THE “SCIENCE OF ADVERTISING” MYTH

n the subject of “Advertising,” the U.S. Library of Congress has tens of thousands of titles. Many of them (too many) describe the “science” of advertising, offering formulas and recipes for the perfect ad. These are as useful as a temperance meeting in a curling rink. Advertising—or more accurately, persuasion—is not a science but an art. If secret tricks and formulas existed, I would be dictating this from my villa … in Aruba.

Which is not to say that science isn’t part of advertising. Research helps identify strengths and opportunities that lead to great marketing campaigns. A well-handled focus group can spot flaws in a product or advertising direction before any serious money is spent. And as a copywriter, I welcome a great deal of research early in the process. I want to learn everything there is to know about the product or service I’m helping to advertise. Too often, though, research is slanted to justify predetermined conclusions. As David Ogilvy wrote, “a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

Despite a mountain of market research, the Ford Edsel still failed in the 1950s, just as bad research contributed to the fiasco of New Coke three decades later.

Mr. Ogilvy is right: the best research is pure. It’s not used as a crutch or laden with foregone conclusions. Research can reveal astounding and powerful answers, but first, you have to ask the right questions. And even then, great advertising requires a balance of insight, instinct, and calculated risk.

And therein lies the art.