Data-driven creativity eclipse
Over the last two decades, the expanding use of data across society has profoundly transformed our world. From the ads we see to the movies we watch, data-driven decision-making now permeates every aspect of our lives. For all the advantages of democratising access to information and improving the quality of our choices, something has been lost. Having been involved in the information economy for my whole career, it might sound like heresy to ask, but are data-driven decisions always better?
Data plays a pivotal role optimising our lives. As investors we are increasingly passive, relying on analysis to get higher returns. Netflix’s approach to suggesting the next show to watch or Amazon the next book is eerily accurate at predicting what we will enjoy. Our social media feeds, from Instagram to LinkedIn are tuned by algorithm to keep us engaged and connected to our friends and contacts alike. Most recently, even the emails we write are being drafted by Generative AI, the latest data-driven decision tools. While we might sometimes be a bit uncomfortable about how much tech companies know about us, most of us accept a level of intrusion in our digital lives in exchange for help navigating the dizzying array of choices we face every day.
But, apart from the privacy concerns, which I’ve written about often before, the pervasive use of data is starting to stifle creativity in every part of society from the arts to business. By relying heavily on algorithms and data-driven decision-making, we risk creating a homogenised world where unique and unconventional ideas are undervalued.
This homogenisation is perhaps most obvious in the arts where generated output is often bland as studios and streamers are rewarded for reliable, if uninspired, remakes and franchises rather than risk new stories which lead to the occasional masterpiece but more loss-making productions. In the workplace, an over-reliance on data to guide decisions can limit innovative problem-solving, as employees prioritise instructions from the machine. Worse, as investors we are guided away from inspired stock market picks that could create the next big thing. The result is that those that start with the capital and IP generally get bigger with incremental progress and the breakout arts, ideas and businesses just don’t get the support that they might have in the past.
We shouldn’t be surprised that investors have drifted away from creative stock picks, research has found that less than 2% of stocks contribute significantly to the overall gains in the market. Fund managers are increasingly relying on following the indices and the rest of us are investing in their funds. Unfortunately, this approach is overlooking smaller and more creative firms that may be driving significant advancements in their fields but aren’t yet dominant in the market.
We didn’t just enjoy more innovation in our investing last century (even if it came at the cost of returns), we were also immersed in creativity in the media around us. Not just movies and TV, but also advertising. The 1970s and 1980s were the pinnacle of “Mad Men” agencies with television advertisements often driving culture and pushing the boundaries of marketing and artistic expression.
Ask anyone who was a child in that time to name some iconic ads and they’ll likely list off the global campaigns like the United Colours of Benetton, “The Face” from British Airways and “I’d like to buy the world a Coke”. Some ads only ever ran once, such as, Apple’s 1984 Superbowl spot but still had a massive cultural impact.
However, as the digital age dawned, there was a noticeable shift in the advertising world. The high production and artistic values of the TV advertisements of the past have been replaced by influencers and targeted digital advertising. Marketing today prioritises cost-effectiveness, reach, and data-driven strategies. Influencers, with their built-in audiences and relatable content, became key players in this transition, offering a more direct and personalised way to reach consumers. Meanwhile, the rise of digital platforms enabled advertisers to utilise algorithms for targeted advertising, focusing on efficiency over artistic expression.
Even our own creativity has potentially been homogenised. What we all write and post to social media, inside and outside our organisations is heavily motivated by what gets promoted by the algorithms of Facebook, LinkedIn and Yammer (now called Viva Engage). These algorithms don’t challenge either the author or reader, but rather prioritise more of the same.
The movies we watch, books we read, news that informs us, advertising that promotes goods, investment strategies that fund our economies and our collaborations that drive our work are all powered by data-driven algorithms. Each is rewarded for returns over creativity.
Maybe we should worry less about what is popular, clicked, liked or promoted and focus on what matters to us. To do so, we need to show some courage, like the “first follower” who is the most underrated leader according to Derik Sivers in his iconic, three minute, Ted Talk on how to start a movement.
We’d be crazy to turn our back on the power of data, but we also shouldn’t be ruled by it. We should regularly read something from someone we wouldn’t naturally follow, watch something based on a personal rather than data-driven recommendation, reserve some funds to invest based on our passions and make sure that we experiment beyond the process in the work we do. While none of these things are likely to replace or dominate our social feed, movie nights, investment portfolio or day-to-day work, they will make sure that we all continue to use our humanity to drive the creative process.