My son recently took philosophy in college. He is a STEM guy, so I was interested to hear his thoughts. A few weeks in, he remarked "it's more interesting than I expected," and our conversations took a more reflective turn. I noticed "even scientists benefit from a brush with Aristotle." It's the same today: We are enamored with data science, but still need a framework for decision-making. Both the data and the interpretive tools are still evolving, so we can't yet follow the science without some critical thinking and intuition.
When I started my career, I got a little green book from an anonymous author called How Advertising Works. I learned it was written by Richard Vaughn in our London office and centered around what became the FCB/Vaughn Grid. One uses it to map a communication approach for a category/brand via two dynamics: involvement and mental approach (logic vs emotion). Right/left brain theory was just getting traction at the time and has worked well for products on a sustained basis.
Over time, many "truths" have been outed; others were proven and lost their quote marks. But the presence or lack of evidence hasn't always been reflected in practice. One example that makes me nuts:
- It's broadly agreed that frequency effects follow the principle of a convex curve with diminishing returns: that the first impression is the most valuable.
- Yet, every holding company still measures "effective reach" using the "3-time-plus" measure that was thoroughly discredited ages ago. Why?
Today's Battle: Data Driven Marketing vs. Counter-Intuitive Outputs
Marketing analytic teams form two camps: "true believers" and "fair weather fans." This division becomes apparent when the dreaded "mystery output" materializes: an optimization or recommendation comes out of software that doesn't match what the team expected, wanted, or believes is the best direction. Devotees plow ahead, proclaiming "we proved your old assumptions about marketing are wrong!" while marketers trot out every excuse they ever heard:
- "That can't be right, something must be wrong with the algorithm."
- The software isn't accounting for (insert external variable or opinion here)."
- "There must be an error in the input."
Or my favorite:
- "That's why media is still a mix of art and science." That's media-speak for "I'll follow the data as long as it confirms my opinions." This is possibly the most dangerous phrase in media/marketing today. It means we will allow data to influence our decisions only if it keeps us in our traditional comfort zone.
Media planning is not an art, guys. It can be the innovative application of two kinds of knowledge: the factual knowledge that comes from data science, and the softer knowledge that comes from having a well-developed philosophy of marketing effectiveness.
Let's look at these words:
Art is the expression of human creative skill and imagination, mainly through visual and aural senses.
Philosophy is the study and articulation of the fundamental nature of knowledge and reality.
Marketers with a coherent philosophy of effectiveness understand how various tactics work for them and can create new ways of using them to achieve goals. A coherent philosophy assimilates new data, assesses counter-intuitive outputs, and figures out if something is true or what's wrong. Art is impulsive and passionate; philosophy is intuitive and perceptive. Both encompass creativity, but differently.
Elements of a Marketing Effectiveness Philosophy
Helping a brand articulate its philosophy is one of my favorite initiatives. This needs to be done at a brand or category level, as dynamics change drastically. For example, the Vaughn grid drives very different philosophies in each quadrant. In crafting a philosophy, the marketer needs to keep the definition above in mind and focus on what is known and real -- not opinions with no basis in fact. Framing a philosophy can open the eyes of the marketing team to depths never anticipated.
If you do not have a philosophy, these fundamental questions get you started:
- How does your brand live within its landscape along five dimensions?
- High/low involvement or risk
- Emotional/rational brand choice process
- Established or emerging category
- Leader or underdog brand
- Inherent product superiority, deficiencies, or commoditization
- What does success look like? This is a philosophy for marketing effectiveness, so clearly define what effect you are driving. A vague effectiveness objective won't work. You need to really make the hard choice to pick your No. 1 priority.
- Do you have great creative? Be truly thoughtful and brutally honest. If you can't get to that, you really must approach marketing with the assumption that your creative is average. While you probably can't say that word out loud, know the truth in your mind but call it "normative" in meetings.
- While assessing creative, think of the different expressions of the campaign and whether certain channels are particularly strong/weak. Two thirds of effectiveness is due to messaging, so media needs to provide the context where the creative can shine.
- Are there situations where context makes the creative work harder? Again, only think of significant instances. Isotonic drink messaging works harder if the audience is sweating during exposure.
- Given the above, when does marketing work best for you? What knowledge do you have, specifically, about differences in lift from: