Narrative & Systemic Thinking.

(Essay is featured on DDB Blog http://www.ddb.com/ddblogs/strategy/narrative-systemic-thinking.html)

Narrative.

Ad agencies are traditionally excellent at narrative aspects of brand communication. Everything they do tells and furthers a brand story. TV, newspapers, billboards, other unidirectional media, are regarded as a means to say something to people. One grand story, a meta-narrative, is expressed through several versions of it; also known as an ad campaign.

The creative challenge is to cut through the clutter of competing ad narratives. Media folks choose the best mediums to push the stories to a target group of “audiences” and “readers”.

Narrative thinking stems from a single-minded proposition. It is built on a highly distilled, reductive thought process.

That singular insight or proposition is believed to be able to persuade people to do something. Buy a car. Waste less electricity. Give money to charity. Brand guardians ensure that that one message is played out consistently on all forms of media. A brand cannot have more than one key message, it is argued, because people don’t have the time nor mental capacity to remember more than one.

Narrative thinking is generally linear. Like any good story, all ads have a beginning (headline), middle (copy), and end (call to action). Ad campaigns have a preset media flight: teaser, launch, maintenance, end.

Systemic.

Systemic thinking looks for relationships between discrete touchpoints in an ecosystem. It tries to determine how users flow from the use of medium to another. They try to figure out the best way to engage them at each touchpoint in the system. Digital agencies, by and large, think this way.

Systemic thinking is also interested in how well digital objects, code, and procedures work. They want to know how and how well people use and experience things. Processes are reviewed intensively. Metrics are scrutinised. Optimisation is a non-stop affair.

Systemic thinking is largely non-linear in direction and time. An interaction between a user and a digital object or service can happen anytime, anywhere, in any order or direction between touchpoints. Multiple interactions can happen almost simultaneously. Not just that, users can carry on interacting with a digital idea years after its public release, it lives on cyberspace as long as users want it to.

In contrast to reductive thinking, systemic thinking is expansive. It is relatively complex. But the complexity is derived from the notion that (a) they must locate relevant touchpoints (b) they must make individual touchpoints work well (c) each touchpoint must work well in harmony with others.

Narrative & Systemic.

While narrative thinkers want to say something to people, systemic thinkers want people to enjoy experiencing or using something.

Here’s an example from theatre.

Narrative types want to write the play, design the props, rehearse the orchestra, cast and direct the characters. Systemic types want to select the theatre, arrange the chairs, programme the lights, man the ticket booth, appoint security, plan the night’s itinerary, arrange for air conditioning or heating. The best performances are a sublime combination of both.

Creative agencies from mainstream and digital need to employ or at least understand both ways of thinking in order to stay culture current or relevant, and to do the most engaging work in the world.

Think of narrative thinking as the soul of a person. It’s the realm of emotions, intellect, logic, desire, motivation. Think of systemic thinking as the body of a person. The framework in which everything works in harmony.

Narrative thinkers need to be reminded that we are not all soul. We are bone, organs, five senses, infinitely complex, a hyper-connected Internet unto ourselves. A poorly functioning body is a sick one. And a sick body affects the soul.

Conversely, systemic thinkers must appreciate that we are not all body. We need the soul or else our intricate, clockwork-precision, supremely-designed body is meaningless, very much dead.

Complementary parts with bespoke messages in each one.

Nike Chalkbot is a machine/vehicle plugged into the Web that writes positive messages on roads for pro cyclists, and the world, to read.

The soul or message: you can express yourself any way you like; you can show the world you are fighting cancer with everything you’ve got; you have the power to spread optimism. Be like Armstrong. Just do it.

The body or system: all the parts that go into making it work well. Server. Website. Chalking mechanism. Social media links. Publicity. So much complexity and integration happens in the background. But to people, the experience is seamless, fast, easy.

Nike+ is another example of fused narrative and systemic thinking. It extends the Nike story – in fact you are an essential ongoing part of it. It integrates highly relevant touchpoints (running shoe, iPod, social media circle) flawlessly. Each touchpoint lets you do something different.

Nike+ is here for the long run. The recently launched Nike+ GPS is opening up new spaces of engagement, taking the story and experience further. Where are the boundaries of digital, branding, advertising and activation? Does it even matter to its fans?

Takeaway.

The next chance you get to do something “360”, think more broadly.

See the narrative perspective if you’re used to thinking systemically. What do you need to say? Do you have a strong story or idea? Is it something that will move people? Can you improve the production quality of the story? Can you tell several versions of the story yet stay true to its theme?

Think systemically if you usually think narratively. What do you want people to experience? Can you make something tangible or digital that people will want to interact with? Are there touchpoints you haven’t thought of yet? How can you link everything together seamlessly for people? How can you tell small stories in each touchpoint? How could your creations take on a life of their own, beyond a typical time frame?

Do this and more complete, memorable, relevant, innovative engagement will be the result.

//Essay written by Joel Lim and inspired by Nick Law’s comments on narrative and systematic thinking//