See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247885900

Agency practitioner meta-theories of advertising

Article  in  International Journal of Advertising · January 2009

DOI: 10.2501/S0265048709200801

CITATIONS READS
31 405

2 authors:

Greg Nyilasy Leonard N. Reid

University of Melbourne University of Georgia and Virginia Commonwealth University
23 PUBLICATIONS   454 CITATIONS    130 PUBLICATIONS   2,768 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advertising Field Development View project

Fake news View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Greg Nyilasy on 24 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agency practitioners' meta-theories
of advertising
Gergely Nyilasy
Hall & Partners, New York
Leonard N. Reid
Grady College, University of Georgia

Research on practitioner theories of advertising uncovered that agency practitioners

not only have definite theoretical beliefs about how advertising works, they also have
meta-theoretical beliefs, fundamental presuppositions about the nature and possibility
of knowledge in advertising. The meta-theoretical belief in creativity and its dictum of
'no rules' was found to be more important than any other guiding principle in advertising
work. The primacy of creativity denies the possibility of any other moderator-focused
theories that would prescribe 'rules' for creative content. Practitioners believe that the
ontological status of advertising (as a territory defined by creativity, art and tacit skill)
places it mostly outside the reach of scientific modelling. While practitioners acknowl-
edge that knowledge about advertising is 'layered' (i.e. certain aspects of it are more
explainable by the legitimation system of science), they also insist that the creative 'layer'
is much thicker than other layers. A further qualifying factor is practitioners' epistemo-
logical scepticism, which questions the validity of both academic and commercial social
research as applied to advertising, and suggests instead that knowledge about advertis-
ing is better understood as 'common sense'. The study's findings have fundamental
consequences for the professional aspirations of the advertising industry as well as the
academician-practitioner gap in advertising.

Introduction
In an earlier article, we addressed the academician-practitioner gap in
advertising (Nyilasy & Reid 2007) through an analysis of key writings on
the subject. The analysis determined that the literature describing the
causes of the disconnect between academicians and practitioners misses
one potentially key aspect, which we labelled practitioners' 'knowledge
autonomy'.

International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), pp. 639-668

© 2009 Advertising Association
Published by the World Advertising Research Center, wwvv.vvare.eom
DOI: 10.2501/S0265048709200801 639
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

We conceptualised knowledge autonomy as structural knowledge dif-

ferences between academics and practitioners about how advertising
works. We hypothesised that practitioners may have their own sets of
theoretical beliefs about advertising, independent from academic knowl-
edge. We argued that, in turn, the possibility that advertising practitioners
think of advertising phenomena in distinctly different ways from academ-
ics may be one of the key reasons why there is a divide between academe
and practice.
Empirical support for the existence of knowledge autonomy was uncov-
ered in qualitative research we conducted among advertising agency
professionals. We found that agency professionals' knowledge about
advertising differs from academia (1) in its content, (2) in terms of under-
lying assumptions about the nature and possibility of this knowledge, and
(3) in its pragmatic use. We reported the first set of findings, the content of
practitioner theories on advertising (which is reviewed here later in more
detail), in a forthcoming article (Nyilasy & Reid in press).
In this article, we report on the second marker of knowledge autonomy:
meta-theories. We define meta-theoretical thoughts as fundamental
underlying assumptions about the possibility and nature of knowledge-in-
advertising. We discuss practitioners' mental constructs refiecting on the
ontological and epistemological standing of advertising knowledge. The
study thus seeks to answer the research question:
What do agency practitioners think about the possibility and nature of knowl-
edge about how advertising works.? In other words, what are their meta-theories
of advertising.''

Meta-theory is a well-known concept in the philosophy of science. It

denotes broad perspectives that overarch other theories (Ritzer 1975,
1991; Ritzer et al. 2001). It is the science of science, the investigation
of investigation, or the theory of theory, and involves 'the investigation,
analysis, and the description of (1) the technology of theory building,
(2) theory itself, and (3) utilization of theory' (Zaltman et al. 1973, p. 4).
Meta-theory contributes to scientific inquiry by raising fundamental sci-
entific and philosophical questions, disclosing conceptual problems and
prescribing solutions, and widening the horizon of research (Bunge 1959,
p. 26). There are three types of meta-theory: (1) meta-theorising to gener-
ate a deeper, more profound understanding of extant theories (e.g. study

640
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OF ADVERTISING

of theories, theorists, social contexts of theories); (2) meta-theorising about

extant theories as a prelude to the production of new theories (e.g. one
theory from another); and (3) meta-theorising to produce an overarching
theoretical perspective of a discipline or field (e.g. a general theoretical
logic) (Ritzer 1975, 1991; Ritzer et al. 2001). This study's focus on practi-
tioners' theories about theories is analogous with the first type of analysis.
The significance of uncovering practitioner meta-theories is profound.
As we have argued elsewhere (Nyilasy & Reid 2007; in press), investi-
gations into advertising practitioners' knowledge autonomy allow us to
better understand the academician-practitioner gap in advertising and
consequently help deepen our understanding of the industry's professional
status. Such studies have tremendous value, as advertising practitioners'
knowledge autonomy is virtually uncharted academic research territory,
yet a potentially key driver of disconnects between advertising academe
and practice. Understanding knowledge autonomy has the promise of re-
establishing some flows of knowledge between the two constituencies and
thereby promoting the industry's professionalisation project (Abbott 1988;
MacDonald 1995; Nyilasy & Reid 2007).
Researching practitioner meta-theories, in particular, is extremely
important. As the history of human knowledge shows, discrepancies
between different schools of thought cannot be simply explained by dif-
ferences in content. Rifts often run much deeper - they are 'paradigmatic'
(Kuhn 1962; Guba 1990; Dennis & Wartella 1996). They have to do with
the fundamental assumptions behind knowledge: ontological and episte-
mological presuppositions.
Practitioner knowledge is no different. The research reported here
investigates whether, beyond topical differences in advertising knowledge
(Nyilasy & Reid in press), advertising practitioners agree with academia
about the nature and possibility of knowledge on advertising.
Before turning to the findings of our earlier article, a caveat is in order
to clarify our position regarding knowledge autonomy between the two
professional groups. We assert that the notion of practitioner autonomy
does not mean that there are no interfaces, links and transfers with aca-
demic advertising knowledge. Indeed, many practitioners have worked
in academic settings as well as academicians in practitioner roles (see
Nyilasy & Reid 2007). Beyond such occupational and personal exchanges,
there may be some other forms of knowledge transfers - indirect flows

641
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OE ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

through intermediaries (such as research services, education, journahsts,

conferences, etc.) - which seem especially relevant. The existence of
such exchanges does not undermine the notion of knowledge autonomy,
however - it only strengthens it. The existence of interactions, dialogues
and crossovers points to two centres of gravity: one in academia and one in
practice. Our approach is to uncover the second centre of knowledge, that
of practitioners in advertising.
Furthermore, we acknowledge the existence of an extensive body of
written work produced by advertising practitioners. This knowledge is
represented in materials available from IPA, WARC, Admap, ARF and
other sources, and defines what we see as the 'written tradirion' of adver-
rising pracritioner thinking. Our focus is on the 'oral tradirion' - that is,
understanding of the emic point of view on theorerical thoughts about
adverrising from the lived experiences of pracritioners. A critical analysis
of the 'written tradition' - though it would be a massive undertaking -
would be a worthwhile subject of addirional inquiry to complement evi-
dence produced by research on the 'oral tradition'.
Following is a brief review of Nyilasy and Reid (in press) to provide
context for the practitioner meta-theories reported in this article.

