda & West note that users (identified as the client side business) may wish to have greater

involvement in the creative process (especially if they are PR practitioners leading on the development

of a project) than is appreciated by the agency, however this would depend on other contributing

factors; e.g. how the agency wishes to work, the structures in place to accommodate different styles of

working and the relationship between the client and the agency. The research subjects for this

dissertation were 2 professionals in the same field working collaboratively with one professional

leading on the conceptualisation – this was interesting from an observational analysis perspective (with

the researcher also having design and client side experience). The use of language and terminology


28/113

27

used between the 2 specialists would obviously differ from a relationship with a client who had no

design experience – thereby changing the dynamic within the co-creative relationship.

Jung, J et al (2012) take a novel approach in deconstructing the client/agency relationship and observe

the collaboration as a potential learning experience. They make a correlation between learning and

the co-creation of a brand, placing an importance of knowledge garnered during the co-creative

process as an important component of the relationship. Whether clients enter into a contract with the

desire to ‘learn’ is debatable, though the recognition of the potential to gain additional knowledge,

whilst also working towards a final product may add value and as Jung, J et al note, could be used as an

alternative criterion in evaluating the agencies performance.

Part 2 - Deconstructing Discourse During the Creative Collaboration Process

The role of visual discourse in the co-creative process

The co-creative process operates on many different levels and the discourses employed throughout

these processes are a combination of different factors. These factors can be extended to visual

discourse, taking an integrative approach to analyzing the effect of text and imagery during the co-

creative process. Visual discourse is viewed as a language in itself and the analysis of art as a

communicative medium is valuable in understanding how different viewers perceive symbolic

references in collaboration with text.

Albers, P (nd) defines visual discourse analysis as “a theory and methodological approach to analysing

visual language.” Whilst creatives may not be aware of the discourse they use (from a theoretical

understanding or what Fairclough, N terms the technocalization of discourse5) with a client during the

creative process, the theory of semiotics which Albers, P describes as the exploration and nature of

signs or sign systems or systems that have distinct grammars like art, music or language [etc.] underlie

the communications process. Albers goes on to say that semiotics offers a way of thinking about how

language and visuals work together to produce meaning. Communicating a vision or what Candy et al

(2002) define as “the language of creative exchange” is a key determinant in defining the perceptions

within the co-creative relationship, which ultimately shapes and defines perceptions of success at the

end of the process.

5 The technocalization of discourse refers to the implementation, integration and training of discourse as a mode of studywithin a specific field or institution


29/113

28

Within the co- creative paradigm, Ambrose and Bilsen (2011 pg. 111) note “design is about the visual

display of specific messages for an intended audience”. Central to this is the meaning held by, and

attributed to the various visual elements; for example, text, images and illustrations. These meanings

as discourse structures or processes during the development of marketing collateral help to define and

assimilate the co-creative process.

At different stages in the production of material, creatives will employ the use of imagery, (with or

without text) to enhance a perspective, encourage creative visioning in their clients and to support

them in supporting their clients’ aim and objectives. In some ways, this necessitates a ‘layering’ of

interpretation and assimilation of visual and language discourse. In regards to the research subjects

evaluated in this dissertation, their project used a striking combination of word and imagery and it was

noted that presentation of these concepts were used at various stages throughout the process to

encourage further conversations and to develop the concept via an evolving process. The points at

which the concept was offered in order to gain feedback was noted and formed an important part of

the analysis.

The diagram below shows one example of target audience awareness feedback mechanisms. The first

arrow shows the creative’s perception of the client’s perception which act as a 2-way feedback process.

The client has a direct perception of the target audience and the creative, a distant perception

informed by the client about the target audience.

