Is marketing an art or science?

19 replies
Just read new Seth Godin's new post about this and thought that it would be nice to discuss this topic on WF. Here is Seth's post:

Seth's Blog: Is marketing an art or a science?

Whatcha think?

I tend to see marketing more as an art, but it is a science too. Personally I don't like to be too scientific even though I love stats.. Persuading a client to buy or visit you blog is a difficult process. Best at that must be charismatic and know their way with words.

It's probably best to combine both, I'd say guy like Kern has done it, Pagan might be more on scientific side.. How is it for you?
#art #marketing #science
  • Profile picture of the author Ciaran Doyle
    Hi,

    If we take something like SEO for example. SEO, the fundamentals are definitely a science, but in order to make your websites stand out from the crowd, be on the top pages consistantly you do need to have that added something extra... the art of it all.

    So in some respects yes it is a science, but in other respects it takes taht little something extra to really excel.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820576].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author megaresp
    Originally Posted by AfteraDream View Post

    I tend to see marketing more as an art
    Me too. The nearest marketing gets to real science is direct marketing, where a 'scientific' form of testing is imposed. Marketing relies heavily on research conducted into human behaviour (psychology), which suggests to me that it's closer to social science than 'hard' science.

    Originally Posted by AfteraDream View Post

    Persuading a client to buy or visit you blog is a difficult process...
    Exactly. The same process doesn't work every time, unlike the chemical reaction you get if you drop sodium into water.

    Marketing is too unpredictable to be an actual hard science, like chemistry or physics. But neither is it art. As you say, it's a mixture of both. And yet, that still isn't satisfying.

    (pedantic mode)

    Marketing has elements of both art and science, and is something unique in and of itself that is neither art or science. It's its own thing - and I love it more than art or science.

    For a start, marketing is capable of paying its own way in the world. Both art and science seem to require hand-outs
    Signature

    66 ways to get links (and traffic) to your site.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820614].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasondinner
    Definitely BOTH

    The science part is that it's a numbers game.

    The art part is that to increase your response, you need to alter the design of your
    website (based on your numbers).


    Jason
    Signature

    "Human thoughts have the tendency to transform themselves into their physical equivalent." Earl Nightingale

    Super Affiliates Hang Out Here

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820627].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi,

      It's a science. If you bring art into it, you become less effective as a marketer.

      Of course, there are elements involved that seem almost purely artistic - for example, graphic design. But in truth, the best marketer will employ an artist to create the artwork but his initial instructions (placement etc) will be based on science (example - you use scientific, statistically tested/proven marketing processes to create a structure for the artwork that is designed to be effective in achieving the major goal, then you allow the artist to go to work, building artistically around this structure.)

      Hi mitch123,

      Just applying some formulae won't give you the results
      Of course it can.

      One has to be be creative enough and have an artistic bent as well
      Because...?

      Hi megaresp,

      Exactly. The same process doesn't work every time, unlike the chemical reaction you get if you drop sodium into water.
      This is misleading, and it's a key point. We are not aiming for 100% conversion rate, so 100% guaranteed success is irrelevant to the discussion.

      The same process does produce predictable results, within certain tolerances, over a significant number of attempts. You are saying that if you try to sell to two prospects, one of them buys and the other doesn't - then this proves the 'chaos theory' as it applies to marketing. It doesn't. Try 50000 prospects instead and you will see the science behind the numbers.

      To start out by trying to capture every available prospect is incorrect. You have a target market and your approach is designed to appeal to as many of that target market as possible. You must expect that a percentage who are exposed to the message will not be in the target market OR will simply not buy it. To try and avoid this and appeal to everyone dilutes the message and leads to failure.

      Therefore you should not expect/aim for 100% success. You should discover a percentage success rate via the market tests and then try to improve upon it.

      Marketing is too unpredictable to be an actual hard science, like chemistry or physics
      Again, you are using the conversion/failure rate and viewing this as unpredictability to suggest that it's not science.

      Forget the unpredictability and focus on the fact that you will not get 100% conversion - some percentage of failure is to be expected. Once you accept that, you can focus on what conversion rate you can achieve with what you already have, and then on improving it (scientifically).

      Again, marketing IS predictable. Establish your conversion rate. Then keep doing the same things and you will find that it stays roughly the same (within certain tolerances.)