Agency practitioner theories of advertising

In our eadier article, we analysed transcriptions generated through in-
depth interviews with agency account managers, account planners and
creative directors for pracritioner-based theorerical beliefs about how
advertising works.
The analysis uncovered that agency practitioners have distinct ideas
about basic and mid-range theories of advertising, understand the impli-
cations of domain specificity for basic theorising, but are sceptical about
micro-theories focusing on executional directives. The findings suggest
that pracritioner ideas about how advertising works differ significantly
from prevailing academic theories.
At the most fundamental level, agency practitioners believe that, while
advertising does have an effect, they also believe that its power is more
limited than commonly thought (a phenomenon rooted in consumer
scepticism and filtering). Agency practitioners also agree about the basic
building blocks of advertising's infiuence: attenrion to adverrising, brand

642
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

awareness, rational and emotional attitudes, and behavioural change.

While these simple building blocks are identical with academic counter-
parts (although practitioners consider emotional effects much more impor-
tant than rational ones), agency practitioners organise them into different
theoretical structures than common academic theories.
Two core practitioner theories emerged about how advertising works:
'break through and engage' and 'the mutation of effects'. The practition-
ers interviewed believe in a simple two-step process: advertising first
breaks through to create some level of advertising/brand awareness and
then engages consumers (either rationally or emotionally) with the brand.
This simple 'break through and engage' theory is markedly different from
commonly accepted formulations of the Hierarchy-of-Effects (e.g. Colley
1961; Sheth 1974; Barry & Howard 1990): it does not presuppose a hier-
archy of rational^emotional—^behavioural sequentiality; these steps can
occur in any order. The only sequentiality assumed is that advertising first
has to get beyond consumers' 'boredom barrier' to be able to then engage
with the brand message. 'Break through and engage' therefore is similar
to what Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) describe as 'hierarchy-free' models.
The second core theoretical idea practitioners discussed was 'the muta-
tion of effects'. Agency practitioners placed much emphasis on discussing
advertising effects over medium and long periods of time. In the long
term, they believe it becomes evident that advertising effects go through
a unique form of mutation: advertising loses its effectiveness if particular
types of ad techniques are overused because consumers become 'resistant'
to advertising messages if they are not sufficiently varied. While the aca-
demic Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright 1994) contains a
similar conceptualisation of consumer resistance to advertiser persuasion
attempts, the model does not discuss effects over time, in a historical
context.
Practitioner knowledge about advertising does not stop at the two core
theories about 'how it works'. Practitioners also have beliefs about 'what
works better'. Since such ideas are not about the general ways in which
advertising works, rather what moderating factors would result in higher
levels of effectiveness, Nyilasy and Reid (in press) called these moderator-
focused theories.
Interestingly, in practitioner thinking, there is only a very simple moder-
ator-focused theory. They believe that there is only one rule for advertising

643
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

to work effectively: it has to be creative. Not only is it perceived to be the

most important rule, it is also an exclusive one: it prohibits any other direc-
tives that would contradict it. Rules such as 'entertainment and humour
are effective in advertising' are naturally compliant with creativity and
are considered desirable. The second group of ideas constitutes what we
could describe as 'shameful knowledge'. Rules in this group are theories
that everybody in the ad industry seems to know about but nobody sub-
scribes to (i.e. the use of puppies, children, sex and mnemonics to attract
attention and likeability). They do not mesh with the creativity directive
because they are believed to result in 'formulaic advertising'. More exam-
ples of such creativity-conforming and non-conforming moderator-focused
ideas are presented in Nyilasy and Reid (in press).
Finally, agency practitioners have a keen interest in outlining boundary
conditions for their beliefs about how advertising works. In their think-
ing, domains of applicability always need to be considered. While such
circumstances are potentially infinite and vary case by case, the practition-
ers described slightly different ways in which advertising worked, based
on four types of conditions: (1) the strategic campaign objective; (2) the
product category of the advertised brand; (3) the ad medium used; and
(4) historical time periods.
Though Nyilasy and Reid (in press) establish that agency practitioners
have theoretical beliefs of how advertising does its work, to fully com-
prehend practitioners' knowledge autonomy it is essential to consider
underlying practitioner presuppositions about the nature and possibility
of advertising knowledge, the subject of this article.

Research design
Because of the study's basic aim to understand practitioners' thinking
about the work of advertising in their own terms, a qualitative design was
used for the inquiry (Pike 1954; Lincoln & Guba 1985; Creswell 1998, p.
15; Babbie 2001, p. 91). The research associates itself with the 'grounded
theory' approach to qualitative research. A detailed description of the con-
ceptual development of the approach is presented in Nyilasy and Reid (in
press).

644
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

Data collection procedures

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were used as the key field method.
In-depth interviewing is a useful tool for gathering rich and complex quali-
tative data (Kvale 1996; Creswell 1998). In-depth interviews allow the
discovery of emic perspectives and informant-determined points of view
(Kvale 1996, p. 1) - in this case, the perspective of agency practitioners.
Preliminary preparations for data collection started well before actual
interviewing. Informal interviews were conducted with qualitative-ethno-
graphic experts. Email and phone conversations were exchanged about
the feasibility of the project, opinions about method and tips for effective
intervievi'ing. A particularly useful series of conversations took place with
Dr Arthur J. Kover (see Kover 1995).
Based on these insights and the literature, an initial interview guide was
developed. This was built around three questions: (1) what the content
of practitioner knowledge is; (2) how practitioners know what they know;
and (3) how they use this knowledge in everyday practice. The interview
guide used both opening 'grand tour' questions as well as more specific
probes.
The initial guide was used in a series of interviewer trainings sessions.
Three practice interviews were conducted with agency-experienced doc-
toral students and three with agency-experienced faculty members, to
allow the principal interviewer to hone his interviewing skills and evaluate
the efficacy of the interview guide. Two of the student interviews were
observed by interviewing experts to provide feedback and recommenda-
tions on interviewing technique.

