The Art of Effectiveness

Why does effectiveness sound like it's anything but creative?

I've never loved the artificial dichotomy of Art & Science as a way to describe the balance of thinking required to make great advertising work. It inherently diminishes the qualities of both - an immense amount of creative thinking goes into designing a plan that turns a finite set of resources (media + production budget, current equity, team time, etc) into a cohesive strategy that creates a series of advantages. That's hardly dry scientific study. And crafting creative work that balances the constraints of delivering a clear and compelling message, builds and reinforces specific brand cues, taps into a consistent voice, while doing so in a novel, timely & timeless way, isn't frivolous art for art's sake. It is an art form that few ever fully master.

In Future Demand, James Hurman flips this concept towards "Logic & Magic" to get a little closer to respecting the inherent blend required to make things that are fundamentally sound. It comes with its own set of challenges, suggesting that the path to great work is largely unknowable, resulting only from mystical forces - wizards, dragons, and faeries rarely make their way into serious discussion in a boardroom (unfortunately).

But even more than the language, I think it's the fanaticism of the evangelists who might be reinforcing that effectiveness is the enemy of creative thinking. I'm 100% with Zoe Scaman on this (see the full post here):

By championing a unified marketing theory (there absolutely is one, see below), that suggests clear and consistent answers to what are the common ingredients in achieving long-term brand growth, it paints a portrait that is color-by-numbers. That no further thinking is required, you just need to follow the instructions. (Cue the "AI will replace all our jobs" chorus).

Which leads me to my main point:

Advertising gets better...

Brands get smarter...

Agencies get more respect...

And the work is more fun...

when we all realize that the best thinking comes when we PLAY WITH OUR PRINCIPLES.

The newfound and growing respect for common principles of effectiveness, of solid, evidence-backed paths to growth that brands can tap into, should be a starting point for fresh thinking, not a straightjacket that gives you an answer.

The point of an education isn't to know things, it's to learn how to think. Just because we have a solid grasp of nutrition doesn't mean we stop exploring recipes that make broccoli taste better.

To boil the common path to growth down to its barest foundation, brands grow when they consistently achieve more of three things.

Reach more people

Capture more attention

Evoke more emotion

There are a metric ton of nuances that go further into the spaces around and between these three points. Brands need to build distinctive assets as a shortcut to memory. That needs to be applied to building resonance around specific demand moments. Reach needs to complement availability. On and on - there are practical advantages to be gained by better understanding the research at the edges, but the core ingredients at the heart of the unified theory of marketing effectiveness is all about setting the foundation to achieve more reach, earning higher attention, and evoking more emotion.

I'm being extremely intentional in phrasing these principles about achieving MORE of these three ingredients. That's because there is always a choice to be made and a tradeoff to be balanced, that could make a campaign even stronger. There's not a specific reach percentage that guarantees effectiveness (there's math that can tell us the minimum advisable amount to achieve a goal, but again, that's about the probability of success over time, not a guarantee). And most importantly, the principles don't map out a clear HOW to achieve more reach, attention, or emotion. That's the realm of art, magic, or, my favorite way to think about it, PLAY.

Diana Frost at KraftHeinz recently shared insights into how her team engineered a cultural renaissance within the company, embedding respect for creativity and freedom to experiment that is all too rare for companies of their size. That cultural revolution led to diverse and exceptional work across their wide portfolio of brands - from Velveeta & Lunchables to Capri-Sun and Kraft Mac & Cheese - most notably recognized with Heinz winning a Grand Prix for Creative Effectiveness at Cannes 2024.

As she outlines, one of the foundational principles of how KraftHeinz has fueled this widespread impact is by granting their teams what they call "Freedom within the Framework." Establish a playground in which the rules of the game are clear, an understanding of how points are scored, and then let them play. Don't dictate only one answer to any question - let the team explore the boundaries of their constraints and see if they can creatively engineer a different way to achieve an outcome.

Case in point, ESOV is calculated exclusively based on paid media investment - it discounts the value of earned media/organic attention entirely - every brand that's benefitted from vocal advocates and viral PR moments would understand that you can achieve a share of voice / share of attention advantage through many other vehicles.

This is anything but a refutation of the research. It's not saying to disregard the inherited wisdom that the last decade of academic study has revealed about how brands work and how brands grow - it's acknowledging that the principles are derived from outcomes, not the choices made in service of achieving them.

The real magic comes from realizing that you don't stop at the principle that is inherited wisdom you use it as a starting point to see if you can re-create the effect in aggregate because when you're doing it that way, you're truly being more creative.

Always remember to play with your principles.

Maybe that's how we can move effectiveness from a science to an art.