      Hi Jason,

      Definitely BOTH

      The science part is that it's a numbers game.

      The art part is that to increase your response, you need to alter the design of your website (based on your numbers).
      Perhaps it's just semantics, but I don't see increasing response as an art, but rather a science.

      It's nice to think of it as an art, because the person who is very good at it can stroke his ego by viewing himself as a successful artist AND scientist. But this is a pointless illusion.

      You don't increase conversion rate purely by 'altering the design of your website.' This is just one aspect of many.

      You can also increase your conversion rate by (examples) -

      a) targeting different demographics/market sectors and acting on the test results

      b) running a survey and acting on the conclusions

      c) giving away a freebie

      d) NOT giving away a freebie

      efg>z) a huge spectrum of other totally seperate things

      By suggesting that you can summarize what is required to increase conversion rate by the phrase 'alter the design of your website', you are making it sound more 'artistic' when in truth it is not - it's scientific.

      If it was artistic, we wouldn't test it. Artists don't make 10 almost identical masterpeices and see which one the public likes best and scrap the other nine.

      Scientists and marketers don't rely on their instincts or their own opinion. They may use it within the process to create a starting test, but when it comes to splashing down the big green - they look to the market to establish what it wants and then supply it. This is more science than art.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820720].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AfteraDream
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Hi,

        It's a science. If you bring art into it, you become less effective as a marketer.

        Of course, there are elements involved that seem almost purely artistic - for example, graphic design. But in truth, the best marketer will employ an artist to create the artwork but his initial instructions (placement etc) will be based on science (example - you use scientific, statistically tested/proven marketing processes to create a structure for the artwork that is designed to be effective in achieving the major goal, then you allow the artist to go to work, building artistically around this structure.)

        Hi mitch123,

        Of course it can.

        Because...?

        Hi megaresp,

        This is misleading, and it's a key point. We are not aiming for 100% conversion rate, so 100% guaranteed success is irrelevant to the discussion.

        The same process does produce predictable results, within certain tolerances, over a significant number of attempts. You are saying that if you try to sell to two prospects, one of them buys and the other doesn't - then this proves the 'chaos theory' as it applies to marketing. It doesn't. Try 50000 prospects instead and you will see the science behind the numbers.

        To start out by trying to capture every available prospect is incorrect. You have a target market and your approach is designed to appeal to as many of that target market as possible. You must expect that a percentage who are exposed to the message will not be in the target market OR will simply not buy it. To try and avoid this and appeal to everyone dilutes the message and leads to failure.

        Therefore you should not expect/aim for 100% success. You should discover a percentage success rate via the market tests and then try to improve upon it.

        Again, you are using the conversion/failure rate and viewing this as unpredictability to suggest that it's not science.

        Forget the unpredictability and focus on the fact that you will not get 100% conversion - some percentage of failure is to be expected. Once you accept that, you can focus on what conversion rate you can achieve with what you already have, and then on improving it (scientifically).

        Again, marketing IS predictable. Establish your conversion rate. Then keep doing the same things and you will find that it stays roughly the same (within certain tolerances.)

        Hi Jason,

        Perhaps it's just semantics, but I don't see increasing response as an art, but rather a science.

        It's nice to think of it as an art, because the person who is very good at it can stroke his ego by viewing himself as a successful artist AND scientist. But this is a pointless illusion.

        You don't increase conversion rate purely by 'altering the design of your website.' This is just one aspect of many.

        You can also increase your conversion rate by (examples) -

        a) targeting different demographics/market sectors and acting on the test results

        b) running a survey and acting on the conclusions

        c) giving away a freebie

        d) NOT giving away a freebie

        efg>z) a huge spectrum of other totally seperate things

        By suggesting that you can summarize what is required to increase conversion rate by the phrase 'alter the design of your website', you are making it sound more 'artistic' when in truth it is not - it's scientific.

        If it was artistic, we wouldn't test it. Artists don't make 10 almost identical masterpeices and see which one the public likes best and scrap the other nine.