Samplirig and informants

Informants were selected using a 'theoretical sampling' method (Glaser
& Strauss 1967). Theoretical sampling is an adequate methodology for
qualitative studies (in particular grounded theory designs) where the
objective is not statistical representativeness (which would call for random
sampling), but theory generation or reconsideration.
Faculty and personal contacts were asked to identify potential inform-
ants; subsequently these contacts were asked to identify other participants.
We also consulted the most authoritative industry source (The Advertising

645
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Red Books 2005) to identify relevant agencies and key personnel. An

attempt was made to represent both network and independent agencies,
as well as agencies of different size (major, midsize and smaller). The
sampling procedure proved practically efficient as the interviewer gained
entry to most targeted agencies and the targeted senior agency leaders.
The interviews were conducted in the Atlanta advertising market, one of
the top ten advertising markets in the United States.
Twenty-eight respondents were interviewed until theoretical saturation
was achieved (i.e. concepts were identified and linked to other concepts
until no new information was obtained; see Morse 1995, p. 147). Creswell
(1998) recommends 20-30 interviews for grounded theory studies (p. 122),
while Kvale (1996) suggests 15±10 (p. 102). Thus, the 28 interviews satisfy
both recommended ranges.
Three occupational groups were interviewed: account managers, account
planners and creative directors. Only people at senior levels were asked
to participate. At smaller agencies, this meant the owner, CEO or general
manager of the agency; at larger organisations, informants were heads of
their functional units. Our objective was to include the three major occu-
pational groups within the agency setting as the ones responsible for the
creation of advertising content.
We acknowledge that practitioner knowledge is heterogeneous and
different practitioner groups may have different beliefs (e.g. brand man-
agers, independent research consultants). We suspect the same is true
of the three occupational groups represented in our data. However, our
purpose in using a qualitative approach is to produce naturalistic agency-
level interpretations as reflected in extensive verbatim narratives, not to
probe for differences in agency-level occupational roles or job functions.
Questions of occupational role differences are best explored using quan-
titative methodologies to yield statistically representative results. Our
results are not meant to be interpreted as generalisable in a quantitative
sense, but as illustrative of a sociological phenomenon worthy of addi-
tional investigation.

Field issues
Interviews lasted from 45 to 90 minutes. Most took place in the inform-
ants' offlces. Some interviews were conducted off-site at the informants'

646
 AGENCY PRAGTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

request. We allowed practitioners to talk freely. We did probe academic

theories initially for comparative purposes. However, because recogni-
tion and knowledge of academic theories was virtually non-existent, we
stopped probing as the interviewing progressed. Extensive field notes
were composed immediately following the interviews. These reflections
helped refine ways of asking questions and with the development of
emerging concepts. The field notes were entered into a NVIVO database,
the qualitative data analysis software used for data analysis.

Data analysis and the emerging nature of the data

Interviews were transcribed and then assessed by an initial reading to get
a preliminary grasp of content. Next, interview transcripts were uploaded
into NVtVO. Data were analysed according to the constant-comparative
method of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Strauss & Corbin
1998). The four steps of open coding, axial coding, selective coding and
theoretical propositions were followed (Creswell 1998).
We used the constant comparative method throughout the coding proc-
ess to code and recode the transcripts through many iterative circles. First,
we coded loosely (open coding) to identify general themes in the data. We
had to go back many times and refine our codes as recurring themes started
to emerge (e.g. 'advertising knowledge as common sense'). Next, we used
axial coding to compare existing codes and related them to each other
(e.g. we discovered the theme of 'ontological scepricism' by noticing that
practitioners' ideas about the nature of advertising have a common root).
In selective coding, we started to notice a deeper storyline and hypotheses
linking concepts such as the notion that beliefs about creativity are inter-
connected with certain meta-theoretical beliefs. Finally, we identified
theoretical propositions about the system of practitioner thought involv-
ing practitioner theories, meta-theories and pseudo-professional tactics.
As previously noted, we report here only one of the three main themes
discovered: practitioner meta-theories.
The findings, presented in a manuscript format, were checked with par-
ticipants. They agreed that the content accurately reflected their thoughts.

647
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OE ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Results: agency practitioners' meta-theories

Results are reported in three parts. First, results on practitioners' funda-
mental meta-theoretical stance are discussed; second, the causes for such
doubts are described as attributed to the nature of advertising phenomena;
and, third, findings on practitioners' thinking about the ways of knowing
in advertising are presented. Figure 1 summarises the findings.

Figure 1: Agency practitioners' meta-theories on advertising

1. The only rule: there are no rules

Why?

II. The nature of advertising: III. The way we know things in advertising:
ontological scepticism epistemological scepticism

1. Creativity/innovativeness 1. The difficulty of predicting purchase

2. Art vs. science behaviour

3. The importance of tacit skill 2. Advertising knowledge as common sense

4. A'layered'ontology 3. Sceptical views on academic knowledge

a. Awareness of academic contributions
b. Concerns about validity
i. Credibility of academic authors
ii. Perceived artificiality
iii. Timeliness of results
c. Depth of understanding academic
endeavours
4. Commercial market research

The only rule: there are no rules

Agency practitioners' first and most important meta-theoretical belief
is that there are no rules in advertising for generating creative content.
This 'no rules' belief overwhelms other thoughts and is fundamental to
their strong scepticism about the legitimacy of any investigations aiming
to uncover moderator-focused theories for advertising (regularities that
would describe 'what works better' and not 'how it works', as defined
above).

648
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OF ADVERTISING

Almost all the informants concurred that such creative-focused pre-

scriptions are impossible, even though they professed that there might
be regularities about strategic relevance and consumer insights (i.e.
what the advertising should say, based on consumer insight and market
research, but not how it should say it). They expressed this belief in a
number of different ways {AccountManager2, 6,8 = AM; Creative Director2,
3,5 = CD; Account Planner2 = AP). Most simply quoted what they called
one of the oldest adages of the ad business: 'You know, the old cliché,
the only rule is: there are no rules' {AM7). Others noted that avertising
work is by definition not following the rules, rather breaking them: 'Yeah,
there are rules. And the first rule is to break them' {CD6\ also AM2, 4, 6,
7,10;AP6;CD4,9).
Agency practitioners believe strongly that the genesis of ideas is subjec-
tive work {AM2, 6, 9), which relegates advertising to the area of opinion
rather than firm knowledge - at least when it comes to moderator-focused
theories. The point was made by several of the informants {AMI2; CD 9).
Avoidance of moderator-focused regularities is an objective in itself
because such theories are believed to lead to conventions. As such, regu-
larities are emphatically rejected {AM4, AP2). The anger expressed by
CD5 was emblematic of beliefs expressed about convention-based adver-
tising: 'But any time you get into a grid that, "We'll always have a picture
of a family, and one out of every three ads will have a minority component
to it, and the headline will always be on the top ..." That's the kind of
garbage you see full of magazines ... That stuff's just... is just junk.' AP4
even noted that academia might be responsible for some of these nega-
tively perceived conventions: 'There have been studies ... such as at what
point should the company be mentioned, and how many seconds ... must
the logo be on screen, and so forth ... to have a successful TV spot... It's
just very difficult in reality to say those are always true.'
Interestingly, it was noted that one of the biggest problems with moder-
ators in moderator-focused rules is that they in fact do work: they do affect
the outcomes of advertising, but negatively. The most damning criticism of
all is exactly this: if rules in advertising do work, they result in defective
outcomes; while those ads that break the rules are more effective {API, 4,
6; CD9).
A similar 'no rules' belief was expressed by informants about observed
regularities in the advertising of certain product categories {AM5, 10;

649
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

CD2, 8). AM8 mentioned a candy account as an example: 'Like we sell

candy ... as soon as I say that, so there is the general rule, someone
... They will break the rule and, you know, succeed.' AP5 called this
'reversing' category rules: 'One of the things that we should be striving
to do, as an advertiser, is break the rules of the category. So if the cat-
egory convention is, you should be doing this style of advertising, is a
good reason not to do it.'

