This article was downloaded by: [Gergely Nyilasy] On: 22 October 2012, At: 03:14 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

Agency Practitioners, PseudoProfessionalization Tactics, and Advertising Professionalism a

b

Gergely Nyilasy , Peggy J. Kreshel & Leonard N. Reid

b

a

Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia b

Department of Advertising & Public Relations, Grady College, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Version of record first published: 01 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Gergely Nyilasy, Peggy J. Kreshel & Leonard N. Reid (2012): Agency Practitioners, Pseudo-Professionalization Tactics, and Advertising Professionalism, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 33:2, 146-169 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2012.700626

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 33: 146–169, 2012 Copyright © American Academy of Advertising ISSN: 1064-1734 print/2164-7313 online DOI: 10.1080/10641734.2012.700626

Agency Practitioners, Pseudo-Professionalization Tactics, and Advertising Professionalism Gergely Nyilasy

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Peggy J. Kreshel and Leonard N. Reid Department of Advertising & Public Relations, Grady College, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA This study investigates, in the context of professionalization theory, advertising agency practitioners’ attempts to cope with what they perceive as legitimation problems of advertising work. While practitioners may not think of the sociological concept of professionalization frequently, the in-depth interviews reported in this article uncover agency practitioners’ acknowledgment of the existence of professionalization tensions in their everyday work culture. These tensions arise in practitioners’ dismissal of academic theoretical knowledge in advertising and clients’ need for certainty and the problem of theoretical knowledge in advertising. Their reactions to these tensions, what we call “pseudo-professionalization tactics,” are discussed in detail. Pseudo-professionalization tactics vary in their underlying mechanisms and can be classified as rhetorical, relationship management, and knowledge autonomy tools. Implications for the professionalization of the advertising occupation and the academician–practitioner gap are offered.

If, in truth, human communication will not yield itself to scientific explanation, then advertising is reduced to the level of a dice thrower’s art. —Takai (1973, 48)

Advertising practitioners wholeheartedly began to pursue professional stature in the early 20th century. In 1924, when Stanley B. Resor, president of J. Walter Thompson, then the largest advertising agency in the world, noted that advertising is “too often seen as something based on inspiration, immature ideas and snappy slogans,” and set about establishing a series of mechanisms in the agency to facilitate a “scientific approach” to advertising (which he equated with

This article was accepted by Claude Martin and James Leigh, previous editors of the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising. This research was funded in part by a grant from the American Academy of Advertising to the first author. Address correspondence to Gergely Nyilasy, Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Commerce, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010 Victoria, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  147

fact-finding), the industry was already immersed in efforts to elevate its stature to that of a profession (Kreshel 1990). These efforts took a number of forms: • Internal attempts to gain ethical control of the field began with the Truth Movement

•

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

•

•

•

(1905), the Printers’ Ink Statute (1911), and Standards of Practice of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA; 1914). Formation of local advertising clubs such as the Agate Club in Chicago (1894), the Advertising Club of New York (1906), and the League of Advertising Women of New York (1912), and national associations such as the Association of Advertising Clubs of the World (1905) and the AAAA (1912). Appearance of a number of trade journals that provided a forum in which practitioners talked with each other and negotiated and renegotiated the values and boundaries of the field—Printers’ Ink (1888), Profitable Advertising (1892), and Advertising and Selling (1896; Schultze 1979). Establishment of academic programs in the field at universities—The University of Missouri established a major in advertising in 1910; by 1915, 26 universities had advertising courses for their undergraduate students (Ross and Richards 2008). Introduction of the rationality and rhetoric of science to the practice of advertising (Kreshel 1990).

Sociologists have since labeled such efforts as “professionalization” (Wilensky 1964). More than a hundred years later, the question of whether or not advertising has attained professional stature remains unresolved (see Nixon 2000, 2003). Although the term “profession” is used somewhat casually in everyday conversation today, it is a theoretically grounded sociological concept referencing only a small group of occupations distinguished by specific features. What those features are has been the subject of some discussion among sociologists; however, the literature suggests that a consensus has emerged: Professions are distinguished from other occupations by the possession of an “esoterically complex” (i.e., difficult to understand) and academically validated theoretical knowledge base (Abbott 1988; MacDonald 1995). A theoretical knowledge base is the foundation for work produced and also serves a larger legitimation purpose, proving to clients that the services rendered are based on agreed-upon theoretical knowledge. In a well-functioning profession there is a seamless flow of knowledge from theoretical base to praxis, both informing practitioners and elevating the occupation’s sociological status. A substantial literature indicates that in advertising, the knowledge flow between academe and practice is anything but seamless; instead, there is a large gap. That gap has come to be identified as the “academician–practitioner gap.” While many explanations have been offered, it has been hypothesized that a key reason for the gap may be the autonomy of practitioners’ knowledge: practitioners’ conscious rejection of the traditional knowledge base in academia and the development of an independent cognitive culture. This theory suggests that the gap does not arise so much from academicians failing to “convey” the theoretical knowledge base, but rather from practitioners actively rejecting what they know about it, in both content and underlying philosophical assumptions (Nyilasy and Reid 2007). The empirical findings reported here emerged in the context of an investigation of agency practitioners’ theories about how advertising works. That research found that advertising

