To bridge the gap between creative and marketable ideas, I propose we establish criteria for evaluating our proposals based on creativity, feasibility, and potential impact in the market. This structured approach could help us appreciate diverse perspectives while guiding us toward solutions that satisfy both sides.

I think we should start by identifying the core values of both creative and marketable ideas, then brainstorm ways to blend them. Finding examples of successful projects that balance innovation with market appeal can also help us align our goals.

Appetite for creative risk differs depending on individuals as well as brands - some are risk averse while others are open to experimentation. The key here is to understand the target audience. Is your target audience niche/'super-creative' with an open mindset or are you looking at mass acceptance? Depending on your playing field, the team needs to agree which side they want to bend towards - creative or marketable. The end game is that your campaign resonates with your target audience.

One of the prerequisites of a great idea is that it must be effective and therefore convincingly marketable. If the strategy is not lending itself to audaciously creative concepts and measurably efficient communication, it must be back to the drawing board. Spending more time contouring the insight is worth the effort - it is the launchpad for innovations that capture both the mind and market. For teams that are divided on this, the basic tenets of evaluation must be freshness, clutter-breaking ability, high residual impact, emphatic proof points and carefully predicted outcomes. One easy thumb rule is: always aim for relevance and resonance. You need both to fulfil every task without exception. It then ladders up to one common team goal.

What's the difference?! What's the meaning of those two words? This is an oxymoronic debate. The basis is meaningless because both are not either/or.