The nature of advertising: ontological scepticism

Why do moderator-focused theories fail to work in advertising.? Why are
there no 'rules'.? What is it about the advertising industry that sets it apart
from other fields where predictive models of applied science are accepted
and appreciated.? What is so special about advertising that theoretical regu-
larities are questioned.? Agency practitioners think that one reason is the
inherent nature of advertising. In other words, agency practitioners have
native ontological presuppositions about the characteristics of advertising
phenomena. They believe that the nature of advertising can be charac-
terised by (1) creativity/innovativeness, (2) the domination of art over sci-
ence, (3) the individualistic, tacit skills of ad creators, and (4) the layered
structure of its components.

Creativitylinnovativeness
Agency practitioners' core ontological meta-theory of advertising is that
it is a creative endeavour, an inherently innovative activity, and therefore
proposing rules that prescribe what works and what does not (moderator-
focused theories) is contradictory to this essential characteristic. To them,
advertising l/y definition, is indeterminate, innovative and creative, and
'rules' - particularly moderator-focused theories that would predict results
through the use of particular message components - are l/y definition deter-
ministic. The implication is that rules are to be resisted, because they
contradict the very nature of advertising on this ontological level.
Several agency practitioners described advertising as an 'industry of
subjective ideas' {AM6), where rules and science work to devastate crea-
tive thoughts and actions {API). Others remarked that creativity is adver-
tising's 'leverage' and the deterministic nature of moderators takes that
'leverage' away {AP4). API suggested:

650
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OF ADVERTISING

Because I think what ends up happening, in more cases than not, is that as an
industry we end up getting ourselves so caught up in the rules that that has in
and of itself broken down the advertising community ... Why the hell do they
hire an advertising agency, defined creative, if it's a template, and it's this type
of a type font, you know, they can go out and for, you know, for $139.95, they
can buy a computer program that can do that.

Some argued that there is an 'inverse relationship' between rules and

creativity (CD2), with rules being antithetical to creative advertising, by
deflnition {CD5, 9).

Art vs science
Another way agency practitioners expressed their ontological scepticism
about rules for advertising is by placing the argument in the context of the
'art' versus 'science' dichotomy. They argued that since advertising (at
least the creative portion of it, which in turn is defmed as its essence) is
not science but art, there should be no rules prescribing how to create it.
In their view, scientific law is a system of legitimation that does not apply
to the realm of art, because art is understood as ontologically different and
free of scientific determinism.
AM12 explained that even though, hypothetically, it would be advanta-
geous for the advertising industry to have moderator-focused science for
the creation of creative content, it was impossible as its ontological status
was so foreign to science: 'You know, it would make everyone's life easier,
if there were, you know, some formula that you can work with, but there
really isn't. I mean, there are principles of good design that are always
there. You know, other common sense things that you want to do, but in
terms of rules like mathematical theories or something, no, they don't
exist. This is not a science, it's art.'
The resulting imperative for the industry is the avoidance of any rules
{AP2, 7). CDf described the tensions between art and science in advertis-
ing, from which, in his view, art had emerged victorious:
There is sort of two souls that get into this business, it seems like, and one of
them wants this to be a science. It wants everything to be very measurable, and
I think what happens is we run through little flurries where that is true, where
you can put numbers against these things and say, I can put ... It becomes
Pavlovian, I can put this in front of somebody, and by God, they are going to
start foaming at the mouth for it, they are going to want this, you know. But it

651
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OE ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

doesn't hold up for very long. Mercifully I think the business would be horrible
if we could sit here and manipulate people, and I will run this commercial at
that moment and people would respond.

The importance of tacit skill

There is a third way in which agency pracritioners challenged the legiti-
macy of rules for ad creation. They compared the process of creating
advertising to the tacit skills of exceptional sportspeople or musicians.
AMI., for example, compared the creation of advertising to playing hockey;
AM12 used the metaphor of soccer play: Til make a wild analogy here, if
you're a soccer star, it's a worldwide sport, there's no formula for being a
great player, there are clearly things ... you know, there are drills, there's
conditioning, that all load into it, but ulrimately, there's some innate level
of talent that isn't coachable, isn't teachable, that'll make somebody out-
standing in that sport.'
CD5 compared advertising creation to music; and CD2 said advertising
creative work was similar to being a musician:
You know, it's like becoming a master musician. Practice, practice, practice,
practice. You know, no one can learn, no one can play in a rock and roll band
until they practised painfully for three years. No matter what the instrument...
I think it gets easier as you go. You know, just like a jazz musician; gets easier
for him to improvise.

A 'layered' ontology
It would be erroneous to claim from the preceding remarks that agency
practitioners discredit the legitimacy of theoretical knowledge for adver-
tising completely. Ontological doubts were expressed only about the rules
for the generation of creative content (the hypothesised effect moderator vari-
ables would have on outcome variables). As CDl discerningly noted, there
are multiple layers in advertising and their relationship to theorisability
might differ significantly:

I think there are bodies of knowledge. I think that every art director, every
writer, every account executive, everybody in research, and everybody in
media, I think all these people bring ... It's almost like lords. We gather all the
tribes together.
Basic theories about how advertising works were not discredited by the
agency practitioners. Indeed, it seems agency practitioners have a meta-

652
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OF ADVERTISING

theoretical view that advertising has different 'layers', some of them

more 'knowable' than others. To them, a basic understanding of what
psychological effects advertising has on people is legitimate, just as is all
the case-by-case theorising that goes into the development of strategy
(involving market research and consumer insights). In practitioner think-
ing, it is the creative area that is off-limits for scientific interruption, not
the whole of advertising. AM4, for example, argued for the legitimacy of
upfront market research and planning in strategic planning. AM5 laid out a
similar 'layered' meta-theoretical view: 'certain parts of it are more ... easy
to scientifically analyse than others'. CD5 very specifically circumscribed
the sphere in which science can play a role in advertising: 'in understand-
ing consumers, ... there's a huge role for that [i.e. science]. Where I think
there's not a role is ... with a way to develop a headline or grid of action
that will always result in this.'
Agency practitioners expressed the belief that client expectations are
also layered. Clients want creative ideas but they also want certainty that
the proposed ideas will result in the agreed-upon market results. API
stressed the existence of these two separate layers, suggesting that an
agency's capability for offering a theoretical knowledge base differs by
these layers: 'it cannot offer theoretical knowledge for creative, however, it
is capable of showing theoretically based certainty for strategy and to some
extent measurement of the basic effects of advertising'. CD8 summed up
succinctly practitioners' 'layeredness' meta-theory: 'You want the base of
science, but you don't want the science to dictate the execution. To the
point where it becomes more of the same.'

