Art and Science

We have seen, in recent years, a rapid movement in the advertising marketplace towards buyers using logic, effectiveness data, and strategies employing empirical results that highlight the (ROI) return on investment.

That’s not always how it’s been.

Perhaps, for those who sell advertising, (with the intense competition present) it might not be the best strategy for the most sales.

Let’s go back to what things have always driven buyers to certain companies and to certain advertising.?

·??????They wanted their ads in specific programming. Think the Super Bowl, the Academy Awards, or the most watched shows (e.g. The West Wing in its day or 60 Minutes).

·??????They wanted their ads in a certain context. (Fashion designers loved seeing their ads in Vogue, advertisers that target women wanted to see their ads on Lifetime or those trying to impact a young market like Kawasaki, they wanted their ads on MTV).

·??????They wanted their ads on networks where they have a good “relationship” with the ad-sales executives there and perhaps a long history of trust and familiarity (Jo Ann Ross comes to mind as a shining example).

·??????Their advertising generated anecdotal results (like my friend George Schweitzer’s CBS logo imprinted on eggs, or notice/mentions from their family, friends or colleagues, various press accounts, or other notoriety, etc.).

·??????They wanted their advertising to reach certain important or influential people (I once did a research project to determine which specific radio station a particular influential Washingtonian listened to the most).

·??????They did not wish to be “associated” with certain content or a given network (think advertiser boycotts).

I was the Research Chief during the heyday at MTV Networks (which at that time included Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, MTV, VH-1, TV Land and Ha! our comedy network). Back then, many advertisers truly?wanted?to advertise on many of our networks.?

Yes, we had made a case that Nickelodeon kids directly influenced their parent’s decision-making regarding which products to buy and we had firmly established that MTV was the coolest and most influential place for teens and young adults to go to see and learn about bands, artists, brands and products. At one point Swatch put their entire TV advertising budget on MTV to establish the brand.

If a company advertised on a particular network, or show they were saying something about their product. The?place?where the ads ran mattered.

All I am saying is that there is more to what a data-based effectiveness study can do. Yes, it’s science -- and it’s important.

But we must also accept that the process of advertising -- particularly the making of that advertising continues to be a combination of “Art” and “Science.” At AOL, I would have never released an ad for air without extensively testing it on consumers. But there is also a tremendous amount of?art?in commercials (think Just Do It, Have it Your Way, I Want my Maypo/MTV or Think Different). Always has been and I bet there always will be. ?

And, I would also argue, that the actual?placement decisions?of that advertising do not rest exclusively on data.?

Even as a lifelong “researcher” I must remind us that there continues to be other important reasons why an advertiser might want their ad to run somewhere. Please don’t forget about this.

Let’s remember to exploit all our benefits when trying to attract advertising business to our companies. It’s not only what the big data says.

Rant concluded.