Marketing: Art or Science?

We started out realizing the difference between our present state and our desired state – the textbook definition of a need. They say it is only human to want more, maybe so, which is why the exercise of need-recognition is a recurring phenomenon. We conceptualize that as Demand. Now, to a rational, opportunist, equally aware of plugging the gap between present and desired state, the notion of supply to fulfill that demand came into contention – A provision that would enable him to benefit and subsequently leverage to fulfill his respective demands, and address his needs. The supply-centric mode of doing business came into being, thus.
Evolution hit. We realized that it wasn’t about what you could make; there was no surety that you would be able to gain any monetary acknowledgement for just being in the business. Target Market and Segmentation came to the rescue. We adopted a more demand-oriented style of doing business, which is where the infamous debate started: Is marketing a science or art?
Price multiplied by Revenue Equals profit. You put that into an infinite loop and you get consumer loyalty. You find yourself handling the dilemma of an audience that claims to be obviously different, and yet deeply the same. You could argue that for repeat purchases to take place, you need to strike out commonalties between your desired audience – not much unlike a muscle, through which you could perform the same task over and over again to inflate your status from a mere player to market leader. Is marketing a science, then?
Max Barry, in his satirical piece, Syrup, differences Art and Marketing on the basis of two simultaneous factors but varying in order: Identify Market and Create. Marketing starts by addressing an unfulfilled need in the marketplace and then figures out a way to plug it. Art on the other hand, starts with an idea – figuring out how to sell it comes afterwards, if at all. Art ensures a better product, but a lot of times there is no market for it. Marketing earns you more money, but quite often the idea is far from perfect because you can’t force ideas to turn up at will when you need them – they either do, or don’t.
By that definition, one could argue that art is predominantly supply-centric unlike modern-day marketing which isenslaved bya demand curve. Understanding consumer demand and translating that to consumer loyalty requires one to comprehend, and subsequently conceptualize the psyche of the customer. Nowadays there is increased focus on trying to figure out the workings of the human brain – how an injection of pheromones leads one to experience feelings like attraction and love that eventuallyconsolidate into a relationship. To those with little belief in rainbows and butterflies, it is nothing short of an impersonal chemical process as people could fall in love with more than one brand, over and over again or simply switch brands – the desirability element ranges from the branding efforts either elating the brand beyond an average person’s reach or its humbleness to be within touching distance, being a friendly ear that understands you better than your social circle and uplifts your status in the eyes of society and yourself. The brand is a projection – A persona. However, it comes with a certain life expectancy like any mortal; from introduction… to growth… to maturity… and finally decline.
Human psychology and consumer behavior is a science that feeds on people’s need to be understood, but often strips them down as molds of the same clay. The day marketing stopped being an art was when we decided to cut off the supply-centric beanstalk and replanted the entire garden with trees that exclusively bore fruit instead. In this materialistic world, the value and sustainability of any marketing effort is proportionate to the amount of sales it can attract while its caretakers focus on the return on investment – It’s fascinating how scarcity is felt more by those on Wall Street than those that live in one-room apartments with nothing but a canvas as center piece.
Some might argue that art and marketing may have more in common than what meets the eye. Countless masterpieces in the field of art were due to accidents – just like many successful ad campaigns that have withstood the test of time. The Ivory ‘floating soap’by P&G, also renowned by many as the birth of branding, was just as intended as the invention ofthe wheel. Coke is the most commonly used word globally, after ‘okay’ – It lives like a phenomenon, surpassing the lifespan of many organisms as if it were rather a product of alchemy. The beverage’s original recipe and the very shade of its red color is a trade secret, yet to be replicated successfully. In this case, the billion-dollar idea is protected by copyrights and leveraged through effective marketing campaigns. It’s a time when Art and Marketing can be seen working together – As one? …Debatable.
Art and Marketing can be a powerful force: They have the potential to bring about revolution. But then again, so does science. Just because marketing of the present has been complicated beyond recognition doesn’t automatically make it art. Not everything sophisticated is unique – not everything incomprehensible is as mysterious as Mona Lisa’s smile.
Marketing: Art or Science? – Perhaps one may not be able to prove the absolute domination of one facet over the other. Perhaps marketing is one commodity that cannot be labeled either way – A branding irony?Then again, isn’t the point of an argument merely to disprove the other side rather than taking the uphill climb, going in the opposite direction to which the apple fell, to prove your own validity? A coin has two sides; factually that will never change. What can change, though, is your preference of heads over tails or vice versa. Brand your argument in such a way that you’re able to alter perception. Alter perception and your audience would automatically picture a one-sided coin.

The writer has a Masters’ degree in Marketing and Finance. He can be reached on twitter @tayyabrafi