The v\/ay we know things in advertising: epistemological

scepticism
While practitioners are ontologically sceptical about moderators in adver-
tising theories ('rules' for generating higher or lower levels of outcome
variables), they are epistemologically sceptical about the use of science
and scientific validation in advertising in general - questioning the ways in
which we can know anything about advertising with scientific rigour. This
epistemological scepticism is a distinct meta-theoretical area from ontological
views on the nature of advertising; it problematises how we know about
advertising (scientifically or otherwise), not what the consequences of the

653
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

fundamental nature of advertising are for our knowledge. Even though

practitioners have strong beliefs about how advertising works at the
basic theoretical level, they do not attribute this knowledge to academic
research, nor do they think that such beliefs are on a scientific epistemo-
logical level.
Their scepticism was refiected in four beliefs. First, practitioners are
frustrated by the fact that the most important thing to explain, purchase
behaviour, is difficult to tie directly to advertising because of the complex-
ity of ruling out other possible causes. Second, they feel that whatever
is knowable about advertising is not scientific knowledge, but rather
common sense. Third, practitioners are epistemologically sceptical about
academia-produced research, which - as professionalisation theory would
suggest - should be considered as the gold standard of epistemology (i.e.
the best and most refined way of knowing about the subject matter).
Agency practitioners, however, seem to think otherwise; they (a) are una-
ware of academic contributions to advertising knowledge, (b) have doubts
about the validity of academic research, and (c) are misguided about its
true nature and attributes. Fourth, they are somewhat ambiguous about
applied market research (especially of the evaluative kind). While most of
them acknowledge the importance of some form of market research sup-
port for their work, they are sceptical about the epistemological assump-
tions such research typically carries.

The difficulty ofpredicting purchase behaviour

Agency practitioners' biggest concern is that what is the most important
to explain (both for advertiser clients and for the advertising industry
itself) - the causal link between advertising and purchase behaviour - is
the most difficult to establish. The belief was expressed by most that it
is virtually impossible to causally link advertising with behaviour because
of the complexity of external factors that may also have an effect on pur-
chase. AMI stated, for example: 'there's all kinds of formulas, all that stuff.
It can't do it, because there's too many influences in the sales process that
have nothing to do with what I write and where I place it.' AM2, similarly,
doubted the possibility of solid knowledge in this area: 'advertising is only
one variable in the overall mix of things that can cause people to buy your
product'. CD3 expressed his scepticism thus: 'the reason why I maintain
that it's bogus to try to link advertising specifically to sales is because there

654
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

are so many variables relating to the sale that don't have to do anything
with advertising'.
The problem with the 'complexity of causes' also overflows into other
areas in advertising knowledge, and makes agency practitioners generally
sceptical about the possibility of scientific knowledge in advertising. CD7.,
for example, insisted that scientific theorising and measurement are dubi-
ous because of this inability to explain what would be the most important
thing to explain:

I mean, for every argument that you're used to see that you can measure it,
there's probably one against it. You know, you may have a campaign come
out and sales go up ... Is that because of the message or ... because you just
advertised.?'

Advertising knowledge as common sense

Agency practitioners believe that advertising is more common sense than
scientific knowing. AM4 summed it up succinctly thus: 'It's not rocket
science, just get people's attention, and then let the product, once they
try the product, the benefits of the product will help sell the product the
second time ... We all realise that this is not rocket science.' CD5 had a
similar view: 'I mean, it's not like ... really, we're not witch-doctors, it's not
some kind of crazy science that we do.'
There is a doubt whether science could add much to practitioner
thinking. Talking about academic knowledge, AP5 stated, for instance: 'I
haven't got the time to read all this ... because there's so much acknowl-
edgement of sources, and this is the method ... "You did all ofthat to get
to that.? I could have told you that before you did all ofthat.'"
Knowledge about advertising is better described as common sense than
academic knowledge because it is very difficult to measure advertising
phenomena with the rigour of science: 'It's like ... [agency owner] said
the other day, "There is no way to measure common sense." And it's hard
to do, it's hard to quantify common sense.' CD7, similarly, admitted that
advertising was one of the easiest careers; ad practitioners were very well
paid for the use of their 'common sense'.

Sceptical views on academic knowledge

Agency practitioners' epistemological scepticism is especially strong
towards advertising academia. While according to professionalisation

655
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

theory, academic research - as the most sophisticated mode of knowing

about any subject matter - should be welcomed by those who practise
advertising (see Nyilasy & Reid 2007), agency practitioners ignore it
and even question its legitimacy. Agency practitioners (a) are unaware
of academic contributions, (b) have strong concerns about validity, and
(c) exhibit some general confusion about the true nature of academic
endeavours.

(a) Awareness of academic contributions. Agency practitioners were quick to

profess that they do not use academic research. Examples were bounti-
ful: 'I have never read one of those [research articles]. Ever in 30 years.
I've never read any of it' (AMI); 'No, I personally don't [read advertising
research journals] ... I don't think they are widely read in the practitioner
community except by perhaps those people who'd have a narrower focus
on, you know, research methodology or something' (AMI2).
Further, agency practitioners do not have name recognition for any
of the classic academic theories of advertising. Probes failed to uncover
any theories commonly used in academic research such as 'Hierarchy-of-
Effects', 'Low-Involvement Theory' or the 'FCB grid'.

(b) Concerns about validity. Even though agency practitioners do not read
academic research, they have strong beliefs about the shortcomings of it.
In particular, they are sceptical about the epistemological value of aca-
demic advertising research because of concerns about (i) the credibility of
academic authors as sources, (ii) the perceived artificiality of the research
and (iii) the timeliness of the results.

(i) CREDIBILITY OF ACADEMIC AUTHORS. In practitioners' epistemology,

where the information is coming from seems to matter more than its inher-
ent validity. Some respondents claimed that academic advertising research
is less valuable (even in the ontologically 'permissible' areas such as basic
theory about how advertising works) because of certain characteristics of
the producers of this knowledge. To them, academic research is of dubious
epistemological value because academic researchers lack real-life experi-
ence in the advertising industry {AMI, 2).
Academicians' personal experience is perceived as very distant from the
reality of practice: 'You're in the bubble of academia, it's not real-world

656
 AGENGY PRAGTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

experience' (AM4). As AMI2 suggested, this may be part of the reason why
academic research was less accepted in ad practice: 'I think if you look at,
you know, our business over time, there is no, you know, there is no aca-
demic giant that is widely quoted or even widely known.'

(ii) PERGEIVED ARTIEIGIALITY. There is also epistemological scepricism

regarding the external validity of the academic research process itself.
Agency pracririoners believe that there is arrificiality and remoteness
in academic research from the 'real' business phenomena invesrigated,
which results in low applicability {AP4). As AM12 explained: '[academic
adverrising research is] interesting, but it doesn't always hold up. I think
that there isa ... But I don't know if there ever is a solution that will come from
the academic community. Simply because it will require lots of money, lots
of data that is probably not available in the academic community. I could
be wrong, someone could stumble on something but ...' [emphasisadded[.
The practitioner concern that surfaces here is that even though external
validity should be of paramount interest in the case of any applied scien-
tific endeavour, this may not always be so in the case of academic advertis-
ing research.
Agency pracritioners also quesrion whether the sphere of applicabil-
ity in academic findings is as carefully demarcated as practirioners would
want it to be. Practitioners place a lot of emphasis on domain-specificity
(describing the boundary condirions within which their statements are
considered true); they are suspicious whether academic researchers are
equally interested in specifying these condirions: 'We don't use it [aca-
demic research]. And I think the reason why is, we see every category and
every way to position products in every category to be different' {AP 6).

(ill) TIMELINESS OE RESULTS. Another criricised aspect of external validity

is that academic research quickly becomes outdated. Agency practitioners
have a keen sense of history and what infiuence the 'time' domain has
on the composure of basic-level adverrising theories. As AM6 suggested:
'The problem with ... part of the problem with academia is that the exam-
ples that they use, by the time they make it to a textbook are three years
old. And you know, the world has changed in three years.' AP6 argued
that societal changes were not reflected in academic advertising research
despite the fact that advertising is so much dependent on such changes:

657
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Consumers' mindsets are always changing, what's hip and popular now is
always changing, advertising is really a reflection of society and it's always
changing as well ... So I think from our perspective it's hard to say that we use
stuff that's more academic, because we don't see it as being relevant or up to
date as we'd like it to be.