Figure 7

Creative Client Target Audience

INTEGRATION

Perception Integration™ Feedback Diagram J Samuel (2014)


30/113

29

The diagram shows one variable in which the creative/clients’ perception can be illustrated and

demonstrates the way in which the author of this research has conducted the co-creative relationship

in previous employments. The research conducted for this dissertation shows a different perception

integration flow observing a different level of perception from the one highlighted above, attributable

to the structure of both businesses and the commission based agreement. The integrative factor from

creative to target audience - in this instance- is less distant. (See pg 43)

We could surmise that the discourses (visual and text) and dialogue between client and agency are

dependent on the perceived messages as communicated from each party. The creative is reliant on the

client to know what their target audience requires and the client is reliant on the creative to turn this

vision into something concrete. Supporting this view, Muneratto, G (2007) makes reference to the

notion that “interpretation of reality is constantly filtered through the signs of everyday life.” In a study

observing the learning experiences of public relations students and the incorporation of practical and

theoretical knowledge of the design process, Muneratto observed the correlations between production

and communication. Migliore and Servetto (1998 In Muneratto, G 2007) surmise “It is a cognitive

experience which we could say amounts to the interpretation of visual lexicons and text that move the

creative process between collaborators towards an end goal”. As Muneratto, G notes; the “parameters

contained within that interpretation constitutes the real product towards which all the operators taking

part in the planning process strive”. This “cognitive experience” defines a level of understanding

spanning different interpretations and layers within the co-creative process. Marras (1998 in

Munerato, G 2007) interprets this process as “A deliberate act in which vision and knowledge are

interwoven in a single teaching”

During the actual dialogic process, the use of visual discourse can be defined in terms of what Feiner &

Zhou (1998) refer to as “a sequence of visual actions”. They explore visual discourse from a

programmer’s perspective observing discourse in terms of hierarchical structures that can be used

during different phases of the design process.

In summary, the sequential presentation of discourse, (visual, text or a combination of both) influences


31/113

30

how each separate component is translated, perceived and understood.

Tools of the Trade - Channels and Technology Used to Mediate the Co-Creative Process

Technology’s role in the formation of relationships, engagement and interaction (as noted by Heath et

al 2004) has not been researched in great depth. In what they term Human Computer Interaction

(HCI), they observe that there is a growing recognition that technology in action needs serious

consideration in regards to the way social and interactional “organisations” are used in the work place.

Content Management Systems (CMS) and Computer Mediated Communications (CMC) can play an

important role in the creation of material and thus influence the co-creative relationship and process.

CMS can be defined as technology which allow users to interact with each other using a common

interface which can be static or live. Changes to documents and projects are visible and editable by

both users dependent on permission settings which enable the ‘owner’ of the project to allow certain

groups and/or individuals to make changes, view changes or both dependent on their role in the

developmental process. This allows for a certain degree of control in regards to ensuring that

involvement is limited to people who are part of a project team, and flexibility in regards to allowing

people to participate and collaborate at different times where appropriate. CMC can be defined as the

technology used to engage and enable conversations to take place. (For the purposes of this particular

research project, this can be defined as emails and a cloud based transfer system used to facilitate the

co-creative process). It should be noted that CMC and CMS can be defined beyond the use of project

management and into the realm of online forums and discussions.

Borowski et al (2001) discuss the drawbacks in what they term the' traditional' method of working (e.g.

a dominant reliance on meetings and static channels) in a co-creative environment within a multi

disciplinary creative team. They note that a disconnection can occur at different points in the

'sequential' process of the project if stakeholders change elements within the design.

The “traditional” way of working without CMC or CMS would confer that meetings with separate

stakeholder teams at different times can be counterproductive as this does not reflect the 'real time'

status of the project. Borowski et al also observe that the next step is to turn “sequential design” into a

“parallel process” and CMS or CMC offer an integrative process within the life cycle of a project when


32/113

31

working within computer based management system. Kinns, Healey and Leech (nd) also make

reference to the fact that mutual engagement with a technological artefact allow each user to

participate in the changes being made through that particular tool. This could be defined as another

factor to take into consideration when evaluating the structure of discourse, which allows collaboration

to produce meaning and perceptions at another level. Supporting this theory, Heath et al (2004) note

that artefacts play a part in the accomplishment of “practical organisational conduct” use and the co-

ordination of technology and interaction. They also make reference to the fact that particular tools and

technologies support, enhance or transform what people do and the way that they do it.

Technology (specifically the role of technology within the creative agency) can therefore not be ignored

in terms of evaluating discourse at a structural and organisational level. The HCI (Human Computer

Interaction) and Innovation Policy Discourse Panel (Berziwska et al 2012) refer to what they term

innovation [in the arts] discourse as having the ability to inform HCI/arts on a conceptual level. In

observing the collaborative processes contained within HCI/arts and the ways in which they inform the

other, the panellists note that HCI can help to drive creative expression and “promote divergent

thinking and creative visions”. It should be noted however that technology only forms part of a cluster

of mediated tools and channels used during co-productive processes and face-to-face meetings and

telephone conversations are also relevant. Rollinson, D (2008) observes that effective communication is

dependent on numerous factors, listing a number of considerations to take into account when

assessing the channels used to communicate, including whether multiple channels are used, whether

the channel and medium permit rapid feedback to the message sender, the type of communication, the

language sources used and the variety of information cues available for establishing meaning.

All of these factors were noted during the collection of data for this research along with the absence of

specific technological mediums due to a lack of necessity to collaborate using sequential methods. The

absence of CMS to develop the product observed in the research report for this dissertation relates to

the relationship and structure of both businesses. CMS may have been utilised in an alternative

working environment where 2 creatives are designing a product side by side and making changes

together using technology which enables them to alter aspects of the design simultaneously. The

structure of the relationship informs the discourse within the co-creative relationship and is as relevant

in the analysis of organisational discourse as information technology. The businesses did however make

use of CMC during the co-creative process. (See Pg.30 for CMC and CMS definition)


33/113

32

Part 2.2 Communications and Discourse Structure – Organisational Discourse

Defining Organisational Discourse

Within the field of organisational communication, Clair, R et al (in Fairclough, N & Wodak, R 2010) make

reference to this particular theory of communications’ concern with the relationship between

discourse and the creation of social reality, observing the way in which discursive practices produce

shared meaning. Supporting this definition of organisational discourse, Chia, R (2009) notes that

meaning is carved from the “undifferentiated flux of raw experience and conceptually fixed and

labelled so it can become the common currency for communicational exchanges”. Chia, R goes on to

say, “Modern social reality with its all too familiar features has to be continually constructed and

sustained through such aggregative discursive acts of reality construction”. It is through the evaluation

of the interaction within the co-creative process that organisational discourse allows the researcher to

look at the key determinants that create successful relationships and products.

This formalising and deconstruction of what could be termed an intuitive process (intuitive in the sense

that some elements will be unconscious, unplanned and informally implemented) gives us insights into

what makes up a co-creative collaboration.

The immediate assumption is that organisational discourse is simply concerned with the way an

organisation (defined as members of a community including businesses) operate and how the

structures within that organisation work to produce meaning, or construct social reality amongst its

members, however organisational discourse can be viewed within a much broader framework, not

simply in the manner in which it is framed, but also in the actual terminology and understanding of

organisational structures. Chia, R makes the observation that it is inappropriate to assign organisational

discourse to the pre existing social object called “the organisation”. This view of discourse delves into

the epistemology and perception of the organisation. Chia makes a distinction between organisational

analysis (which is concerned with constructing the different elements that make up the organisation)

and organisational discourse.

Mease and Mumby (2010) make similar observations however, they define discourse in terms of macro

and micro levels in an attempt to “frame” the discourse organisation relationship. They define


34/113

33

discourse at the macro level as an interpretive factor driven by organisation members and at the micro

level in terms of interaction amongst members, though they also note that the 2 operate in a

“reciprocal and dialectical” way. Fairhurst, G et al (2008) note, “organisational discourse research is

conceptually and methodologically diverse”. This is immediately apparent from the research conducted

for this literature review, however this also introduces many possibilities within the field of research.

