PART ONE
In the dynamic world of advertising, where creativity meets strategy, stands Gareth Pretorius, a Creative Director who’s worked with some remarkable brands. Known for his fearless approach and deep understanding of the industry, Gareth has carved a niche for himself by blending practicality with innovation. In this interview, we dive into his journey, from his unexpected transition from journalism to advertising, to his award-winning campaigns that challenge the norms of conventional advertising. Gareth’s insights offer a fresh perspective on the ever-evolving landscape of creativity, client relationships, and the real value of awards in the advertising industry.
Read his interview below with our CEO, Lynette Whittaker, and head of content, Esther Jacobs.
Can you share with us what initially drew you to the advertising world? What were your earliest inspirations?
Well, it’s an interesting story. I had actually studied journalism and wanted to pursue it, but halfway through, realised that it was not about expressing yourself. It involved a lot of law and was very different from what I had imagined. Then came the opportunity to study advertising, which was more expressive and allowed for opinions and creativity. I was competent at both writing and art, so I entered the field without knowing whether I should be an art director or a copywriter. I took both exams, and the lecturer looked at me and said, “You can do either, but if you study art direction, they might let you write occasionally. If you study writing, they’ll never let you art direct.” So, I chose art direction. Later in life, I evolved to do both.
But really, a better answer to your question is about the benefits of advertising and why one should be in it. Today, there are many options for people to use their creativity. Unlike when Lynette and I were 20, there are many ways to monetise art now. Back then, you could either be a starving artist, work for an agency, or work for a printing place. Now, they can work become independent content creators, design for gaming companies, launch their own apps, or sell arts and crafts on platforms like Etsy. We don’t have the pull of exclusivity anymore, but we do offer variety.
If you become a game developer or a conceptual artist, you’ll be doing the same type of work every day. The same goes for graffiti artists, fashion designers, etc. The most beautiful thing about advertising is that every day brings something new. One day, you’re working on high-level film; the next, you’re figuring out typography on a static post. You might be crafting two words for a billboard or writing craftily for an SEO article. There’s always a different challenge to apply your skills to, and the problem of yesterday is never the problem of today. Other industries often face the same problems repeatedly.
Can you walk us through your creative process when a new campaign comes your way? What’s the first thing you do?
I don’t really have a creative process, at least not in the artistic sense. I’m not a holistic individual connected to the universe. I have a very practical approach. I do as much research as I can, looking at competitors and their strategies. I adhere to some core principles, standing out is key, whether you’re a bird among other birds in a tree or a flower in a garden. The same applies to advertising. I focus on simplicity and avoid overcomplicating things. I don’t believe in a formal creative process, but I always prioritise standing out and delivering a clear simple message.
You obviously have your own voice and vision for your concepts. How do you balance that with client expectations?
I don’t have clients; I have partners. They know their industry better than I do, I know more about communication than they do. It’s about working together and leveraging expertise. If I were working with a wine farmer, I wouldn’t lecture him about wine; I’d ask with him, respecting his knowledge of his industry and competitors.
You’re a multiple award winner, what is your opinion on the importance of awards?
Ok, let’s talk about awards, but let’s start with the understanding of how awards work. There are these rankings of individual creatives and agencies around the world based on their performance over time at different shows that are then aggregated into a points system. These rankings are used to measure agencies and creatives against each other and different levels of award at different shows have different values.
For example, winning a gold at one of the smaller Award shows might earn you, say, one creative point, whereas a shortlist at a larger entry might be worth 5 points. So, a shortlisted entry at one award show can be more valuable than a gold at another. Then there are the many award shows that are not recognised in the official rankings at all, they are great for driving creativity and creating a localised standard of excellence ,but simply don’t place you on the big radar.
I have a lot of respect for some of the Award shows especially the ones where they have years when they don’t give out any awards if the work simply isn’t good enough. If no good Design entries are submitted, they’ll simply not give out Design awards, rather than awarding subpar work. Please double-check these figures, but I think the chances of winning at some of the bigger shows are lower than half a percent.
So, as a small advertising agency, would you recommend saving up a lot of money to enter the Loeries?