        Scientists and marketers don't rely on their instincts or their own opinion. They may use it within the process to create a starting test, but when it comes to splashing down the big green - they look to the market to establish what it wants and then supply it. This is more science than art.
        Well, it's an art because you have to find a creative way to market your product, make it stand out, maybe even invent a new way of marketing, a new technique, that's where it is art in my opinion.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820936].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aaron Sustar
    Well, yes, while definitiely it's both, I am leaning more towards the "science" part. Everything we do (if we do it right) is so precisely measured, split-tested, analyzed in and out, that the whole internet marketing has to be classified as a "science".

    However, just as a few guys (and gals?) before me have stated, if you really want to stick out and make an impression, you need that "extra something", which usually means you have to do something really creative. Is that "art"? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820684].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author A8ch
    Marketing is a blend of both art and science. There is no precise recipe
    for the mixture of these two elements. The formula is determined by
    the skill and understanding of the person applying it, and the situation
    to which it is being applied.

    Hermas
    Signature
    http://HermasHaynes.com - Web Marketing - Simple & Direct
    http://www.OnlineListBuildingFormula.com - How to Build a Super Responsive List Fast!
    http://www.eBizInfoProducts.com - Prosper with Info Products
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820765].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    I agree with ExRat.

    Marketing is PURE science.. even on the creativity/personality side. That is simply a "tactic".

    You wouldn't call the art of war or military strategy an "art". There are entire schools based upon the study of military science.

    In military science, you've got this huge arsenal of tools at your disposal. Troops, weapons, air, land, sea, etc...

    The combination of tools, tactics, strategy all combine at a single moment in time to determine the success or failure in a given campaign within a certain set of factors.

    Marketing is much the same. There is a given number of factors in multiple areas... environmental conditions, market climate, customer demographic, etc... You hae a number of tools and tactics that can be used in limitless combinations.

    The goal in marketing is much like warfare... subduing your adversary. In marketing, your adversary is your customer, and in subduing them, you get their money.

    Now I don't mean to say that you should actually view your customer as an adversary, because your client should be benefitting in some major way with what you're selling - otherwise get out of the business because you're scamming them by selling them something of no benefit or value.

    It's purely a statistical science.

    I think the confusions over marketing being art vs. science happens because like a battle, it is a unique set of events within a given set of conditions that generally cannot be replicated in an exact fashioin. Therefore, one has to look at history to determine the most likely case scenarios when using certain combinations of strategy & tactics. The one aspect that really adds to the confusion is the constantly changing environment (market). Science relies upon being able to replicate a theory given an exact set of variables. In warfare and marketing, there's no such thing as a lab because... well... life happens... it's constantly changing. Therefore, all study can only be an approximation based on likely case scenarios of similar environmental characteristics.

    Okay, I will quit now. This is a topic that I hold near and dear and can go on forever...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820952].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tyrus Antas
    It's a human science which theoretically could be studied just like other hard sciences but in practice requires a lot of intuition and creativity to get things right.

    There's just too many variables and relationships between those variables involved in the process of marketing for us to work with it in a purely scientific way. Heck, we don't even know what those variables are.

    That's where intuition and creativity, more aligned with arts enter the game.

    Should good marketing start with art(intuition) and end with science(testing and validation)?

    Tyrus
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[820958].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi,

      This is great

      Hi Afteradream,

      Well, it's an art because you have to find a creative way to market your product, make it stand out, maybe even invent a new way of marketing, a new technique, that's where it is art in my opinion.
      Let's focus on the part where you said - 'you have to'.

      Please elaborate on this, because if we find that you don't 'have to' then your reason for proclaiming it 'art' is moot.

      Here's an example - you can go out and buy a PLR package of salespage/thankyou page, ebook, adwords ads and adwords keywords. Then you upload the salespage and ebook, configure the thankyou page, set up the adwords ads and hit GO.

      I've done this, made sales and built a customer list from it. Almost zero creativity involved (except that it didn't come with adwords ads or keywords - I used some creativity to create them, but I didn't HAVE to - I could have outsourced it too).