Fairhurst et al also observe that this versatility concerning the meaning implies “creative theorisation

and empirical work”, but in contrast can also lead to confusion.

There have been attempts to define discourse in linear terms within various frameworks. Fairclough, N

views discourse in terms of micro, meso and macro levels, Fairhurst, G et al define (D)iscourse (big D)

and discourse (little d) with (D) iscourse pertaining to “culturally standardised interpretive frames” and

(d)iscourse pertaining to “talk and text in situated organisational contexts”, there are however overlaps

and interchangeable elements within each definition.

The Role of Organisational Discourse in the Field of Communications

Discourse encompasses a number of concepts and interlinking theories. The role of organisational

discourse is multi-faceted and can be observed from a number of different directions. Barrett et al

(2004) refer to domains of discourse highlighting methodological and epistemological approaches to

discourse and studies of discourse as organising factors. Both approaches are relevant in the field of

public relations as both are concerned with communicative factors at a micro and macro level. Barrett

et al define organisational discourse as “a structured collection of texts embodied in the practice of

talking and writing – as well as visual representation and cultural artefacts” (relevant to the research

topic). Whilst what Fairclough has termed the technicalization of discourse (which refers to the

implementation of embedding the study of discourse into an organisation) may not add any inherent

value to public relations practitioners, researchers have the opportunity to look at the structures and

dialogic engagement that occurs. Deconstruction of discourse at this level can be useful in gaining

valuable information about engagement, as well as (on a macro level) sociological factors that influence

and drive the PR field.

Dialogue is often researched under the banner of discourse, which David Bohms (1996 quoted in Hardy

et al 2004) refers to “as a form of communication from which something new emerges”. This

‘emergence’ is worthy of note and the processes through which people; organisations and individuals

arrive at the creation of something new is the main area of research and analysis covered in this


35/113

34

dissertation.

Discourse and communications are often used interchangeably. Lemeke (1999 in Fairhurst et al 2008)

discusses discourse and communications in terms of encompassing a medium and its language and

visual content as collaborative parts of a larger semiotic system. Though there are similarities between

discourse and communications, it may be expedient to apply some linearity to the 2 fields, observing

them as separate components rather than a synonymous interchange supports defining research

criterion and Fairhurst et al’s perspective that “it is through discourse that language and

communication meet because discourse is language that is used for some communicative purpose”

appears to add some definition to 2 fields which they note both have “divergent meanings” within

themselves.

Dijik, T (2007) notes that the fields of discourse and communications have grown over the last few

decades, but each has grown as separate from the other with few connections being made between

the two disciplines. Analysing meaning through evaluating text, semantics and rhetoric within the

broader context of organisations and cultures infers a natural overlap between discourse and

communications, whether looking at discourse from the structural, critical or micro/macro level. This

variety broadens the scope in determining research methodology in accordance with the area of study.


36/113

35

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

THE CASE STUDY

EVALUATION

CONCLUSION

RESEARCH REPORT


37/113

36

Part 3 - Research Methodology

Main objective

To evaluate the key determinants which influence the co-creative process between 2 graphic

designers, (referred to as C1 and C2) during the production of marketing collateral from

conceptualization to conclusion.

Sub Objectives

To define successful co-creative collaborations through measuring perceptions.

To evaluate discourse at a structural level to determine how the order of discourse and the use

of technology inform the process.

Methodology

Using the single case study approach and employing grounded theory and identification of

themes through coding, the evaluation and research will analyse varying levels of discourse

between collaborators throughout the co-creative process.

Research Process Map


38/113

37

Figure 8 Research Process Map J Samuel (2014)

Research Philosophy

The objective of the research into co-creativity seeks to define the processes that lead to successful

collaborations within an agency setting. In exploring discourse structures at meso and macro level and

taking a phenomenological approach to gaining insight into perceptions of success, engagement and

co-production; the research seeks to explore -at different levels- the IMC approaches used during the

co-production of marketing collateral, observing dialogic engagement, technology, orders of discourse

and perceptions that enhance effective co-creative relationships, taking a holistic approach to research.

