Is It Art Or Science?

We're going to get a little philosophical here today my friends, so hold on tight.

The question before us is, is advertising an art or a science? This may seem to have no relevance to you if you're busy on your 8th version of a deck about Big Save's giant Halloween sale. But bear with me, I think it will be interesting.

There are aspects of advertising that are artistic and aspects that are scientific. For example, we spend untold hours lighting scenes for TV commercials simply for the artistic benefit of having them look good. We also do post-analyses of media buys for the scientific benefit of understanding how much money we pissed away.

However, our journey today is not to examine discrete aspects of advertising, but advertising as a whole. Has it, thus far in its existence, been primarily an art or a science?

Before we get bogged down in semantics, I am going to propose a simple definition for what it means to be a science. A science is a body of knowledge that progressively helps us understand how things work.

For example, biology is a science. At one time we knew nothing about how disease was caused. But through the study of biology we have progressively learned that diseases are caused by bacteria, and viruses, and other environmental and genetic agents. We have built on that knowledge to create preventive measures and cures for diseases that are demonstrably effective. This is why, when we have an infection, we take antibiotics, not bacon.

Fine art, on the other hand, may be more emotionally pleasing than biology, but it is hard to demonstrate that it has made progress toward helping us understand how the world works. We may prefer Rothko's #14 to the Mona Lisa, but you'd have a hard time convincing anyone (outside of the Upper West Side) that it represents progress toward a deeper understanding of the world. Similarly, it would be hard to maintain that Spamalot (while brilliant in its own way) helps us understand the world more than Hamlet.

This is why #14 and Spamalot and Mona Lisa and Hamlet are art, not science.

Still with me?

Okay, now let's get to advertising. What do we know about advertising as a whole that we didn't know 50 years ago? It is my contention that we have made very little progress toward a deeper understanding of how it works.

• We know that companies that advertise tend to be more successful than those that don't
• We know that a substantial part of what we spend on advertising is wasted
• We know that people tend to prefer brands whose advertising they like
• We know that advertising that speaks to a need tends to be more effective than that which doesn't
• We know that advertising that attracts attention tends to be more successful than that which doesn't

And that's about what we know. If you went back and looked at the literature, I think you'd find that we knew most of that stuff 50 years ago, and that we really haven't made much progress in understanding the deep truths about advertising. In other words, I don't think we have made much, if any, progress toward making advertising more effective.

We certainly have more precise tests, and more precise data, and more precise measurements. We use the language, the methods, and the tools of science. But have we made advertising work better? Not that I can see.

Advertising in some ways feels like philosophy. Do philosophers today have any better ideas about the nature of reality than they did 2,500 years ago? What arguments about the nature of Truth, Beauty, Reality, and Goodness have been settled since Plato, Aristotle and the other classical philosphers argued about them?

To my mind, philosophy also may use the language, the methods, and the tools of science, but it is really an art because we haven't actually settled anything. All we have are more modern descriptions of the same stuff.

Ditto for advertising. We delude ourselves into thinking that by employing the methods, language, and tools of science we are making progress. Sure, there has been scientific progress in some of the aspects of advertising (media buying in particular.) But what arguments about the nature of good advertising have we settled? Sit in an ad agency for 30 minutes and you'll probably hear the same disputes about what is good advertising and what isn't that you would have heard 50 years ago, albeit with a new vocabulary.

I contend that we haven't really made much progress toward understanding the fundamentals of how and why advertising works. Consequently, contemporary advertising -- like Rothko and Spamalot -- is different from the past, but it's not necessarily better.

Like a lot of art, there are those who would argue it's actually worse.

Open Letter To Harvard

"Thank you for sharing your idea with HBR.org. Due to the volume of submissions we receive, we are not able to respond personally to each inquiry. Please know that if we are interested in publishing your work, we will contact you directly.

The HBR Web Editors"

Dear HBR Web Editors,

Thank you so much for your email.

Before I sent in my submission to the Harvard Business Review, I read on your website that you were very busy and would only respond to me if the piece in question was accepted for publication.

Imagine how surprised I was when I received an email from you informing me, once again, that I would only hear from you if my piece was accepted.

It was very thoughtful of you to write to let me know that I probably wouldn't be hearing from you. Although, honestly, I'm not sure why it is easier to write to tell me that I  won't be hearing from you than it is to write when it's time to write. It seems like either way you are writing once. Then again, if my piece is accepted, you will be writing twice. So why not wait and just write once?

Now, to be honest here, I flunked algebra and you guys are from Harvard, so there's probably something about computers or quantum theory or gender studies that I don't understand that has to do with why it's easier to write twice than once. But, just in case, I'd have someone in the math department check this out. I mean, you guys are busy, right?

Big picture, Harvard, I wish more people would be as considerate as you are and communicate with me when they think they will not be communicating with me.

I am trying to follow your good example by sending you this email to inform you that if I do not hear from you again I will not be responding. Frankly, I am just too busy right now to answer emails that I don't get. Please understand, there is nothing personal in this. There are so many emails that I am not receiving every day that it would take hours -- maybe days -- to respond to all of them.

Like you, I believe it is important to keep in touch with those we plan not to be in touch with. Consequently, I am going to telephone a great many of my friends this week to explain to them why I will not be calling. I think it is the polite thing to do (I was also thinking about texting my cell phone contacts to explain why I won't be texting them but those messaging charges are frickin' amazeballs, right?)

Thank you once again for your thoughtfulness. And if you do not hear from me again, please consider it my personal way of staying in touch.

Yours truly,

Bob Hoffman

Media Buyers Are Ruining Everything

The fun part of being a contrarian is coming up with crackpot theories. And I've got a doozie for you today (by the way, how do you spell doozie?)

(Also, by the way, get ready for a lot of "by the ways" and parentheses today.)

I think that a substantial part of what makes our culture such a toxic cesspool can be laid at the feet of agency media buyers. Yup, all this rot is their fault.

You wouldn't think that a kale-eating, instagram-obsessed 28 year-old media buyer could have much effect on society. But you'd be wrong. They actually have an alarming and pernicious effect.

In a very insidious way agency media buyers influence our culture. Their decisions on what TV, radio and web media to buy largely determine what types of TV, radio and web content are produced. Nobody wants to produce programming or content they can't sell (except NBC, but that's an accident.)

Media buyers pay special attention to the interests and tastes of 18-34 year olds... oops, excuse me, Millennials (they've been re-named, promoted and deified. By the way, I just noticed that "deified" is a palindrome. Is this blog awesome, or what? But I digress...)

These peoples' tastes determine what our media look and smell like. They set the tone and determine the agenda.

Why do people care about the amazingly talented and sophisticated (sarcasm) Miley Cyrus? Because the media pay attention to her. It's quite a simple formula -- no media coverage, no Miley.

Why do the media pay attention to her? Because media buyers will "buy" her. Why will media buyers buy her? Because idiot 18 year-olds want to hear about her.

 I don't really know what this illustration means but I don't think it's fair that the digi-dorks get to use all the arrows and circles.

The obsession with targeting 18-34 year-olds is mostly quite dumb. But that's a whole other story that we don't have time for today. You really can't expect media buyers to understand it. They just do what media buyers have always done (it's so much simpler than thinking.)

Why is most TV, radio and web programming and content so astoundingly stupid? Because 18 year-olds are astoundingly stupid.

So what ya get is crazy stupid programming which fills us with crazy stupid values and crazy stupid culture and creates crazy stupid people. Ergo, media buyers are ruining everything.

It's a very pleasant time to be an idiot.

And who would know that better than me?