Look, why should be judged by a bunch of peers on how good the work is? The public is the real judge. If the public and especially the desired audience like the work and it’s effective for the client, that’s what matters. Take the Old Spice campaign, “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.” It was incredibly effective and based on a simple insight that had been overlooked for years. They realised women buy men’s deodorant, so they targeted their ads at women, leading to a huge increase in sales. Insight + Creativity = Results = True ROI.
Effective work is inherently creative because it stands out. Standing out often requires taking a risk, Creative Awards are a demonstration of the benefits compared to the risk and can shortcut the trust-building process with clients that is needed in order to take those risks. If I have a list of awards, I don’t have to convince a client to trust me; the awards do that for me. Practically, awards are just a tool for building trust.
Well, that’s what the client wants. They want to see results, not just awards.
Awards these days tend to be based on results. The two aren’t really divisible as an argument anymore. Awards are a shortcut to trust. If I have a lot of awards, I don’t need to spend as much time convincing clients of my capabilities. The awards do that work for me. The clients are right, in the end, what truly matters is delivering results and improving business, preferably bigger results than were expected for the budget, award worthy work just tends to be a very effective way to do that.
Which are of your awarded campaigns achieved REAL results?
One example is the Helios “Re-Sight” campaign, which was shortlisted at Cannes. Even though a shortlist isn’t a trophy, it still counts as an award. This campaign was significant because it marked Mauritius’s first awarded presence at Cannes at the same time we provided UV-protected sunglasses to 2,500 fishermen who wouldn’t have had access to them otherwise, potentially saving their eyesight. Combining doing good with creating good publicity for the client and winning awards is very fulfilling.
I loved that campaign. So what was the goal of the campaign then? It was obviously to help the local communities, but what was the marketing goal?
You’re dreaming if you think you’re going to get a brief with a marketing goal that says, “Help save the day, here’s a whole bunch of money.” It doesn’t work like that. The client needed to promote their sustainable efforts in manufacturing, that they make recyclable sunglasses frames out of plastic. How can we bring awareness to the fact that we are now making recyclable sunglasses out of recycled plastic?” From there, we said, “Let’s gather all the plastic out of the lagoon that’s killing the lagoons and then provide the fishermen with recycled plastic sunglasses.” Two birds, one stone, effective and innovative. A lazy agency could very easily just put up a big billboard with a pair of recycled sunglasses and said, “We now make recycled sunglasses.” Then charged the client. That was essentially the brief. The brief doesn’t come with an ask to try and help communities, that is not the primary business objective, that doesn’t happen. It’s all about how the agency solves a business problem, that’s where the opportunity is. And of course a good client/partner.
Campaign: ENL. Helios Eyewear. ReSight.
So what was the biggest challenge then, especially with the clients and convincing them to give away so many pairs for free?
Well, the clients came on pretty quickly. They saw the potential immediately and seized an opportunity to do even more good. They are good people. Like I said, there are no clients. There are only partners.
They are people, only human beings trying to solve problems. This idea of a client as a person who pays you to do work is the wrong way to approach advertising. These guys were particularly aligned with wanting to do good from the start so the idea naturally went that way, we all wanted the same thing.
That was behind the ethos. It was behind the bigger holding companies larger communication plan. They were good people, so it was easy to do good work with them. There was no convincing, like a whole bunch of sharks in a boardroom and we had to walk in and fight the sharks and sell the good idea. Selling a good idea to good people with a bigger plan is relatively easy. Logistically, it was really difficult getting a whole bunch of relatively isolated communities together to try and pull off something coordinated. That was difficult and I am still in awe of everyone that came together to pull it off.
Implementation, Distribution that’s difficult. Things like that, that’s difficult. Walking into a boardroom and selling good things to good people, that’s not difficult.
How did you get the communities on board?
That wasn’t me. There we’re so many people involved. The Rotary club, the Fishermen’s association, opticians, everyone got involved. A lot of it was through talking to the higher ups, the clubs, representatives, then the communities, we leveraged the communities around us and they leveraged there’s.
The thing is, I’d say, I still think everybody at heart is essentially good. Everybody wants to do good. Some of us don’t have the time. Some of us can’t fit it in logistically, but if you speak to enough people, if you talk around, if you push sometimes and go along others and if you really believe in it, you’ll connect the right people and do the impossible.
If you can get a corporate behind you, that’s when the magic happens because corporates can put money behind initiatives. When corporates believe in putting money behind them, people can free up their time. When time gets freed up, good things can happen.
So you’ve obviously had a lot of campaigns in the past that were multi-channel. How do you think digital media has reshaped the strategy when it comes to campaigns?
I don’t think it has.
You don’t think so?
I don’t think it has.
I mean, does anyone really watch TV and watch television adverts anymore?
Okay, if you want to talk about control, yes, we’ve got a lot more control. Adverts still interrupt you. They interrupt my videos. They interrupt your videos. So they are still interruptions. They used to interrupt “Santa Barbara”. Now they interrupt “how to make ceramic pots” episodes. They are still interruptions.
Either they come in a still format where they don’t move at all, or they come in a format where they move. How’s that very much different from old advertising? Or there are podcasts where you can only hear audio, which is, I guess, basically radio.
If you have the premium version of YouTube, you can choose not to see any ads. So that has definitely affected it. So your higher income groups that can afford to have ad blocking and not see ads, don’t see ads anymore.
So, I mean, that’s where my principles come from. I don’t think we should be advertising. I think advertising has completely lost its way.
And I think interrupting is bullsh*t. Nobody wants to be interrupted. We just haven’t listened.
Advertising hasn’t listened for decades when everybody said, please stop f***ing interrupting me. We’re like, hold on, I’d just like to say one more thing. And we’ve carried on for like 1 million more years doing that. So if it’s not working so good, maybe it’s time we listen.
One of my favourite things to ask is, when did you last click on an ad that was about a brand that wasn’t your own, one of your clients or one of your competitors? Let’s say you’re not into manga. When did you last click on a manga ad? Which one convinced you to suddenly switch over?
Well, I’ve bought a lot of shoes online because of ads.
That’s just smart targeting and making sure that you see ads about shoes. But that’s no different than putting a billboard outside of a place where people drive past and see the shoes. Both can be equally effective.
Sales funnels are all changing. I think we need to change at a much, much, much, much more rapid rate. I think we’ve proven to ourselves that what brands at their best are, are communities.
If you look at Nike, if you look at Apple, if you look at Red Bull, if you look at these massively successful brands, they’re cult followings. You can tell any Apple user that there is a better version of a computer and they’ll swear you into the ground. They will not believe it. They don’t believe in Samsung. They don’t want to talk about Sony. They don’t want to hear about Huawei. They are an Apple user. That’s brand loyalty. That’s because they have high salience. That’s because the brand has done them well, served them well for many years. The brand is a badge. It stands for something. They want to be part of that community.
So I personally think that the high-level brands like Apple, Harley Davidson, still have brand loyalty and followers that will follow them to death. But I think the younger generation, with general brands, there’s no loyalty anymore. They’ll flip for anything. I mean, lower prices, nicer ads, freebies, whatever. So I think from millennials and younger, there’s almost zero brand loyalty.
But you do get it in the big brands. So you will find it with Nike and you will find it with Adidas in those generations, as young as you can imagine. It is there. But it didn’t take them one year to get there. How long has Nike been repeating a simple message and ethos, so that we understand what they are? How long has Apple been doing it as hard as they possibly can? Same with a lot of the other big brands out there that are remaining salient. It doesn’t happen in a year.
But Lynette gets a brief on a table. She’s meant to achieve it by Tuesday. So the answer to that would be that, yes, Brand loyalty (Salience) is real, whether we perceive it or not. But it generally isn’t built by Tuesday.
You can create immediate salience as a young brand. But it takes guts. There are millions of new brands that have popped up that are really, really, really good at defining a fresh voice that sticks.
But instead, everybody’s either going harder, bigger, more or going cheaper or just get lots of it it out there, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, be known, be everywhere. And what happens is you end up screaming in a crowd. Yes you’re contributing to the noise like competitors are, but you’re not standing out.
Brands need to discover themselves again and find a different authentic way to stand out because at the moment, most have become just another annoying unintelligible noise.
Not everything can be measured and trying to measure the immeasurable has led to an illusion of optimisation in which one brand has become indistinguishable from another, nobody stands out yet somehow everyone is optimised. Is it just me or was marketing more likable before the ability to like it?