Research Process

LEVEL 1

Communications/business auditConceptualization of project

LEVEL 2

Levels of discourse throughout co-creative process

Data collection and content analysis

LEVEL 3

Final Interview

Evaluation

LEVEL 4

Conclusion


39/113

38

Level 1 - Communications Auditing -Team Structure and Orders of Discourse

The initial communications audit will focus on the organisational discourse within the creative agency.

An audit of the structure of the organisation in terms of the varying roles, as well as the technology

used by the agency will be conducted leading into the conceptualization or briefing phase of the

project, making note of the level of involvement each party has in developing the product.

Creative agencies work within different organisational structures. Whilst some agencies will operate

with one or two workers taking on multiple roles, other agencies operate within a larger multi-

disciplinary team structure meaning different individuals will lead on specific areas during the project's

development dependent on their area of expertise.

The structure of the team will influence the creative conversations that take place. Fairclough, N

(1995) describes this in terms of 'chain' relationships noting that there are chains of discursive practices

within and between orders of discourse, which transform in systematic ways.

The challenges posed in presenting the work during different phases of the project is largely dependent

on the structure of the team. This could be viewed as a discourse ‘structure’. Bieber et al (1998) define

this in terms of “a template for a discussion structure which allows individuals to classify their

contributions to the discussion into meaningful categories that structure their relevance and

significance according to the nature of the topic, the objective of the discussion and the characteristics

of the “group”. They refer to this categorisation in terms of creative management systems or what they

term “Computer Mediated Communications”.

NB

It should be noted that Bieber et al’ s (1998) and Health’s definition places CMC and CMS into one

category. From a project management and co-creative perspective, a differentiation has been made

between the two for the purpose of the research in this dissertation, though it should be noted that

with changes to technology, some CMC systems are evolving or being embedded into CMS systems, e.g.

google docs which is described as a file synchronisation system allowing users to collaborate and One

Drive which operates using a similar concept. The research by the authors referenced above was

conducted before these systems were introduced/ or were in the beta phases of development.

(Updated by Jo Samuel July 2016)


40/113

39

This supports the idea that the discourse is co-dependent or mutually related to the channels and

management systems utilised during the creative process. Another factor to take into consideration is

the nature of the relationship between client and creative. (Or creative and creative in this instance).

This relationship is dependent on what material is being created and the participation levels defined by

both parties in the development of the material. Some clients may lean heavily towards allowing the

creative complete autonomy throughout the process, intercede during a particular stage in the

development of the collateral, or take on a larger co-creative role in the project.

Level 2 Data Collection and Content Analysis

At Level 2, the data collected will be used to inform the content analysis. All communications and

channels through which those communications are mediated will form part of the analysis. The

research will explore the interfaces and tools used during the discourse at a meso level observing how

different channels of communications affect the co-creative process; (for example, telephone

conversations have no visual discourse value, but may play an important role in the creative process) as

well as how visual and language discourse at a micro level converge to create a chain relationship with

the distribution and production of marketing collateral during the co-creative process at different

phases of the project.

The evaluation and conclusion will seek to understand the correlations between levels and orders of

discourse and how this influences perceptions of the final product and relationship.

Level 3 Evaluating Perceptions

The concluding interview will measure perceptions of the engagement process as well as evaluating

perceptions of success at different levels in the relationship. Bingham and Moore (1959 quoted in

Daymon & Holloway 2003) define interviews, as “conversations with a purpose” and a semi -structured

interview technique will be used to obtain data. The objective will be to analyse the 2 interviews and

observe the variables within the discourse highlighting how each respondent viewed the collaborative

process and how they perceived the final output. The questions will cover the full spectrum contained

within Patton’s matrix of questions;


41/113

40

Figure 9 Question/Option Matrix

Past Present Future

Behaviour/Experience

Questions

Opinion/Value Questions

Feeling Questions

Knowledge Questions

Sensory Questions

Demographic/Background

Questions

Adapted from Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods: Patton, M (1980) pg. 293

Whilst creativity (or the definition of creativity) is an important component within the collaborative

process, creativity in itself is not the focus of the research. The co-creative relationship building

process, engagement and perceptions of quality and successful output outline the criteria in terms of

evaluation.