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

148  G. NYILASY ET AL. practitioners have definite theoretical beliefs about how advertising works. Further, it found that they possess “epistemological skepticism” that questions the validity of both academic and commercial research as applied to advertising, find such research unacceptable, and instead rely upon autonomous subjective ideas (Nyilasy and Reid 2009a, 2009b). This situation poses a problem for advertising’s legitimation as a profession. Agency clients (as shown later in the paper) want evidence that agency services are based on a solid foundation, usually academic knowledge (i.e., have expectations for advertising to act as a profession). However, insofar as practitioners’ subjective ideas cannot serve as sources of legitimation for their work when they are challenged by clients, the occupation is left without a solid theoretical knowledge base. Whether recognized or not by agency practitioners, this lack threatens the occupation’s professionalization project. How do agency practitioners reconcile the subjectivity and uncertainty of their work with their clients’ need for certainty? How do practitioners fill the void left by their rejection of an academic theoretical knowledge base (the identifying trait of a profession) in articulating the professional value of their work to clients? The research reported here attempts to answer these questions. In doing so, we introduce the concept of “pseudo-professionalization tactics,” the “coping mechanisms” through which agency practitioners resolve the legitimation problems their knowledge autonomy creates. While some may view inquiry into advertising’s stature as a profession (or not) as a topic of little significance, we beg to differ. While advertising practitioners may use the term infrequently, it is evident that their concerns—providing a rational basis for decision making, maintaining authority in their relationships with clients—clearly are grounded in issues of professional stature and credibility. Today, as the industry faces challenges of a digitally driven media landscape and global economic crisis, research indicates that even while (or perhaps because) most clients cannot measure their agencies’ return on investment (ROI), clients feel a “vague disenchantment” with their agencies (Creamer 2007). As one industry analyst (quoted in Creamer 2007, 1) noted: “There’s always an undercurrent of discontent with agencies.” New agency–client relationships now last less than two years (Mullman 2007). Attaining professional recognition, then, has both practical and perceptual ramifications (Beverland, Farrelly, and Woodhatch 2007, 1; Khurana and Nohria 2008). Resor’s (1924) reminder to the AAAA that the vitality of the advertising industry is “dependent upon the opinion businessmen have of the soundness of its methods” is even truer today, some 90 years later. PROFESSIONALIZATION The History of the Concept The concept of “professions” first appears in Carr-Saunders and Wilson’s The Professions (1933), defined as “organized bodies of experts who applied esoteric knowledge to particular cases” (cited by Abbott 1988, 4). The authors laid the framework of what later came to be called the ‘traits approach’ to professions theory. Adopting this perspective, the task of the sociological study of professions is the compilation of a list of features that best describe the ideal-typical profession (MacDonald 1995). Commonly identified traits are the possession of a theoretical knowledge base, altruism, ethical codes, authority in relationships with clients, autonomy,

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  149

licensing by the state, formal organization (e.g., associations), and education. The sociological paradigm that affiliated itself most strongly with the traits approach was functionalism (MacDonald 1995). Grounded in an essentially benign view of society, functionalism was primarily concerned with the maintenance of the social order (Collins 1994). The professions were viewed as one of the most important social institutions; the central research question posed was: “What part do the professions play in the established order of society?” (MacDonald 1995, xii). The shortcomings of both the functionalist paradigm and the traits approach had begun to emerge by the end of the 1960s. It became clear that defining a profession based on a list of traits—none of which were necessary, but all of which were sufficient—was an inadequate way of conceptualizing the phenomenon. Not only was the approach overly broad but, as Millerson (1964) noted, it often conveyed political biases (referenced by Abbott 1988). The altruism trait in particular was no longer taken at face value; rather, it was approached critically by postfunctionalist theories as one of the ideological tools occupational groups employed to gain economic power (see Abbott 1988; MacDonald 1995). A sufficiently neutral and distinguishing trait was needed to define professions. Following a thorough review of the sociological literature, both Abbott (1988) and MacDonald (1995) concluded that the core, defining feature of the professions should be (and implicitly always had been) the possession of a “theoretical knowledge base.” Abbott (1988, 8–9) argues that professions are “exclusive occupational groups applying somewhat abstract knowledge to particular cases”; it is the level of abstract knowledge that determines the successfulness (or lack thereof) of a profession. Similarly, MacDonald, citing Halliday (1987), identifies a theoretical knowledge base as the “core generating trait” of professions. MacDonald (1995, 157) further argues that the character of this knowledge is abstract and formal in its roots, identical with the common understanding of scientific knowledge, and should be sufficiently “esoteric” (i.e., difficult to understand for a layperson). That is, the knowledge base must be complicated and extensive enough so that professional groups could support a claim of unique capabilities; once attained, professions achieve the legitimacy of expertise (MacDonald 1995). We concur with MacDonald (1995) and Abbott (1988); the possession of an esoteric theoretical knowledge base is the core defining trait separating professions from other occupations. Indeed, many of the traits identified by the “traits approach”—formal education, authority, licenses and mandates, and professional associations—can be deduced from the theoretical knowledge-base requirement. The Professionalization Process The research discussed so far viewed professions as a time-independent ideal. In reality, professions have histories; they are born, they develop—and in some cases, they die. This time-based aspect of the professions is referred to as “professionalization” (Wilensky 1964), the process by which occupations pursue professional status, some with success, others without. The key assumption underlying the concept of professionalization is that it is natural for occupational groups to try to achieve professional status; all occupational groups do, in fact, seek this status. Certainly professional stature secures social prestige and significant psychological gains. Perhaps most important for our discussion here is the recognition that professional stature grants