Similarly, CD6 noted that he believed it would be very difficult for aca-
demic researchers to stay current with what was happening in practice, an
extremely fast-moving area in itself.

(c) Depth of understanding academic endeavours. Agency practitioners also

have general notions of academia and science that indicate a certain level
of naïveté in understanding what the academic research endeavour entails.
They seem to believe that textbook writing is equivalent to basic research
published in journals {AP6), and seem to be at loss regarding the basic
function of research journals. A.P2., for example, suggested that research
journals contained case histories, while in reality that is a very rare type
of publication in academic advertising journals. They are also unclear on
the basic purpose and functions of academia in general (irrespective of
academic advertising research JOÍT.S'É') {AM4, CDS).
To agency practitioners, academic advertising research suffers because
it is less of a science than more basic disciplines such as psychology or
sciences associated with either complex mathematical modelling or an
orientation towards biological-physiological phenomena {AMll). They
associated relevant science with basic disciplines and not with academic
advertising research {AP3). AM2, for example, suggested that it was not
academic advertising researchers or even advertising practitioners who
should be the arbiters of how advertising works, but basic psychologists.

Commercial market research

Agency practitioners also have an ambiguous relationship with applied
market research. While most of them acknowledge the importance of
backing up agency work with market research (particularly as a result of
requests by clients), they are less than enthusiastic about the underlying
epistemological assumptions and methods.
Most agency practitioners acknowledge the importance of different
types of research input, and even argue for its use (especially, front-end,
qualitative, strategic research studies) {AM4., 5; AP5). However, they also

658
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

voice epistemological concerns about the ways in which research is actu-

ally conducted. Most concerns dealt with the misuse, misinterpretation
and mishandling of findings {CD3, 9; AMIO).
Copy testing seems to upset agency practitioners the most. The greatest
concern is that copy testing 'kills good advertising' and results in mediocre
work {CD9). AMI2 argued: 'You know, many advertisers want to do that to
limit their risk. There is some concern that in doing that you kind of ...
you may eliminate the lows, but you eliminate the highs at the same time,
so you get this kind of homogeneous kind of advertising.' CD2 noted that
this 'detrimental effect' of copy testing on the creative product was very
common: 'But this idea that having a great idea that we feel intuitively
is a great idea and would really reach people, and then it doesn't make it
through the structure of either the agency or on the client side, happens
every week. Happens all day long, every day.' CD8 asserted that copy test-
ing often resulted in the very thing it tried to avoid: 'Research can result
in strange things, where good ideas die and bad ideas are born ... I think
it's hard to get a good idea through focus groups.'
Agency practitioners have serious doubts about the external validity
of copy testing research. They believe that the conditions under which
the tests are conducted are artificial and do not match the way in which
consumers encounter advertising messages in the real world {AM7,
10; CD3, 5, 8). Response to advertising is collected immediately after
exposure, whereas in real life there may be a delay between (repeated)
exposure(s) and advertising effect: 'And a lot of times brand advertising
converts a few people for 20 years. Man, how are you going to measure
that.?' {AMIO). Agency practitioners also believe that respondents are
forced to react rationally in copy tests, whereas in real life, the effects of
advertising are more emotional in nature: 'I have no problem with testing
advertising, but what I want to do is I want to know whether the person is
pumped' {API); 'That's the biggest problem with our evaluative systems
for measuring effectiveness, because they are all rationally based systems'
{AP7); 'Nobody will ever admit that advertising affects them emotionally.
Nobody will ever say, "You know, I don't know why I like that", if you ask
them. They'll say, "Well, you know, I like it because of something ...".
And that because of thing is typically some over-logical answer that they
spent too much time thinking about' {CD9).

659
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OE ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Self-report is yet another concern. Agency practitioners believe that

respondents in copy tests are susceptible to social desirability bias {AM5, 7,
9; CD 6). They are especially aware of the possibility of such bias in focus
groups. They believe that some participant opinions may unduly influ-
ence those of others, therefore biasing the results.
Agency practitioners also find self-report inefficient because of respond-
ents' perceived inability to give an accurate account of their own mental
responses and processes. As noted by AM7: 'People can't tell you why they
like or dislike something.'

Discussion

Summary
Our findings indicate that not only do agency practitioners have theories
of how advertising works (Nyilasy & Reid in press), they also evaluate
their own theories and theorise about them. They are very articulate about
their quasi-philosophical presuppositions about advertising knowledge:
they question whether the very nature of advertising allows a scientific
approach (they are ontologically sceptical), and they also doubt if the
methods of knowing in social science are adequate for researching or
knowing about advertising (they are epistemologically sceptical).
Most importantly, agency practitioners deny the possibility of modera-
tor-focused theories (beyond the simple directive for creativity and some
creativity-conform ideas) for ontological reasons. They claim that the only
rule is that there are no rules on the moderator level. It is their belief that
creativity is such a strong imperative that it suppresses the legitimacy of
any other moderator (any 'rule' that would prescribe particular styles or
types of advertising). The finding that agency practitioners explicitly state
that the very nature of advertising undermines moderator-focused theories
supports this argument.
It is especially important to note that, while agency practitioners deny
the legitimacy of moderator-focused theories, they do allow for basic-level
theories such as 'break through and engage' and 'the mutation of effects'
- at least on an ontological level - the two practitioner theories uncovered
by Nyilasy and Reid (in press). This finding might partly explain and at

660
 AGENCY PRACTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OF ADVERTISING

the same time corrects the commonly held lay notion that advertising
practitioners are 'atheoretical'.
A further challenge to the legitimacy of scientific knowing about
advertising is practitioners' epistemological scepticism. Unlike ontological
scepticism, which addresses rules-for-creative in particular, epistemologi-
cal scepticism relates to any type of knowing about advertising in general.
Agency practitioners have a sceptical view about whether organised,
systematic, scholarly knowledge is possible about advertising because:
(1) they are overwhelmed by the complexity of causes that contribute to
the most important explanandum, purchase behaviour; (2) they do not
believe that their own beliefs (even such strongly held ones as 'break
through and engage' and 'the mutation of effects') are anything more than
common sense; and (3) they have specific concerns about the validity of
academic advertising research, as well as about (4) applied commercial
market research (copy testing in particular).
These ontological and epistemological meta-theories are markedly
different from those contained in academia, providing further support
for practitioners' knowledge autonomy. Advertising academia consid-
ers advertising phenomena scientifically knowable. It focuses less on
artistic/creative aspects and more on psychological regularities, which it
aims to model, and vastly neglects the tacit skills involved in the produc-
tion of advertising. In doing so, the academic view continues an age-old
ontological tradition of Western philosophy (Polanyi 1964). Advertising
academia also blends the questions of 'how advertising works' (basic
theories) with 'what works best' (moderator-focused theories), two areas
practitioners consider very different. Academicians (as well as commercial
market researchers) are also very confident in their epistemology: their
scientifically refined ways of knowing. Practitioners, on the other hand,
prefer common sense over what they consider knowledge of questionable
validity.