Further considerations regarding the research methodology including; ethical considerations,

measurements, techniques and considerations for further research can be found on (Pgs. 81-85)


42/113

41

Part 3.1 - The Case Study

Creative 1 -Ed Povey (Place in Print)

Creative 1 (C1) Place in Print is a small local business operating in South East London owned by Ed

Povey specialising in a stylised approach to illustrating local and recognisable landmarks and buildings.

The company has a small local studio and stock space allowing people who have ordered prints to

collect them on appointment. The Company’s tag line – “Celebrating Neighbourhood Through Locally

Themed Art and Design”, describes a specific objective shown through the designs created by the

designer and owner of the company.

Business Model

Place in Print has adapted to the local market by providing a service directly linked to locality and has a

highly recognisable style. www.placeinprint.com. The business functions at different levels integrating 3

primary functions that can be further delineated into 3 secondary functions leading to the final output

before it reaches the end client.

Figure 10 Place in Print Business Model J Samuel (2014)

Place in Print

3 Functions

http://www.placeinprint.com/http://www.placeinprint.com/http://www.placeinprint.com/http://www.placeinprint.com/


43/113

42

Commissioner Agent

Designer

Seller, Promoter and Distributer

End Client

Creative 2 Paul Pateman (Pate on Toast)

Paul Pateman http://www.pateontoast.co.uk/ operates a small design studio in East London. Coming

from an agency background, he has recently started a sole venture specialising in illustrative work for

agencies, individuals and companies. He also commissions animation based on his illustrations. Paul

works directly with the end client, as well as with agencies who commission his work which means he is

one step removed from the end client when commissioning work and in direct contact with the client

when approached directly. For the purposes of this research, his business is defined as creative 2 (C2)

though both creatives took almost equal responsibility for the final product, C1 approached C2 and

could be defined as the individual responsible for final sign off upon completion of the creative project.

The Brief

Although there was no written brief for the project, both creatives formed the concept during an initial

face-to-face meeting. The overall objective of the project was to produce a series of illustrations for

London Boroughs using a single word to form part of the name, accompanied by an illustration (see

pg.’s 86-90). The target audience at time of concept building were homeowners who would potentially

purchase the art for their homes. There were no deadlines set for the work.

Partner/Activity Matrix

The partner activity matrix, Candy, L et al (2002) demonstrates co-creativity accountability for theresearch participants.

http://www.pateontoast.co.uk/http://www.pateontoast.co.uk/http://www.pateontoast.co.uk/


44/113

43

Figure 11 Partner/Activity Matrix

Place in Print (C1) Pate on Toast (C2)

Brief

Concept

Illustration

Sign Off

The channels used to mediate the process

Email, face-to-face meetings and a free cloud based transfer service were used to mediate the

co-creative relationship. The data gathered highlighted the orders of discourse and identified themesthroughout the development of the product.

Perception Integration™

The perception integration diagram illustrates the understanding between both creatives in view of the

distance in perception from the target audience. (See Pgs. 28-29 for a detailed definition)

Figure 12 Perception Integration™

C1 C2

INTEGRATION

Target Audience

The Perception Integration diagram uses the same model shown on pg.28. The Perception Integration between C1 and C2 shows

an equal distance from the target audience demonstrating a shared understanding of the audience based on their B2B

relationship.

