When quantitative meets creative
Bridging the Gap Between Marketers and Scientists
It’s strange for me as a physicist to find myself working in the world of advertising.
Creative media has typically been dominated by people from a liberal arts background. People who excel in creative thinking, storytelling, and empathy unsurprisingly make the best marketeers. They can convince on a level that most scientists simply cannot imagine.
On the other hand, we scientists prefer spending time with our computers, numbers, and books more than we do with people, so it is strange that we find ourselves in a pivotal role in the marketing ecosystem. It’s not just that there’s so much more data to handle, but we can also start to use AI to build computers more directly into the heart of the creative process.
We are now the people coming up with ideas that are blowing the minds of the creative industry, but we come to it from such a diametrically opposed viewpoint because of our different backgrounds, personalities and skill sets.
Marketers often see themselves as the artists in the corporate world. With liberal arts educations, they are trained to think creatively, understand human emotions, and tell compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Their strength lies in their ability to craft messages that appeal to human desires and aspirations, which is crucial in creating successful advertising campaigns and branding strategies.
We scientists usually come from more technical backgrounds, such as physics or statistics. Our expertise lies in their ability to dissect large sets of data, find patterns, and derive logical, evidence-based conclusions. This enables us to predict trends, optimize processes, and provide insights that are not apparent at the surface level.
While it may seem like these two professions operate in parallel universes, the reality is that we are entirely dependent on each.
Although we scientists can excel at measuring what is working, and even predicting what is going to work, if you tried putting us in charge of a marketing campaign I suspect you would get something with the emotional resonance of a pile of dirty dishes. Equally, if you don’t take our data insights and embed them into the heart of your campaign then you’re likely to find that is entirely lacking in targeting or accuracy.
We are like two sides of the same coin. Though we come from different academic and professional worlds, our collaboration is a powerhouse combination in the media landscape.
But it’s hard to work together because we speak such different languages. What are some good places to start?
Embrace and respect differences in thinking. Scientists while zero in on the specifics of the data while others will focus on a broader context and narrative. Both paths are essential.
Learn the basics of the language. Scientists will worry about statistical significance, others will talk about psychographics and psychology. Both are required to get a compelling campaign.
Use analogies and storytelling. Focus on previous examples and what specifically might happen rather than talking in general terms. Saying “you can’t do that because r-squared is less than 0.7” won’t make sense to anyone who hasn’t studied statistics.
Foster collaboration. Encourage scientists to engage in the creative process and creatives to delve into the scientific aspects. While deep expertise in both may not be achievable, this cross-engagement enhances overall understanding.
Be ready to be wrong. The data might suggest the campaign isn’t going to work but historical data is not always predictive of future performance. Equally, you might have the best creative you’ve ever made and the data might be right that no-one’s going to like it.
By embracing and leveraging our combined strengths, we can drive innovation, efficiency, and more meaningful connections with customers. As media continue to evolve in an increasingly data-driven world, the fusion of these diverse skills will become more crucial than ever.