Literature and the study's contribution

This study breaks new ground in the understanding of practitioners'
perspectives and their autonomous knowledge forms. As we suggested
elsewhere, there is no real literature on practitioner knowledge autonomy,
in content, form or pragmatic use (Nyilasy & Reid 2007; in press).

661
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OE ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

The study's closest intellectual ancestor is Kover's qualitative investiga-

rion of copywriters' 'implicit theories' (Kover 1995, 1996). Although the
main focus in Kover's research is on the content of practitioner theories,
not underlying presuppositions these theories might have, his studies
do acknowledge practitioners' epistemological scepticism, in particular
towards copy testing. Both of his reports find that the copywriters inter-
viewed have serious validity concerns of the 'perceived artificiality' type.
Practitioners feel that: (1) social science is too crude to test effects on
'warm human being[s]' (Kover 1996, p. RC-8); (2) the research environ-
ment puts too much artificial attention on the advertising, which in reality
is consumed in a more relaxed context (Kover 1995, p. 604; 1996, p. RC-8);
and (3) the outcome of tests tends to be destructive to the most creative
ideas (Kover 1995, p. 600).
A handful of opinion poll-type survey studies conducted among adver-
rising practitioners also touch on phenomena falling under pracritioner
meta-theories. For example, Adler et al. (1965) and a replication by Boyd
and Ray (1971) investigated agency research directors' views on copy
testing methods. The studies report that some measures (recall, attitude,
comprehension and behavioural measures) are considered more useful by
practitioners than others (recognition, believability, persuasion, ad rating).
These results compare to ours in that there is expressed epistemological
scepticism, at least among part of the sample, even towards the better
liked measures. When practitioners' non-forced, open-ended responses
are discussed, Boyd and Ray (1971) note: 'Almost to a man the European
directors stated that they were concerned in some way about the ability of
present techniques to actually measure and predict advertising effective-
ness, especially in sales' (p. 223). Similarly, Ostlund etal. (1980) uncovered
that while advertiser and agency practitioners have concerns about the
reliability and validity of copy research they do not use or require from
vendors scientifically rigorous tests for such reliability/validity. Three
further descriptive studies, one on concept testing (Moore 1985), one
on media research (Russell & Martin 1980) and one on focus groups
(Szybillo & Berger 1979), do not report signs of epistemological scepti-
cism among practitioners (i.e. they did not specifically probe the idea
either). McKenzie etal. (2002) report results of a survey among marketing
managers, which supports our findings that awareness and readership of
academic endeavours in the field approach zero.

662
 AGENCY PRAGTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OF ADVERTISING

It is important to note that these studies do not problematise practi-

tioner knowledge the way our investigation does. The common traits of
these opinion poll-type studies are: (1) they are driven by narrow topical
interests (e.g. practices in concept testing) and not holistic understand-
ings of sets of presuppositions; (2) they do not let practitioners express
their thinking in their own terms (questionnaires are written a priori and
enforce academic knowledge schémas); and (3) they uncritically assume
a paradigmatic common ground between academicians and practitioners
(which may correspond to the prevailing ethos of earlier points in time on
the timeline of the industry's professionalisation project).
Finally, a few ethnographic studies also reference practitioners' meta-
theories in passing, especially epistemological scepticism (Tunstall 1964;
Martin 1992; Soar 2000; Cronin 2004). Again, although the main foci of
these investigations are elsewhere, meta-theoretical notions are so salient
that they appear even in interview results not explicitly aiming to detect
them. In what is probably the earliest ethnographic account of agency life.
Tunstall (1964) mentions that agency practitioners are very cynical about
the validity of evaluative research methods (epistemological scepticism):
'An agency which encourages its clients to believe in tests makes a calcu-
lated decision; it may make the clients happier, but the kind of advertise-
ments which are produced as a result may get high test scores without
selling goods' (pp. 133-134). Similarly, Martin's investigation (1992) among
qualitative market researchers finds that scientific validity is replaced by
pragmatic validity in applied research: 'Validity is not used in a strictly sci-
entific sense. [...] Validity is tested by "bouncing the idea around" in the
office and "performing" it for the client' (p. 146). Soar (2000) reports on
interviews with creative directors' professing to their scepticism towards
the validity of evaluative (quantitative) research: 'Any kind of quantitative
research that seeks to establish an objective evaluation on completed work
- known as testing creative - is vehemently renounced' (p. 426). Cronin
(2004) also finds strong concerns about the validity of copy tests among
British agency professionals (regardless of function) and suggests that the
existence of such research is due solely to client requests.
In sum, aside from scattered empirical bits of data, the literature on
practitioner meta-theories is virtually non-existent. While some studies
do point to practitioners' epistemological scepticism towards advertis-
ing research, especially of the evaluative, copy testing kind, they do not

663
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

consider meta-theories in a comprehensive manner, nor do they discuss

meta-theories as parts of larger theoretical frameworks of practitioners'
'knowledge autonomy', a phenomenon undermining the potential for
bridging the academician-practitioner gap and the occupation's profes-
sionalisation aspirations. Our study is the first attempt to get at agency
practitioners' fundamental epistemological and ontological presupposi-
tions about advertising knowledge in a thoroughly emic, holistic and theo-
retically informed way.

Implications
Research reported in this article provides further support for practitioners'
knowledge autonomy. The divergence between academic and practitioner
knowledge runs deeper than topical differences in knowledge content - it
is rooted in fundamental presuppositions about the nature and possibility
of knowledge about advertising. Where does it leave us with regards to
our starting point: the academician-practitioner knowledge gap and the
industry's professional status.?
Our insights suggest that the academician-practitioner gap is more dif-
ficult to bridge than previous conceptualisations would have us believe.
The gap is at least partly rooted in disagreements not only about what con-
stitutes knowledge in advertising, but the fundamental presuppositions
about in what form such knowledge would even be possible. As is the
case with paradigmatic differences within academic schools of thought,
dialogues are possible, but it is questionable whether either party would
give up fundamental, quasi-philosophical positions. Academician versus
practitioner meta-theoretical positions are no different.
Certain aspects of the academician-practitioner exchange can surely
be improved. Problem-orientated research (Hunt 2002), somewhat ironi-
cally, should focus less on moderator-focused theories and more on basic
understanding of advertising effect in accordance with practitioners'
'layered ontology' construct. In contrast, practitioners could benefit from
more discerning assessments of academic epistemology and validity.
Even though such steps could narrow the gap between the two worlds,
the fundamental paradigmatic differences we have uncovered through
this study of practitioner meta-theories suggest some hard limits to
closing the gap entirely.

