I was getting some errors on the MarketingProfs content management system yesterday. So I did what any proper technophobe would do–I sent up a panicked flair to our patient and attentive Chief Technology Officer, Aaron Lorentz. As always, Aaron resolved the problem. But this time he did something a little different, in that he offered a quick explanation email…
“‘Script timed out’ or Error Line Number 0 on pages that normally run fine mean something prevented the server from processing the page as usual, e.g. IIS is hung up, or there was a file/data accessing conflict. These are very vague Microsoft errors (of the many vague MS errors), and difficult to drill-down on. So, I have to try to determine what happened based on logs and server performance.
“Not exact science from these types of error messages by any means…”
Aaron’s words were a bit of a revelation to me, sort of like those uttered by my next-seat neighbor after a leg of last Thursday’s flight from Santa Barbara to Boston. After spending most of the ride listening to air traffic control via the plane’s passenger audio system, she commented, wide-eyed, “Wow! Flying a plane isn’t the science you think it would be!”
With my limited comfort with technology, I assumed that tech diagnostics–like flying an airplane across the country–is all science, not art. But as Aaron later said, “Sometimes it’s a best-guess based on previous experience.”
But what about marketing? Is it an art, or is it a science? The debate often pits those who preach ROI against those in the squishier “creative” end of the business. The ROI camp says that numbers are the path to marketing’s seat at the management table, while the artists counter that decisions based on scientific results alone fail to capture the nuances and dynamics of a market that, fundamentally, is made up of people. And by the way, if you really want to bone up on the debate, there are reams of articles and studies that squarely take-on this issue–some published in MarketingProfs, including this week’s newsletter.
But here I’ll take an admittedly more anecdotal view, which is to say that marketing, like some aspects of technology and flying a jet, is often both. I like what the guys at Orbis wrote in Marketing Magazine a few years ago:
“Just because marketers today want (and need) to express outcomes numerically doesn’t’ mean intuition, savvy, experience, and self-criticality are abandoned.”
In my view, the “art vs. science” debate isn’t really much of a match at all. It’s less of a cage-match and more of a partnership, because marketing as a business is both–art and science.
What’s your take? Let me know your thoughts below.
Tags: Ann_Handley, art_of_marketing, Marketing, science_of_marketing, Technology
It’s definitely both. I’m sure, if we had the right models and all the information (along with the ability to process it all), it would turn out to really be science, but lacking those things, we have to rely on our imperfect qualities that are difficult to explain and quantify.
Ultimately, we have to be judged by our processes and results. How we get there is rarely so easily defined.
I see it as both. And all the measurement in the world doesn’t mean anything without an artful message to measure.
The measurement meanies in financial often keep artful campaigns from seeing the light of day because there is still no tool to measure influence and image no matter what the bean counters tell you.
Marketing, the kind of marketing that successfully addresses the issues that businesses and executives face today (Ex: Wal Mart –think of flat sales at existing stores) requires BOTH Creativity and Vision, and nuts and bolts ROI. Measurment-centric marketing not in service of vision and strategy is doomed to relegate itself as a service (or expense), and Vision in service of itself or without a clearly defined ROI leads nowhere ot puts us in “necessary evil” status.
Just like the gulf between sales and marketing, we need to syntehsize these two functions or face consequences. That is where the impact is that we all seek.
In college my major course of study was Air Traffic Control Systems(minors in Music and Computer Science), I run a small computer network consulting business, and my full time employ is in marketing for a small credit union. IMHO everything we do is artistic in some way. But there is a science to everything as well. The two depend on each other and to neglect either one of them is foolish.
As long as money drives our economy, there will always be a bottom line. All art forms today must produce results, from films to books, to theater, etc. The days of creating art for art’s sake are long gone, although I’m sure there are some starving artists left in the world.
I guess the Rembrandts, Monets and Chopins wouldn’t get anywhere today without a commercial element to their work and a good agent.
The art of marketing makes the science complete. It takes the necessary components to present your view artistically and the analytical minds to engage the tools necessary for marketing to be successful.
Ann,
I just popped in to see what was happening, as I have been locked up with my MS and final edits for more than a week. My blogging has really suffered.
Anyway, marketing is and must be both science and art. We cannot be credible if we don’t rely on research and measure everything we do. And we won’t be relevant at all if we abandon creativity, innovation, and our zest for the written word.
I hope to return to the real world in several days. I miss my blogger friends.
Since everyone here is saying that marketing is “both,” I feel compelled to say it’s neither.