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

150  G. NYILASY ET AL. authority over clients as agencies negotiate their relationships, eventually translating authority into significant economic benefits and maintaining status in society amid attacks by fellow professional or occupational groups encroaching on their jurisdictions (Hughes 1958; Larson 1977; Abbott 1988). The story of professionalization is commonly framed in external, organizational, or institutional terms. Wilensky (1964), for example, traces the origins of 18 occupational groups and finds a general sequential pattern in which occupations begin with full-time activity and move through formal training, the establishment of professional associations, state licensing, and finally the adoption of a code of ethics to become a profession. Others challenge the sequential approach. For example, in Millerson’s (1964) variation of the professionalization story, the steps can occur in any order, or simultaneously, depending on the particularities of the occupation. Abbott (1988) suggests that these conceptualizations miss the mark, arguing that the most important change in the development of a profession is not organizational or institutional form (e.g., associations, education) but the actual content of the work.

The Theory of Professions in the Context of Advertising In the advertising/marketing literature, only a handful of articles investigate the current professional status of advertising or its historical professionalization project. Academic advertising research has shown relatively little interest in the organizational context in which the basic knowledge it generates—how advertising works—is used. An examination of the literature suggests that while advertising has embarked on a professionalization project, somewhere along the way the project has become grounded (Hunt 2002). The professionalization of advertising.  The professionalization process in advertising is often characterized by the external indicators of advancement. Walker and Child (1979), for instance, writing about the more inclusive category of marketing and using Wilensky’s (1964) sequential framework, conclude that because it lacks an enforceable code of ethics and state licensing, marketing in Britain remains a semi-profession. Similarly, Gerhold (1971, 1974) conceptualizes professionalization as a struggle between “elite” and general practitioners. He attributes the failure of marketing research to reach a professional status to marketing researchers’ inability to distinguish between high-quality practitioners and amateurs through accreditation procedures. Gerhold, then, as well as others (see, e.g., Ramond 1974, 1980), suggests that organizational control would solve all the problems encountered in attaining professional status. Other researchers have examined the history of advertising professionalization in the context of a particular trait. Schultze (1981) gives an account of the advertising industry’s early (1900– 1917) attempts to establish a code of ethics. Although he considers ethical codes to be an essential component of professionalism, he remains skeptical about the practical use of those codes, concluding: “Ethical codes are expressions of professionalism, derived historically to create an ideology of public interest” (Schultze 1981, 64). His assessment contrasts with the more common tendency in advertising/marketing literature to accept “professional” ethical codes uncritically (see, e.g., Murphy and Coney 1976).