664
 AGENGY PRAGTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

In connection with the preceding, it becomes clear that the profession-

alisation project that the advertising industry launched at the beginning
of this century (Schultze 1982) suffers an unexpected blow: a reversal
initiated by its own practitioners. What would be needed for a fully
fledged profession is a commonly accepted knowledge base that is both
esoterically rich and theoretical in nature (Abbott 1988; MacDonald 1995).
However, our data suggest that agency practitioners are very hesitant
about the possibility of such a knowledge base.
The professional paradox of the advertising industry is that what practi-
tioners would accept as a theoretical knowledge base is not esoteric enough
(since it is on a basic theoretical level, does not deal with moderators and
is too simple), while its esoteric practices are not theorisable enough
(because of the primacy of creativity prohibiting such theorisation). As
we showed above, although practitioners accept some basic (indeed 'com-
mon sensical') theories about the fundamentals of how advertising works,
they challenge any moderator-focused regularities prescribed, based on
ontological and epistemological grounds, motivated by the omnipotent
ideology of creativity.
According to agency practitoners, esoteric richness and theoretical char-
acter, the two necessary knowledge-based conditions of professional status
(Abbott 1988; MacDonald 1995), cannot be met concurrently in advertis-
ing, because of the very essence of the occupation, creativity.

Future directions
If the prospects for professionalism in advertising are indeed slim, the
condition raises other interesting questions about the intersection of
agency-client relationships. Despite the fact that agency practitioners are
sceptical about the possibility of an esoteric knowledge base for advertis-
ing, an essential requirement for professionalisation, they do live with the
dynamics of professionalisation. To satisfy the certainty demanded by cli-
ents, they need to and do justify and legitimise their work through some other
means than classic professionalisation theory would predict, the use of the
academic knowledge base.
How does advertising as an occupation deal with the extreme levels of
uncertainly faced on a daily basis.? How do the dynamics of professionali-
sation apply, when practitioners do not believe true professionalisation is

665
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

theoretically possible.? What are the solutions used to overcome and cir-
cumvent the need for certainty.? What tactics do practitioners use to offer
the semblance of certainty to legitimise their work for clients.?
Only additional research will answer these and other questions about
advertising professionalisation at the agency, advertiser and industry lev-
els. We recommend that such research be pursued to close the circle on
practitioner theories of advertising, their meta-theories of their theories,
and the implications of those theories and meta-theories for professionali-
sation in advertising.

Acknowledgements
This research was funded in part by a grant from the American Academy
of Advertising to the first author.

References
Abbott, A.D. (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Adler, L., Greenberg, A. & Lucas, D.B. (1965) What big agency men think of copy
testing methods. Jourtial of Marketing Research., 2(November), pp. 339-345.
The Advertising Red Books: Agencies January 2005 (2005) New Providence, NJ:
LexisNexis.
Babbie, E. (2001) The Practice of Social Research (9th edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thomson Learning.
Barry, T.F. & Howard, D.J. (1990) A review and critique of the hierarchy of effects in
advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 9(2), pp. 121-135.
Boyd, H.W., Jr & Ray, M.L. (1971) What big agency men in Europe think of copy
testing meihods. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(May), pp. 219-223.
Bunge, M. {\9S9) Metascientißc Queries. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Colley, R.H. {\96\) Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results. New
York: Association of National Advertisers.
Creswell, J.W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronin, A.M. (2004) Currencies of commercial exchange: advertising agencies and the
promotional imperative. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4(3), pp. 339-360.
Dennis, E.E. & Wartella, E. (1996) American Communication Research: The Remembered
History. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eriestad, M. & Wright, P. (1994) The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope
with persuasion Mtemçx.'i. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(June), pp. 1-31.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

666
 AGENGY PRAGTITIONERS' META-THEORIES OE ADVERTISING

Guba, E.G. (1990) The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hunt, S.D. (2002) Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of
Marketing. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kover, A.J. (1995) Copywriters' implicit theories of communication: an exploration.
Journal of Consumer Research, 21(lVlarch), pp. 596-611.
Kover, A.J. (1996) Why copywriters don't like advertising research - and what kind
of research might they accept. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(March/April),
pp. RC8-RC10.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.C. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
MacDonald, K.M. (1995) The Sociology of the Professions. London: Sage.
Martin, B. (1992) Symbolic knowledge and market forces at the frontiers of
postmodernism: qualitative market researchers, in Kellner, H. & Heuberger, EW.
(eds) Hidden Technocrats: The New Class and New Capitalism. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, pp. 111-156.
McKenzie, C.J., Wright, S., Ball, D.E & Baron, P.J. (2002) The publications of
marketing faculty - who are we really talking to.^" European Journal of Marketing,
36(November), pp. 1196-1208.
Moore, W.L. (1985) Testing advertising concepts: current practices and opinions.
Journal of Advertising, 14(3), pp. 45-51.
Morse, J.M. (1995) The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5,
pp. 147-149.
Nyilasy, G. & Reid, L.N. (2007) The academician-practitioner gap in advertising.
International Journal of Advertising, 26(4), pp. 425^45.
Nyilasy, G. & Reid, L.N. (in press) Agency practitioner theories of how advertising
works. Journal of Advertising.
Ostlund, L.E., Clancy, K.J. & Sapra, R. (1980) Inertia in copy research. Journal of
Advertising Research, 20(Eebruary), pp. 17-23.
Pike, K.L. (1954) Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human
Behavior. Part 1. Glendale, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Polanyi, M. (1964) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York:
Harper & Row.
Ritzer, G. (1975) Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ritzer, G. {\99\) Metatheorizingin Sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ritzer, G., Zhao, S. & Murphy, J. (2001) Metatheorizing in sociology: the basic
parameters and the potential contributions of postmodernism, in Turner, J. (ed.)
Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Kluwer, pp. 113-131.
Russell, J.T. & Martin, C.H. (1980) How ad agencies view research. Journal of
Advertising Research, 20(April), pp. 27-31.
Schultze, Q.J. (1982) An honorable place: the quest for professional advertising
education, 1900-1917. Business History Review, 56(Spring), pp. 16-32.
Sheth, J.N. (1974) Measurement of advertising effectiveness: some theoretical
considerations. Journal of Advertising Research, 3(1), pp. 6-11.

667
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Soar, M. (2000) Encoding advertisements; ideology and meaning in advertising

production. Mass Communication and Society, 3(4), pp. 415^37.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Szybillo, G.J. & Berger, R. (1979) What advertising agencies think of focus groups.
Journal of Advertising Research, 19(June), pp. 29-33.
Tunstall, J. (1964) The Advertising Man in London Advertising Agencies. London:
Chapman & Hall.
Vakratsas, D. & Ambler, T. (1999) How advertising works: what do we really know.?
Journal of Marketing, 63(January), pp. 26-43.
Zaltman, G., Pinson, C.R;A. & Angelmar, R. (1973) Metatheory and Consumer Research.
Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

About the authors

Gergely Nyilasy is a senior research and development executive in the
New York City office of Hall & Partners, a market research firm specialis-
ing in advertising and brand research. He is responsible for strategic inno-
vation and new product development. He graduated from the University
of Georgia with' a PhD in mass communication, where he also taught
classes in copywriting (a former career). His research interests include
digital communication, word-of-mouth, sociology of occupations/profes-
sionalisation and practitioner-academician relations.
Leonard N. Reid is professor of advertising in the Department of
Advertising & Public Relations of the Grady College at the University of
Georgia. He received his PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Advertising and
former editor oi the, Journal ofAdvertising. His most recent research focuses
on advertising knowledge and professional practice, trust in advertising,
and prescription and nonprescription drug advertising.
Address correspondence to: Dr Len Reid, Grady College, University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA.
Email: lnreid@uga.edu

668
View publication stats