Advertising debate at Westminster

Commons People: A casual Monday night advertising debate at Westminster

On Monday, The Debating Group gathered a panel to discuss ‘Is Science Squeezing out the Art in Advertising’ at the Houses of Parliament. Charles Vallance, Founder of VCCP and Caitlin Ryan, former Executive Creative Director of Karmarama backed the motion. Marco Bertozzi, President of Global Clients for KivaKi and Sarah Lawson Johnston, Managing Director Europe of Mediaocean, opposed it. Lord Sharkey was Chair.

At first, the line-up looked like a simple dichotomy: this was as much about creative versus media as much as art versus science. Thankfully, both sides of the panel were in agreement that art and science are not diametrically opposed: that in advertising as elsewhere, the relationship between the two is a symbiotic one. The level of application of what Charles Vallance defined as ‘data science’ was the subject under discussion.

Vallance declared himself an advocate of imprecision. Precision he said was a false promise in advertising and that the influence of the immeasurable will always impact upon the effect and effectiveness of a campaign. Big data may be efficient, but illogical experimentation – ‘wastage’  even – is an important part of the creative process from which unexpected outcomes can arise. The Big Idea, the ‘art’ in advertising, is something that unites us as a people. When we side with algorithm over art, we signal the end of the the TV and radio ideas that have been famous, effective and that now form part of our social fabric.  An expert in the art of persuasion, Vallance darkly envisaged us slipping into a data-driven world without the next Smash Martians, Alexander the Meerkat, Monty the Penguin et al (perhaps a hollow dystopia when delivered from the imposing surroundings of Westminster, with its enviable collection of priceless art).

Caitlin Ryan broadened the discussion into the wider context of the general ‘datafication’ of society, with science reducing everything from  academic achievement in school to emotional empathy of dating to numbers . She conceded that creatives may have been guilty of shying away from measurement in the past – but still believes that data needs to be used with caution, as not all benefits are tangible. Measurement is not an elixir for effectiveness.

The ‘science’ advocates had their work cut out for them. After all, Thinkbox sponsored the event and are zealous  advocates of broadcast, brand-led creativity. TV advertising is 60 years old, while data-led creativity is in its relative infancy. Marco Bertozzi and Sarah Lawson Johnston’s  case for science enhancing creativity  was founded on practicality, personalisation, ease and efficiency. Citing examples such as Coca-Cola’s ‘Share a Coke’, they argued that the need for the Big Idea was stronger than ever, but that  ‘data science’ enabled these Ideas to be distributed more effectively and (arguably), more  ‘creatively’ too.  Bertozzi neatly countered Vallance’s claim that data science was impersonal, pointing to tech brands such as Tinder which facilitate human connection and incite social discussion.

The motion was carried, but the vote was by no means decisive. There is a risk of over-reliance on new data-led approaches to creativity, but so too is there a risk in aligning with older methods when the world is rapidly evolving. Remember that 60 years ago, TV advertising was the Brave New technology of its time. In the words of Albert Einstein ‘arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.’ A beautifully creative analogy from a scientist. Which I found on Google.

Clare Bowen is Head of Creative Development at Radiocentre

@clarebtweets