The Marketing as an art ‘OR’ science fallacy
Recently a client asked me about the role marketing automation could play in their business and whether it suited their business model and indeed their industry. I answered their query, but through our discussion got to discussing a timeless marketing debate: Is successful marketing a science or an art?

If you read the latest thoughts online, you may be led to believe that data-driven marketing has heralded the end of art driven marketing. But then again, perhaps not. Depends which authors you read and what they are promoting. Me? Where do I stand? Well, (in science terms) let’s look at the facts first or (as an artist) the lay of the land.
The argument for Science
With the relentless march of technology, more and more emphasis is put on the role of predictive consumer behaviour and how interpretation of the right signals can help improve marketing efforts.
Indeed, it turns out, as humans we can be a tad predictable despite being our unique, individual selves. At one end of the spectrum we have simple (yet highly profitable) recommendation engines such as “People who bought this, also bought…” whilst at the other end, there are famous examples such as Target in America who incurred the wrath of a father of a teenage daughter who they ‘predicted’ was pregnant and worthy of advertising to about pregnancy products.
The argument against Science
Unsurprisingly, developing a model which can be used to predict behaviour is quite the complex procedure. How do you know which signals are valuable and moreover, how do you know which signals in combination are going to be accurate predictors without spending large sums of money and large chunks of time? And perhaps as importantly, if you do work these questions out, how do you know when and if one of these signals is no longer as important as it used to be?
Looking at it from a different perspective, a data-driven approach fails to take into account human emotion. What works in a clinical environment (eg which taste do you prefer), may not translate into the marketplace when emotions such as nostalgia, sentimentality or social bias become involved. Furthermore, we are not Skinner’s rats in some cage,
The argument for Art
Two salespeople can have access to the same materials, the same predictive models and the same market, but have completely different conversion figures. Why, if they have the same tools, are the results so different? If you assume that they are equally driven, as often as not, the reasoning comes down to how they connect with their audience. They read the moment, they get creative and they create a connection, one which drives the respondent to action.
As further proof that human interaction plays a valuable part in the sales process, think of how something as simple as after-market service can turn someone off for life. In a recent piece I wrote, I detailed how customers are more likely to recall bad service experiences than good ones and more likely to let this influence their future interactions.
The argument against Art
At the best of times, human sentimentality can cloud judgement. It can mean that decision makers get lost in the “In the past this worked” or “this project is my baby..” and make decisions that are flawed from the outset.
Similarly, when marketing is led by a creative approach first, the result is campaigns or materials which are disconnected, based on assumption and devoid of potential meaning to the audience. Whilst facts may be taken into consideration, if these are not interpreted with reference to the broader picture and are taken in isolation — a snap shot in time — then the risk is the audience will fail to connect with the message and not take the desired action.
Marketing as a process of Attraction
So where do I stand on this matter? Well, I think it only fair to call myself what I called my brother for years growing up — Splinters (aka a fence sitter). I believe marketing is neither pure art nor purely science. But rather is a process of attraction, whereby:
- The term Process is a nod to the science of ensuring that you know who you are targeting, what motivates them, an understanding of what they may do with certain stimuli and more crucially, why you satisfy their needs better than others; and
- Attraction refers to the compulsion people feel to act yet cannot explain, which is borne of emotion and which more often than not stems from the esoteric, the creative, from humanity and connection.
And this is the crux of it. People want connection. They want to connect with the message — they want to feel their requirements have been heard, they want rapport with the person/brand/experience at that moment in time, to build their own story but most importantly to feel it is not all just ‘BS’. It has to be authentic.
As marketers, if we wish to derive more from our marketing efforts, we must understand our audience intimately, using scientific methods to get to know them, but then create moments of truth which engage them, not just predict what they may do.
Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists of the modern era — if not of all time — perhaps unwittingly bridges the argument beautifully:
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
I know for sure, there can be no science to imagining; imagining is an exercise in free thinking and revelling in it. Yet at the same time, creating abstract forms and being creative requires an innate understanding of the paradigms and restrictions which bound something, so that we know where we can push and what we can break.
