In a recent article on Budweiser’s scrapped “Drinkability” campaign (Ad Age, March 15 2010, “Bud’s big blunder: letting consultants run away with brand) Jeremy Mullen examines the growing influence management consultants have over creative agencies. As Mr. Mullen writes, “Management consultants popping up in marketing isn’t exactly new.” However, he concludes “the degree to which these consultants’ recommendations and findings can translate directly into creative is becoming a familiar frustration for agencies.”

Beyond the obvious roles & responsibilities debate, Mr. Mullen’s last statement raises an intriguing question: what information SHOULD “translate directly into creative?” Regardless of who originates it, an enormous amount of data is generated in preparation for a new campaign. Assumptions are made and conclusions are drawn. But not all of this is suitable for the creative brief which should, in fact, “translate directly into creative.”

How does one ensure the quality of the brief given to the agency? The first step is to follow a structured and disciplined process. Although it may be common practice to forward slides from the consultant straight to the agency, it is not a suitable substitution for a proper brief. There must be agreement between the client and agency on what information is required to initiate a new project. Information overload is just as debilitating as information gaps in the creative development process . . . so understanding the agency’s needs up front is critical. And there must be a robust approval process to ensure all internal stakeholders are in agreement with the instructions before they’re given to the agency.

The second step to ensuring the brief’s quality is to implement an objective standard to evaluate its content against. Even following a defined process, a “good brief” can be as elusive as “good creative.” That’s because evaluating content subjectively leaves it open to interpretation and opinion . . . and that puts the end-product at risk. Faulty logic, poor assumptions or weak arguments are harder to spot without established criteria with which to assess the content. Ironically, the risk of this is exceptionally high when a brief is being circulated for internal approval since there’s a chance that group-think has already set in.

It’s been said that success has many fathers while failure is an orphan. “Drinkability” it appears, is headed for the orphanage. Focusing on a more disciplined briefing process can both restore the delicate balance between client, consultant and agency and keep all three fighting to claim their progeny going forward.