I believe that marketing is more of a “trade.” It certainly relies on the arts (literature, theater, painting, etc.) and the sciences (mathematics, physics, etc.) but whereas the arts and the sciences can be ends in themselves, marketing, like carpentry or plumbing, is always applied to specific, practical, ends.
I think this kind of marketing is in the realm of art.
http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/05/now-you-can-buy-piece-of-pi.html
It draws from both. In fact, it’s one of the few crafts/trades/disciplines that taps left and right brain competencies.
.
For instance, being that many times I’m devising BOTH the strategy and the tactics I need to draw from both sides of the brain. In my strategy I need to do analysis (left) but I also need to look at ways to outsmart–or altogether avoid–the competition so I need to be creative (right). Then, when going into tactics I need to work the creative (right) alongside goal-setting for the program’s ROI (left).
But that’s not why I chimed-in, I chimed in because there’s a line from a movie called “The Core” which is basically a thriller that you get your ten bucks out of, but it’s really good and goes like so:
“What is science after all? Why it’s best guess.”
Being it’s Hollywood-delivered I’ve no idea if it’s true but I like it so I’ll choose to believe it
i see here a false problem. art is based on a complex process and not only on a sudden intuition. the artist comes from a long way to succeed in his expressive path. the intuition is what stands at the rooth of the art process but, then, there is the personal technique and a lot more. (see an interesting book titled “l’apparent facilite” on matisse creative process, ed. maeght). marketing process is based on intuition and experience, science comes later.
marketing as a tool to interact with lots of new and old idea to making the thing possible and definening the thing in ur way.well like a window to jump in a diferent world of costum made paths to move with different idea is art’” … the new or inovating ideas thats makes the thing possible in multinationals and international in there way.
in marketing strategies art is the best original pieace of it .but to make a god marketing strategies the science will make artistik things come true
Thanks for the comments, all. You actually helped me evolve my thinking — gotta love blogging! — in that I’m thinking that marketing is not so much art and science but actually an artisan craft. Similar to what you said, Matt, but I’d term it “craft” vs. “trade.”
CK — Your movie quote reminds me of my weekly addiction to House!
I use “the art and technology of communicating” as the tagline for my business…. because marketing does require both art and science. I tend to agree that it is neither, purely, but a craft that relies on both when it is best executed. Yes, I’m a trained graphic artist. Yes, I believe that marketing must be driven by creative and intuitive expressions that are relevant to consumer’s wants and needs. But I also believe that if we can’t measure our impact, if we can’t use information, data and technology to better understand and deliver to our marketplace, we aren’t plying our craft to the best of our ability.
I liked S.A. Sorensen’s thoughts, “The art of marketing makes the science complete. It takes the necessary components to present your view artistically and the analytical minds to engage the tools necessary for marketing to be successful.” But what I often find is that all of the well-intended ROI steps, focus groups, demographic, psychographic and laddering research, can be wasted by a creative team that doesn’t know how to translate this information into the “art”. You can have great input, but if you have lousy “translators” — good luck!
We are fortunate that, within the world of marketing, the cosmic balance of the universe exists…every day we bathe in the yin and yang. Both advocates are right…and both are wrong. It is a fun debate!!
I think it was Elbert Hubbard who once said that, “Art is the beautiful way of doing things. Science is the effective way of doing things. Business is the economic way of doing things.”
If that’s true, I’d stick with calling marketing a fine craft. Beats mystic art, dark magic, or alchemy as far as labels, no?
they both have a contribution in the success of marketing, for example, carrying out market research to find out customer’s expectations[science], this by itself is not success, the success will come if only you use this information creatively to outdo your competitors through artistic design of promotional activities, selection of strategies and their implementation thus the art part
buy valium online
i agree that marketing involves both art and science to make sense. marketing brings bits of both together to become a whole.
i agree that marketing involves both art and science to make sense. marketing brings bits of both together to become a whole.
Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.
Dies ist ein gro?er Ort. Ich m?chte hier noch einmal.
I cant answer the question, whether marketing is science or art.
But what I can say is, that if science becomes marketing, it is rarely art! http://bit.ly/Y0zbF
Peter
Its definitely both, but more of scientific than otherwise!
Marketing may be applying mind to win the heart.Mind is applied in science as well as art. Similarly,heart is satisfied both in doing science as well as art because both are creative. So, marketing is a business to win the customers applying science and art as tools.
[...] post – Ann Handley: Marketing: Science or Art? – reminded me how much this phrase is starting to annoy me. My high-level thought is…. [...]
As it is known that in the past ,marketing was considered synonymous with selling,which is purely an art.But its recent developments in theory and practice,however,have resulted in moving it towards the social science,especially psychology,sociology and anthropology