Neil’s description of the dyad’s typical process fits their actions on 2/14-15.

The afternoon after the morning’s brainstorming session, Neil, alone at his

PowerBook G3 laptop in his office, typed 20 lines, tag (1), or different passages

of body copy of multiple sentences. Of those, 18 were presented at the tip-ball

ad selection meeting verbatim. He did not linger over his sketchpad that held

scrawled drawings and notes from the morning meeting: “just looked through

it real quick just to see, ‘oh yeah, those are those four that I thought would

work.’” Neil’s notations served as a memory cue rather than a self-contextualized

message. As he told me, if a week elapsed between when he wrote and when

he consulted them, he could not decipher them. Here are the layout ideas and

copy Neil produced the afternoon of February 14 (see Table 4):

Only one positioning tag came from the morning’s meeting, and a headline

mentioned that morning came from an earlier campaign; however, 13 of the 15

headlines Neil generated that afternoon addressed concepts from the morning’s

session. So the “aha” moment for concepts came to Neil and Jesse when they

were working together, but for the lines, it came when Neil worked alone; as Neil

said, “I took from [the morning’s] things we did and just . . . tried to flesh some of

them out.” An example of something developed from a kernel idea in the morning

session was what developed from the line, “Agavez makes life easier.” Neil had

envisioned using the same headline with several visuals, but since he was doing

that with “Lawns are our life, not yours,” he decided to do headlines for each

graph ad, the “Research suggests . . .” lines. As Neil told me in a subsequent

interview, “too many campaigns are all sort of the same, so I mix it up, [use]

different styles.”