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  151

Schultze (1982) also analyzes the early history of advertising education in relation to the professionalization project. Academicians and practitioners alike believed that “formal advertising instruction would provide a forum for establishing a corpus of ‘scientific’ principles” (Schultze 1982, 22). The first advertising courses and programs were established by professionals in cooperation with academia in an effort to generate the abstract knowledge base. The relationship between academia and professionals deteriorated quickly, however, primarily because each group had its own agenda; those agendas became increasingly contradictory over time (e.g., agencies refused to release proprietary research; practitioners became skeptical of the utility of psychology-based advertising research and questioned advertising’s ability to become a “science”; educational institutions had contradictory priorities and status interests). Consequently, the professional project failed. While Schultze (1982) considers the acquisition of a knowledge base as a key component of advertising’s professionalization project, his analysis remains at the structural/organizational level within the frame of educational institutions. Advertising as a profession (or not).  A substantial portion of the literature examining advertising’s professional status is grounded in the logic of the traits approach. For example, Keane (1974), writing in a symposium on advertising as a profession in the Journal of Advertising, identifies 15 traits necessary for the attainment of professional status (including “unique theory,” “organization,” “entry qualifications,” “legal recognition,” “code of ethics,” etc.). He concludes that because advertising lacks a number of these traits, it cannot be considered a profession. Similarly, Coe and Coe (1976) examine market research and isolate four hallmarks of professionalism (“service to society,” “admission regulated by law,” “code of ethics,” and “specialized body of knowledge”). The researchers conclude, as Keane did, that market research fails to achieve professional stature because it does not possess all of these traits; while none of the identified traits has a special status in these studies, a profession must have all traits. Like sociologists Abbott (1988) and MacDonald (1995), some advertising researchers attribute special importance to the possession of a theoretical knowledge base as the core defining feature of a profession. Brown (1948), for example, lays out the often-voiced need for scientific marketing and, correspondingly, marketing professionalism. Similarly, Takai (1973) concludes that since advertising has no abstract theoretical knowledge base, it is not a profession (see quote opening this article). Stewart (1974) concurs, suggesting that the existing knowledge about advertising is neither abstract nor theoretical enough. As such, advertising remains at practical, vocational, and technical levels. The researchers just discussed all reached a negative conclusion about advertising’s professional stature, but phrased their verdicts in conditional terms. That is, advertising is capable of becoming a profession; the process has simply been stalled as a result of barriers, which potentially can be eliminated in the future. Other researchers, however, claim that advertising cannot and will not ever become a profession. To these “nay-sayers,” we turn now. In the Journal of Advertising symposium on professionalism mentioned earlier, Lynn (1974) noted that professionalism is simply a “state of mind,” a subjective commitment to good work, and a feeling that one is a professional. Lynn (1974) seems to acknowledge the importance of advertising theory—“nothing is more practical than theory” (16)—but he points out that advertising practitioners seldom feel the need for theory. He reaches the conclusion that “No, advertising

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

152  G. NYILASY ET AL. is not a profession. That status, however, is neither possible nor necessary” (15). His argument is ambiguous; he fails to provide any inherent reason why advertising can never become a profession. In the same symposium, Allport (1974), like Lynn, attacks the knowledge-based definition of professions, suggesting instead that it should be replaced with the image of the “old pro.” “Perhaps the vernacular will help,” he notes. “The term ‘old pro’ … implies competence, reliability, and resourcefulness particularly in advertising. An ‘old pro’ gets the job done, reasonably well— every time” (18). Absent in this discussion is any mention of how personality characteristics or personal skills can be used as a basis for negotiation with clients or might contribute on a macrolevel to the advertising industry’s overall status in society or its relation to the state. Finally, studying British advertising agency culture, Nixon (2000, 2003) also expresses skepticism as to whether advertising will ever reach the status of a profession. He agrees that while the advertising industry (in particular, its main trade association in Britain, the Institute of Practitioners of Advertising [IPA]) has “historically pursued a professionalising project” (2003, 58), many practitioners gave up the pursuit without recourse from the IPA. Nixon does not take a strong position for or against the need for professional stature, though he acknowledges that professionalism is still an important issue for the IPA. In in-depth interviews with advertising practitioners, however, he found that many, especially advertising creatives, see professional status as unnecessary for survival. Summary In summary, advertising’s professional status has garnered only limited research attention. Writings are isolated and the concept lacks a consensual definition. Further, the discussion of the historical aspects almost without exception concentrates on organizational characteristics (traits and structures) and not the actual work of advertising. These external markers of professionalization, however, are only the “side effects” of a successful profession. We agree with Abbott’s (1988) suggestion that a knowledge-based, work-based approach to the study of professions gives a fuller, more substantial picture of professionalization and professional change than an approach focused on organizational-institutional frameworks. As such, we situate our study in agency practitioners’ thoughts on how advertising deals with professionalization tensions relative to theoretical knowledge as the primary marker of the current state of advertising as a profession. RESEARCH DESIGN Because the goal of this study was to capture and understand practitioners’ thoughts about the work of advertising in their own terms, qualitative in-depth interviews were used. The interviews were semistructured, privileging the voices of the respondents over that of the researcher, while still enabling the researcher to probe for specific information as necessary. This type of interview makes it possible to capture the richness and complexity of the respondents’ narratives. Depth, detail, vividness, and nuance provide insights which facilitate interpretation of those narratives (Pike 1954; Rubin and Rubin 1995; Kvale 1996; Creswell 1998).

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  153

Because the objective is to investigate a phenomenon that is not well understood and lacks a precise theoretical framework, a “grounded theory” approach to qualitative research was adopted. A detailed description of the conceptual development of this approach is beyond the scope of this manuscript and is elaborated elsewhere (Nyilasy and Reid 2009a). For our purposes here, we elaborate only on the most basic tenets of the approach to establish the methodological foundations of the research.

