art versus science, the ad debate
homogenization. repitition. processes and systems.
guru-ism.
grunt work. boredom. loneliness.
sheep, and probably donkeys, too.
sameness.
And above all, doing things that way just because that's the way they're done.
these are the things ad math is intended to accomplish. (plus some resultants)
Ok, that all sounds like total bullshit, I know. If I were you, I'd be rolling my eyes right about now, too. So don't feel bad.
I've been toying with the looming art vs. science battle for online media supremacy. ROI, ROI, ROI, process, process, process. It all makes too much sense, but I fear all the process removes the focus from the one place it should be. The people. And what CRM, customer tracking and all the rest can't tell me is why I just smiled, why I told my friend, why I chose pink over blue. On some level it can tell me what I'm more likely to buy, but that information is mostly generalized and reactionary. It's hypothetical and ultimately inefficient.
So, the only choice that remains is to expect a consumer to raise their hands. But, fuck, I'm unlikely to raise my hand for more than a few products. The market can only take so many apples, so many fiskars, so many whatevers. Somewhere fanatical support just runs out, and reach still remains the issue. And there, math wins.
It's easy to say it's a balance of both, even if it's true (and it is). Unfortunately, it may not be possible to create a culture that embraces algorithms as much as it does creativity. If I had to choose one, it'd have to be art, mainly because if science was the only king, we probably would be even more overwhelmed with spammy direct mail.
If you had to pick one, which would it be?