Open Coding – Identified Themes

Reviewing the conversations between the 2 creatives and generating codes based on themes that arose

from the email exchanges, the following themes were identified;

The identified codes were;


45/113

44

Encouragement C1

Encouragement C2

Opinion Seeking C1

Opinion Seeking C2

Product Presentation

Research

Suggestions C1

Suggestions C2

The conversations were segmented into the above nodes with a view to observe the frequency of

occurrence in each node during the exchange of conversations.

C1 refers to the lead as defined for this research project,

C2 refers to the illustrator

A graph of the results on pg 48 shows the occurrences of each node and frequency during the

process.

Final Questionnaire – Perceptions of the Final Product

A telephone interview was conducted with both research participants using a questionnaire in order toevaluate how they viewed the final product and their perception of the business relationship. Both

research participants were asked the same questions. (See table on pg 51)

The objective of the questionnaire was to cross-reference answers to qualitative and quantitative

questions, evaluating correlative themes across the data given by both research participants.

Observations were drawn on the following;

a, whether perceptions of the process were similar/different


46/113

45

b, whether perceptions of the end product were similar/different

c, how they viewed their working relationship

d, next steps

Part 3.2 Evaluation

Business Models

The structure of the 2 businesses defined the development of the collaboration. C1 made the initial

approach stating an admiration for C2’s work and the desire to create something that would work with

the 3-tiered structure of his business (identified by the researcher) in view of his role as co-marketer,

seller and distributor. C1’s specialises in a specific graphic design style and has the channels established

to incorporate other styles and specialities which allows him to promote and commission other types

of design. This impacted considerably on the co-creative process and the structure of both businesses

defined the roles in which each party contributed.

Taking into consideration that C2’s specialism and networks are organised in a different way in

comparison to C1, the collaboration suited both businesses equally.

Shared Language

Observing a co-creative relationship between 2 people in the same field operating as individual

entities, the language used to mediate development would differ significantly in comparison with 2

professionals working together in different fields. The use of language in the creative setting has been

defined by Candy et al (2002) as “the language of creative exchange” (see pg 27 for further details).

Drawing on some examples from the email conversation, it is fairly obvious that both creatives are


47/113

46

speaking a shared language that would be translated differently if one party were not a creative

professional. Examples below:

1.

Could you try toned down shades for the background colours – while the bright/bold colours

definitely stand out, they are also quite dominant, which might put some people off when it comes

to buying artwork for homes etc.

2. I'd be interested to see how the illustrations looked with a thick black outline like the one you used

on the 'Go Ultra Low' campaign.

3. The writing and image are a bit disjointed at the moment – I wonder if adjusting the lettering colour

to match an element of the image could work, or if you end up using a stroke on the image,

reflecting that stroke in the lettering.

4. It might be worth playing around a bit with the scale of the icons/images – perhaps some of them

could be falling off the edge of the image rather than all being central.

5. It took me a little while to work out 'chalk farm' - maybe a chalky line in addition to the chalk itself?

Phrases such as “Scale of Icons/images” and “using a stroke on the image reflecting that stroke in the

lettering” are phrases which would be defined as technical jargon showing that both the

commissioning entity and the other creative have a working knowledge regarding the capabilities of

the software being used and a shared awareness of graphic design terminology associated with a

professional understanding of design techniques.

Taking into consideration that there was no written brief for this project- a shared language and

understanding of that language eliminates - in part- the need for definition at the start of the process.

(The simplicity of the concept should also be taken into consideration). Both creatives were happy to

work to no specific deadline (and in view of the arrangements, it was in both parties’ interest to work

steadily towards completion), though it is noted that at certain points in the process, both creatives

either requested an update, or offered a work in progress illustration periodically – moving the process

on.

Responsibilities

The responsibilities as outlined in the partner/activity matrix (pg 42) highlights a comparison of

responsibilities for specific areas of development. The partner/activity matrix shows that there is

almost equal responsibility in regards to different components of the process. This again reflects the

nature of the working relationship and

creative conversations - an integrative approach to co-creativity

Documents