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

A Grounded Theory Approach The grounded theory approach can be used in efforts to discover theory or to elaborate (reconsider) existing theory or fragments of theoretical ideas relative to collected empirical observations. In either case, the theories are “grounded” because they are very close to the empirical phenomena from which they emerged. That is, the “fit” between theory and empirical phenomena is tight (Glaser and Strauss 1967). As Charmaz (2005, 509) noted, “No qualitative method rests on induction alone—questions of the empirical world are framed and informed by existing knowledge.” Here, we openly acknowledge the interaction of extant theoretical and deductive thinking. Professionalization theory informs the study and provides a backdrop that helped in question formulation and drew our attention to dynamics which otherwise might have been overlooked. However, general professionalization theory is insufficient to predict the particularities of advertising. We are concerned with examining theoretical thought about advertising from the ground up (Burawoy 1991) and then reconsidering that thought relative to existing theories. Data Collection Data collection procedures.  Preliminary preparations for data collection started well before actual interviewing. Informal interviews were conducted with qualitative-ethnographic experts. E-mail and phone conversations were exchanged about the feasibility of the project, opinions about method, and tips for effective interviewing in an ethnographic scenario. Coupling insights drawn from these many conversations with methodological literature, an initial interview guide was developed building upon three questions: (1) What is the content of practitioner knowledge? (2) How do practitioners know what they know? (3) How do they use this knowledge in everyday practice? Practice interviews were conducted with agency-experienced doctoral students (three) and faculty members (three) to give the principal interviewer an opportunity to hone his interviewing skills as well as to evaluate the efficacy of the interview guide. Informants.  We were interested in discovering practitioner knowledge and understanding their use of that knowledge in everyday agency and client interactions. Though we recognized the importance of agency culture in such interactions, here we focused upon individual practitioners and sought to interview individuals in strategic decision-making areas. Because gaining access to an occupational group that handles proprietary client information is a challenge, we relied upon referrals from academic colleagues and personal friends. Subsequently,

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

154  G. NYILASY ET AL. these contacts were asked to identify other potential participants. This procedure proved practically efficient; the interviewer gained entry to most targeted agencies in the large city where the interviews were conducted. As the number of potential participants increased, a theoretical selection process was used so that many different viewpoints would be represented. Three occupational groups were interviewed: account managers, account planners, and creative directors. Only individuals at senior levels were asked to participate. At smaller agencies, this meant the owner, chief exaecutive officer (CEO), or general manager of the agency. At larger organizations, informants were heads of their functional units. An attempt was made to represent various-sized agencies in the market: larger (more than $130MM in annual billings according to The Advertising Red Books: Agencies January 2005), mid-sized ($30–130MM), and smaller (less than $30MM). A relatively equal balance was achieved across these groups. Theoretical saturation, the point at which additional interviews

TABLE 1 Characteristics of the Informants

Pseudonym AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5 AP6 AP7 CD1 CD2 CD3 CD4 CD5 CD6 CD7 CD8 CD9

Functional role Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Account management Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative Creative

College advertising/ marketing Gender education Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male

Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes N/A N/A No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No N/A No No Yes No N/A Yes No N/A No

Years of experience 14 20 20 22 22 27 11 23 N/A N/A N/A 37 24 26 N/A 28 20 15 22 20 N/A 35 20 10 30 10 44 16

Pseudonym Agency for agency size Agency1 Agency2 Agency3 Agency4 Agency4 Agency5 Agency6 Agency7 Agency8 Agency8 Agency8 Agency9 Agency10 Agency11 Agency4 Agency7 Agency5 Agency4 Agency12 Agency1 Agency7 Agency6 Agency13 Agency6 Agency4 Agency7 Agency14 Agency7

Mid Small Small Large Large Large Mid Large Mid Mid Mid Large Small Small Large Large Large Large Large Mid Large Mid Small Mid Large Large Mid Large

Agency affiliation Independent Independent Independent Network Network Independent Independent Network Independent Independent Independent Network Independent Independent Network Network Independent Network Independent Independent Network Independent Independent Independent Network Network Independent Network

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  155

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

yield no new information (Morse 1995) was achieved following 28 interviews. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the twenty-eight informants. Field issues.  Interviews lasted from 45 to 90 min. Most took place in the informants’ offices, though some interviews were conducted off-site at the informant’s request. All interviews were audiotaped. “Grand tour” questions were used to initiate the conversation; practitioners talked freely as the interview progressed, with the researcher probing only occasionally for specific information or greater depth. Extensive field notes were written immediately following each interview, and when combined with methodological reflections, these helped refine ways of asking questions in subsequent interviews. Theoretical notes also helped in the identification and development of emerging concepts as the interviews continued. The field notes were entered into an NVIVO database, software used for qualitative data analysis.

Data Analysis and the Emerging Nature of the Data Interviews were transcribed and then assessed broadly through an initial reading to get a general sense of the content. Interview transcripts were uploaded into NVIVO. We used the constant-comparative method throughout the coding process, coding and recoding the transcripts through many iterations of data analysis (Creswell 1998). In the first step, open coding, we coded loosely, identifying general themes in the data. Our codes were refined many times as recurring themes started to emerge (e.g., “clients’ need for certainty”). Next, we used axial coding to compare codes and note relationships between them (e.g., pseudo-tactics and working mechanisms). During the third step, selective coding, we noted a deeper storyline and hypotheses linking conceptual propositions about the system of practitioner thought involving professionalism and professionalization tactics.