      Hi Michael,

      I agree with ExRat
      It was written in the stars that this would eventually happen, and of course vice-versa

      I think the confusions over marketing being art vs. science happens because like a battle, it is a unique set of events within a given set of conditions that generally cannot be replicated in an exact fashioin. Therefore, one has to look at history to determine the most likely case scenarios when using certain combinations of strategy & tactics. The one aspect that really adds to the confusion is the constantly changing environment (market). Science relies upon being able to replicate a theory given an exact set of variables. In warfare and marketing, there's no such thing as a lab because... well... life happens... it's constantly changing.
      I would add to this - many people would look at warfare and the great figures in history and suggest that the greatest victors were artistically competent as well as scientifically. They would refer to all of the great sayings of wisdom that are attributed to these 'pillars of history' - along with some kind of unique genius that propelled them to greatness.

      What skews things and leads to this is everyday BS. Most of these leaders were probably utterly boring or had an army of scientific geniuses planning their strategy for them. But the combination of political spin and commercial wordplay along with 'chinese whispers' over many years ensures that 'the great' of the past always end up appearing to be larger than life and all-round heroes.

      I have no doubt that the incompetent plebs that are currently running the show will have the same things applied to them so that in 100 years people will gawp in admiration at the wise words/actions of our current leaders who 'saved' us from financial meltdown and other civilisation threatening issues like the pig sneeze.

      it is a unique set of events within a given set of conditions that generally cannot be replicated in an exact fashioin
      But does it have to be replicated in an exact fashion for it to be scientific?

      If I give a vague blueprint, similar to the one mentioned above -

      a) take this plr ebook, salespage and thankyou page and upload and configure them, after altering the salepage wording a bit

      b) do some minor keyword research, slap up some adwords to drive traffic

      Is this more science than art? I think so.

      The only variable that really matters (after making some assumptions - IE - the product offers value in a market that contains buyers of similar products) is that there are not - too many sellers and not enough prospects.

      Hi Tyrus,

      There's just too many variables and relationships between those variables involved in the process of marketing for us to work with it in a purely scientific way. Heck, we don't even know what those variables are.

      That's where intuition and creativity, more aligned with arts enter the game.
      We can pretend to ourselves that intuition and creativity are vital components of successful marketing and if we so desire we can cherry-pick specific examples to attempt to prove our point.

      But the hard truth is that the majority of successful marketing does not need or rely on those things.

      You can get a lot further with a thoroughly mediocre blend of copying, repetition, and simply placing your offer in the right place at the right time to satisfy obvious market demand.

      I have an almost uncontrollable desire for it to be an art-form too, that requires originality, intuition and creativity - all things that I like to believe that I excel in. In that Utopia, the cream would rise to the top and mediocrity would be punished with failure.

      But again, the truth is these are generally surplus to requirements (on the whole). They're useful, but not essential. Otherwise, why would anyone eat at McDonalds? Why do the majority pay a premium to wear the same branded clothes, while ignoring cheaper almost identical versions?

      Could it be something to do with mass marketing by those with the most money? Is this art or science? Why are there so many starving artists and great products that fail because they don't get exposure?
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821130].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        ...
        But does it have to be replicated in an exact fashion for it to be scientific? ...
        I was simply referring to the purest sense of the "scientific process", which roughly states that something can be replicated given an exact set of conditions... test group... control group... etc...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821252].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Compare marketing to playing a musical instrument, like the piano.

        At the lowest level, you have the total incompetent randomly banging away at the keys. The result is simply noise.

        If that incompetent either learns to read music or applies himself to learning to duplicate what he hears, with practice the incompetent becomes competent. The result is a recognizable tune.

        If that competent studies the structure of music and applies the theories, he can create music of his own. The result is original composition.

        If that composer takes the final leap of understanding, he's capable of creating music that stirs emotions for generations to come. He makes the leap from scientist or technician to artist.

        There are a lot of competent musicians and even composers, and a relatively few artists.

        In marketing, the incompetents create drivel. The scientists and technicians create fortunes of varying size. The artists change cultures.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821275].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          Compare marketing to playing a musical instrument, like the piano.

          At the lowest level, you have the total incompetent randomly banging away at the keys. The result is simply noise.

          If that incompetent either learns to read music or applies himself to learning to duplicate what he hears, with practice the incompetent becomes competent. The result is a recognizable tune.

          If that competent studies the structure of music and applies the theories, he can create music of his own. The result is original composition.

          If that composer takes the final leap of understanding, he's capable of creating music that stirs emotions for generations to come. He makes the leap from scientist or technician to artist.

          There are a lot of competent musicians and even composers, and a relatively few artists.

