The Marketing as an art ‘OR’ science fallacy

Growing coverage in the news as to the way forward for marketing has meant a number of clients are looking at how to best engage their internal and external teams. I was recently asked about the role marketing automation could play in a client’s business and whether it suited their business model and indeed their industry. I answered their query, but it got me to thinking about an ongoing marketing debate: Is successful marketing a science or is marketing an art? 

If you read the latest thoughts online, you may be led to believe that data-driven and AI-powered marketing has heralded the end of art driven marketing. You would not be the only one, but I do not think this is anywhere near correct. Let me explain why.

The Argument for Marketing as a Science 

With the relentless march of technology, more and more emphasis is put on the role of predictive consumer behaviour and how interpretation of the right signals can help drive better Marketing Qualified Leads (MQLs) improve Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) and ultimately improve your Return on Advertising Spend (ROAS).  

As independent as we think we are, machines are finding the patterns in our behaviours and showing that as humans we can be a tad predictable despite being our unique, individual selves. How does this manifest in marketing? It is not a new practice, but it is one that is getting ever more sophisticated.  

At one end of the spectrum we have simple (yet highly profitable) recommendation engines such as “People who bought this, also bought…” whilst at the other end, there are famous examples such as Target in America who incurred the wrath of a father of a teenage daughter who they ‘predicted’ was pregnant and worthy of advertising to about pregnancy products.  

There is also the scary truth, that despite making our lives much easier, mobile phones are also tracking devices that savvy marketing teams can take advantage of. Whether it is location beacons, tracking of your digital footprint or targeted advertising, mobile phones have made it easier for people to be sold to. 

The Argument against Marketing as a Science 

Unsurprisingly, developing a model which can be used to predict behaviour is quite the complex procedure. How do you know which signals are valuable and moreover, how do you know which signals in combination are going to be accurate predictors without spending large sums of money and large chunks of time? AI and machine learning is answering some of this, but if you don’t have the time, money or nous to know how to implement AI for your organisation, how do you know when and if one of these signals is no longer as important as it used to be? 

Looking at it from a different perspective, a data driven approach fails to take into account human emotion. What works in a clinical environment (eg which taste do you prefer), may not translate into the market place when emotions such as nostalgia, sentimentality or social bias become involved. Humans also dislike being backed into a corner, how will machine learning predict irrational behaviour that people engage in when they want to “Break free”? Can a machine predict this, or is another human facing the same thing a better instrument for connecting?  

Another p[oint I would make is how do machines predict fashion, evolution of humour, or pick up on rapid changing sentiment brought about by real life events? The Mee-too movement sprung into the vernacular, as did the Will Smith/Chris Rock incident. Can machine learning predict the way humans will react – literally overnight – to something in the same way a human would?  

The argument for Art 

Two salespeople can have access to the same materials, the same predictive models and the same market, but have completely different conversion figures. Why, if they have the same tools, are the results so different?  

If you assume that they are equally driven, as often as not, the reasoning comes down to how they connect with their audience. They read the moment, they get creative and they create a connection. Connect and rapport are tangible outcomes that can drive a respondent into action.  

As further proof that human interaction plays a valuable part in the sales process, think of how something as simple as after-market service can turn someone off for life. In an article I wrote a while back, I detailed how customers are more likely to recall bad service experiences than good ones and more likely to let this influence their future interactions. This very principle can explain why the art of marketing is important in developing strong connections with your audience – above and beyond treating them as a number. 

The argument against Marketing as an Art 

At the best of times, human sentimentality can cloud judgement. It can mean that decision makers get lost in the “In the past this worked” or “this project is my baby..” and make decisions that are flawed from the outset.  

Similarly, when marketing is led by a creative approach first, the result is campaigns or materials which are disconnected, based on assumption and devoid of potential meaning to the audience. Whilst facts may be taken into consideration, if these are not interpreted with reference to the broader picture and are taken in isolation – a snap shot in time – then the risk is the audience will fail to connect with the message and not take the desired action.  

Marketing as a process of Attraction 

So where do I stand on this matter? Well I think it only fair to call myself what I called my brother for years growing up – Splinters (aka a fence sitter). I believe marketing is neither purely art, nor purely science. Instead I see marketing as a strategic process of attraction, whereby: 

• The term Process is a nod to the science of ensuring that you know who you are targeting, what motivates them, an understanding of what they may do with certain stimuli and more crucially, why you satisfy their needs better than others; and 
• Attraction refers to the compulsion people feel to act yet cannot explain, which is comes out of emotion and which more often than not stems from the esoteric, the creative, from humanity and connection.  

And this is the crux of it. People want connection. They want to connect with the message – they want to feel their requirements have been heard, they want rapport with the person/brand/experience at that moment in time, to build their own story but most importantly to feel it is not all just ‘BS’. It has to be authentic. Authenticity is the key here! 

As marketers, if we wish to derive more from our marketing efforts, we must understand our audience intimately, using scientific methods to get to know them, but then create moments of truth which engage them, not just predict what they may do. After all we are not Skinner’s rats in some cage.  

Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists of the modern era – if not of all time – perhaps unwittingly bridges the argument beautifully: 

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” 

I know for sure, there can be no science to imagining; imagining is an exercise in free thinking and revelling in it. Yet at the same time, creating abstract forms and being creative requires an innate understanding of the paradigms and restrictions which bound something, so that we know where we can push and what we can break.  

If you want to wax lyrical with me on this topic, or have a discussion on how we can help you with your marketing, please, get in touch today!