FINDINGS: NEED FOR CERTAINTY AND PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS Our findings suggest that agency practitioners question the existence of, and even the possibility of attaining an esoteric theoretical knowledge base, the primary condition of professional stature. Still, they clearly understand that they operate in the dynamics of a professional context in their everyday work. Practitioners we interviewed acknowledge that they do feel a need to legitimate their work to clients who possess a strong need for certainty, and in response, they adopt what we identify here as pseudo-professionalization tactics. These tactics offer clients the semblance of certainty, while camouflaging the practitioners’ disbelief in academic theories as knowledge bases for their work. The findings here are presented in three parts: (1) practitioners’ recognition and characterization of clients’ need for certainty, (2) agency practitioners’ response to that need, the adoption of pseudo-professionalization tactics (of the rhetoric and relationshipmanagement type), and (3) psuedo-professionalization tactics constructing a “second knowledge base.”

156  G. NYILASY ET AL. Need for Certainty The need for agency practitioners to prove they “know what they are talking about” permeates the industry. Clients want to know their advertising dollars are well spent and are helping them achieve their business objectives. “Clients Want Rules”: The Need for Esoteric Theoretical Knowledge

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

They buy into the charade that agency A has figured all the rules out, it’s got all the answers … Point of fact, nobody has figured all that stuff out. No one’s got the answer to all those kinds of things. There’s an inherent … wish to believe on the part of certain customers of agencies. (AP5)

Without exception, informants noted that clients expressed the need for a “theoretical knowledge base”: scientific theories that predict the outcome of their advertising efforts, most notably, return on investment. This need was summed up in statements such as “Actually what clients want is a front-end predictive model, where if I do this, this is going to happen” (AM9), and “Well, I think they’d all like to have one [predictive theory]. I’d like to have one, it’d make my job a lot easier but, you know, there are … Once you move away from the hard sciences there are very few formulas that exist that, you know, would run a business successfully” (AM12). Informants described this fundamental conflict in the advertising business: While agency practitioners believe that there are no predictive models, they have to deal with clients who yearn for such models. Account Planner 4 summed up the paradox of the advertising business—it is as much characterized by yearning for models, as it is predestined to live without them: Everybody wants order, we don’t want chaos. We don’t want the idea that there is no order to the universe … Yes, in order to understand, and appreciate, and plan, and budget, and forecast, clients and agencies both need some sort of order and expectation of what … I’m going to spend this money here, and I’m not spending that in order to, you know, satisfy some prurient interest. I’m spending that because I expect at some point in the future to get that back in much higher number than what I spend. So how does that work, what’s the progression, all of that’s very important to ad agencies, to clients … It’s just hard … to say there’s a rule. Because rules, they’re just hard to come by. […] I mean, if you just get honest about it, which is hard for people to do … I want to be honest about it but they want to be … because they want to have rules. And they want to have a map: “I want a decision tree.”

Creativity Is “Scary”: The Need for “Esoteric” Knowledge I think they say they want a big idea, then when they see it, it kind of scares them. But in our opinion, if it doesn’t scare them, it’s not a very big idea. So if it doesn’t make them a little bit uncomfortable [it is not right]. (CD3)

The need for “esoteric knowledge” is also a part of the advertising dynamic. It is not enough to have a theory of how something works; it has to be complex and difficult enough so that an exclusive profession can be built on it. Agency practitioners indicated that they are very aware of the uniqueness of their product and their clients’ need for the esoteric product: creative ad messages—something clients usually do not generate in house (AM1; AP1). Hence, they need the

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  157

services of ad agencies because agencies provide something they do not have (CD1, 2, 4, 7). The “esoteric” delivered by agencies to clients, then, is creativity. While clients appreciate the creativity of agency work, as the creative director’s comment given earlier indicates, they are often less than comfortable with it and, indeed, are rather “scared of it” (AM5, 7; CD5, 6). Creativity scares clients because it is the very denial of certainty provided by theoretical knowledge bases; because creativity is by its nature uncertain, it challenges even the possibility of certainty. The fact that clients are scared by creativity, again, illustrates the dynamics of professionalization in advertising practice, but it also proves that these dynamics are in jeopardy by the very nature of the work itself.