          In marketing, the incompetents create drivel. The scientists and technicians create fortunes of varying size. The artists change cultures.
          Very interesting expansion of the idea with the musician analogy John.

          I know a lot of musicians that are very technically capable, but lack the expressive artistry.

          I am going to steal your closing quote for Mike's Bag-O-Quotes... I always credit the originator...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821295].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AfteraDream
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          Compare marketing to playing a musical instrument, like the piano.

          At the lowest level, you have the total incompetent randomly banging away at the keys. The result is simply noise.

          If that incompetent either learns to read music or applies himself to learning to duplicate what he hears, with practice the incompetent becomes competent. The result is a recognizable tune.

          If that competent studies the structure of music and applies the theories, he can create music of his own. The result is original composition.

          If that composer takes the final leap of understanding, he's capable of creating music that stirs emotions for generations to come. He makes the leap from scientist or technician to artist.

          There are a lot of competent musicians and even composers, and a relatively few artists.

          In marketing, the incompetents create drivel. The scientists and technicians create fortunes of varying size. The artists change cultures.
          Very interesting, I can agree with it!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821891].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tyrus Antas
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Could it be something to do with mass marketing by those with the most money? Is this art or science? Why are there so many starving artists and great products that fail because they don't get exposure?
        I don't necessarily disagree with you. In a way, all knowledge in the world can be studied as a science. The subject can be approached scientifically or in a more "holistic" way(I hate that word).

        This discussion also exists in the software development world. Is programming a craft or a science?

        Nobody really agrees which one is the correct way to classify what we do...

        Tyrus
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821299].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ostrich99
          I'd probalby lean mostly towards Science.

          Every now and then we get new ideas, but for the most part it's similar tatics used and measured in a scientific way.

          Test, Rinse, Repeat.

          Most of the tactics are based in Science of how people buy, etc, so it's just implementing and testing that science and how it works in your niche.

          Ostrich99
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821311].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AfteraDream
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Hi,

        This is great

        Hi Afteradream,

        Let's focus on the part where you said - 'you have to'.

        Please elaborate on this, because if we find that you don't 'have to' then your reason for proclaiming it 'art' is moot.

        Here's an example - you can go out and buy a PLR package of salespage/thankyou page, ebook, adwords ads and adwords keywords. Then you upload the salespage and ebook, configure the thankyou page, set up the adwords ads and hit GO.

        I've done this, made sales and built a customer list from it. Almost zero creativity involved (except that it didn't come with adwords ads or keywords - I used some creativity to create them, but I didn't HAVE to - I could have outsourced it too).



        Well, yes you can buy things like PLR packages but aren't they a form of an art already? You just don't have to write it yourself, the guy who we
        writes it does have to be a bit of an 'artist" to know how to express himself and be a good writer, writing a good sales copy is an art too... And if you want to stand out you have to do things your own certain way, add your twist to it, that's where art lies, in finding what works for you best, combining it to get the best results and even maybe inventing some new method of marketing
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821886].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    Marketing is just the process of bringing together a product/service and a customer.

    How you do it is a choice.

    There are definitely scientific elements - split-testing is a science, copywriting is a science - There are many elements we may like to call 'art' but the short version is - if they don't make money, they get junked and if they do make money, they stay and get tested to be improved.

    It's all about money in most cases, so that brings it down to the 'art' of testing which is a pretty simply, repeatable, scientific subject when you get down to it.

    Andy
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821269].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Loren Woirhaye
    Good comments here from all - I agree that marketing is,
    when practiced well, scientific.

    However in service to that there is a lot of creativity and
    intuitive thinking that goes on. These things are convenient
    to label as "artistic", but it's purpose behind them is to
    sell stuff. This is not what artistic people are trained to
    do - the more general line of thinking is that art should
    exist for it's own sake, or if money is to get involved the
    art should "sell itself".

    The upshot is that a lot of artists and creatives are lousy
    marketers. The majority of nice-looking websites are
    ineffective at maximizing sales.

    In writing copy, in designing graphics and things - there
    is "art" to it - intuitive stuff we do that looks or feels or
    sounds right... not a mechanical process. You have to
    be open to your creative mind to make advertising that
    fits the culture of the time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[821317].message }}

Trending Topics