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

“Now You’ve Got Proof”: Commercial Market Research and the Need for Certainty Clients and marketing people … need something that they can go to people with … and say, “Look we did our due diligence, and that’s right, and it’s going to work, or we believe it’s going to work based on a, you know, a testing plan.” (CD9)

According to the informants, clients often express their need for theoretical knowledge in a particular form: market research on advertising effectiveness. (AP6; CD4). The use of commercial market research would be the perfect solution for proving the professional status of advertising, because—in theory at least—it represents the operationalized measurement system of theoretical knowledge bases that can actually provide empirical proof that—based on basic theory—the advertising program works in the specific case. Yet commercial market research remains a lessthan-perfect professionalization tool, because, as our informants indicated, practitioners don’t engage research for its inherent value (they are skeptical about its validity), but instead are willing to rely on it only if it helps to sell work (AM4; AP3): “I think almost all the planning tools we use are geared towards selling the idea. Or to actually help sell the client on what we are trying to do” (AP5); “I think the reason that [research] counts … is that it does help to sell it to the client and build a little more faith from them. They realize we do know what we are doing” (CD6). Some informants went so far as to suggest that there was no use for research other than its persuasive value, its opportunistic use: “Research is a means to an end … We’ll bastardize research to get where we think that is a good place to be” (AP2); “In some cases the creative would come up with the idea and say, ‘You guys make it fit so that it seems like it’s going to fit the client’s brief.’ And it’s post-justification going on” (AP5); “I will use the research … I don’t believe in it. I do believe in it from the standpoint, it can help sell work, if you have numbers” (CD7). According to these informants, then, the best role that research can play is to create an “air of science” around advertising without in any way curtailing practitioners’ autonomy to produce creative work, which they ontologically equate with art (AP4, 6, 7;CD1, 2, 6). “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,” asserted CD8. Pseudo-Professionalization Tactics—Rhetoric and Relationship-Management Tools To summarize the argument so far, based on our informants’ remarks, the logic and dynamics of professionalization apply to advertising, even if agency practitioners do not find the

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

158  G. NYILASY ET AL. classic legitimization tool, theoretical knowledge, acceptable. Clients nonetheless have a need for advertising knowledge that is both scientifically predictive and esoteric to justify the need to turn to an outside expert. What can the advertising industry do in such a situation? Amid acute uncertainty and expressed client demands for legitimation, how does the advertising industry cope? How can advertising professionals escape the double squeeze of having to provide both theoretical justification and creative magic, which they believe is inherently impossible to be theorized? The solution suggested by this study is: Agency practitioners use what we will call “pseudoprofessionalization tactics.” Pseudo-professionalization tactics are knowledge-related actions that do not use an esoteric and theoretical knowledge base to substantiate work, but do offer ad hoc solutions in response to professionally based demands from clients. The tactics are “pseudo” because they are quick fixes: local and fuzzy resolutions to avert immediate legitimation crises. Seven such tactics emerged in our research (Table 2). Selling creative with strategy.  One of the ways in which agencies justify their creative product is claiming that it is consistent with “strategy.” Strategy, which these practitioners define as the core message based on consumer insight and the identification of the target audience, lays the groundwork for the creation of advertising messages, but it does not dictate the creative concept or the resulting advertising executions. The professionalization problem for the advertising industry is precisely this: While it is possible to justify strategy, there is no theory and therefore no professional legitimation for creative (see Nyilasy and Reid 2009b). The tactic of “selling creative with strategy” tries to resolve this dilemma by pretending that the link between strategy and creative is a sufficient explanation for why a particular creative route was taken. In reality, there are an infinite number of ways in which the strategy can be expressed in diverse creative concepts, all of them being “on brief.” Yet it seems that “selling creative with strategy” effectively masks this problem. As Creative Director 7 suggested, as long as the link between strategy and creative is established, it doesn’t matter how far out the creative concept is: “Well, a good strategy TABLE 2 The Seven Pseudo-Professionalization Tactics Name of pseudo-professionalization tactic

Description

Selling creative with strategy

Showing that the creative concept and executions correspond to the underlying strategy

Presenting creative as if it were logical

Pretending that the creative product was arrived at as a result of a rational process

Suggesting “This worked for others”

Citing analogous cases that ended with market success

Positioning practitioners as partners, not vendors

Enhancing long-term relationships with clients, through building trust, often directly with the CEO

Articulating agency philosophies

Creating branded points-of-view about how advertising works and what works best, unique to the agency

Referencing practical authority sources

Referencing the written works of advertising “greats”

Working in a “second knowledge” culture

Intersubjectively negotiating best practices with advertising peers

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  159

will help the creative sell, even, no matter how wacky it is, it’ll help the creative sell.” Another creative director (CD5) described how the tactic worked:

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

When we sell the creative then we are going to show ... we are going to reiterate, here’s what we learned from our research, there’s what it told us about your market, here’s the insight we drew from that, and then here’s what we created that speaks directly to that. What you try to do is ... is to set it up so that when they get to the ad, they are like, “of course that’s what you would do ... Yeah! That’s great. We love it.”

Advertising agencies frequently build on this technique by insisting that clients “buy into” an agreed-upon strategy first; only after this step should creative development begin. Agencies use this “foot in the door” technique, because this “stepwise” legitimation process seems to work better (AP3). Establishing a client commitment to the project up front makes selling the creative seem easier (CD8): And then, of course, when we go back to the client with the concepts, you start by going first of all through the creative focus and reviewing that with the client to, okay, this is what we agreed to, and this is what the ads are intended to accomplish. And this is the target and so on. Then you’re measuring the creative against the criteria that we previously agreed to; otherwise you just flap around endlessly.

Presenting creative as if it were logical.  A pseudo-professionalization tactic similar to that just discussed is to suggest that there is a logical procedure leading to the genesis of a creative concept. This tactic differs from the previous one in that it ventures into the unstable territory of actually creating advertising, while “selling creative with strategy” attempts to avoid it. Indeed, this tactic makes claims about the creative process and intentionally misrepresents it. Despite the fact that agency practitioners do not believe that advertising creativity is rational, logical, or possible to be modeled (Nyilasy and Reid 2009a, 2009b), pretending that it is takes away some of the anxiety clients have about the unpredictable nature of creativity. According to the informants, they are willing to engage in this pretense to be able to sell the work (AP4, CD2,6). Well, it’s interesting because I think most clients appreciate the creative mind, and they appreciate it because they can’t do it. And they don’t totally understand it. But at the same time the more you can present it as though there is a formula, the easier it is for them to buy it. The more you can remove subjectivity, the easier it is for them to not only buy into it but sell it up the ladder at their corporation or whatever. (CD2)

Suggesting “This worked for others.”  According to our informants, agencies often use “case studies” to show that past advertising programs similar to the proposed project have “worked” for others—agency clients or even brands outside the agency client list. The essential component of such “case studies” (whether they are presented formally or referred to informally) is a link or similarity between what is proposed and the “case.” The assumption is that if the referenced (and in some ways similar) campaign worked, the proposed one should as well. If put to closer scrutiny, it becomes obvious that the argument that past successes—even under “similar” circumstances—predict future success is a false one, given the infinite number of variables that differ between the compared cases. Nevertheless, it seems this tactic is yet another less-than-perfect professionalization tool that “works” for agencies.

160  G. NYILASY ET AL.

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

CD4, for example, explained the utility of case histories put together by the agency: “I mean, usually we use case studies ... or you show examples of how it’s worked for other clients. And there are no guarantees in our business, but I think if we can show ... ‘look, we did this six times for different clients and it always worked.’” Similarly, CD5 suggested that using examples that are in some ways similar to the proposed advertising plan could help substantiate work: “I think sometimes you can go outside the category and show, you know, here’s what this client did, it was a huge risk, and here’s a case that, you know ... here’s what happened afterwards.” A modification of this pseudo-professionalization tactic is to reference the track record of the agency. Creative Director 8 articulated the value of this tactic, noting that an agency’s past successes were one of the best sources of justification for future work: You know, I think that there is a sorting out that clients go through if they wind up with an agency that does work that stands out, they are there because of the agency’s track record and doing work that stands out. [...] A lot of times clients will go to an agency because they like the work of the agency.

Positioning practitioners as partners, not vendors.  Most informants suggested that advertising agencies seek to be perceived as partners and not as service providers (AM1, 11; CD1, 3). Assuming the role of the “partner not vendor” reduces the conflicts that flow from the advertising industry’s incapability of professionalization (AM6; AP2; CD1). By doing this, agencies reduce the need for proof, certainty, or an underlying theoretical knowledge base because they are no longer perceived as a service provider that requires such proof. As one account manager suggested, “Again, it’s back to the vendor-partnership role. I mean, if you have a vendor role, instead of a partnership role, then yes, they’re going to expect to see a lot more proof statements” (AM6). Many informants argued that the best way to achieve a partner status was working directly with the CEO of the advertiser. The reason is the perception that CEOs have the position and authority to be less risk averse (i.e., less in need of legitimation proofs). As one respondent argued, “It’s also true that if ... the higher up you can work in an organization, if you can work at the CEO level, and if that person is willing to take some risks, then you’re much better off than if somebody is found levels down” (AM5). They might also be susceptible to persuasion that advertising is less of a professional service than an integral part of brand vision (AM5; AP2). Pseudo-Professionalization Tactics—Constructing “Second Knowledge” While subjective practitioner theories cannot be used for professional legitimation, their transformation into intersubjective forms of knowledge, what we will call the construction of a “second knowledge” base, can create the semblance of it. We call this knowledge the “second knowledge” base, because it attempts to function as the “first,” the classic theoretical knowledge base in its legitimation intent, yet it is markedly autonomous, that is, peculiar to agency practitioners. The remaining tactics follow this path. Articulating agency philosophies I think that every agency that’s ever been created has tried to [professionalize]. That’s why you’ll see every single agency in the world will have a proprietary tool, or a set of tools … Every one of them would have a catchy phrase, and there would be a gazillion of them. (CD9)

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  161

It has become commonplace for agencies to brand certain aspects of their activities, suggesting “proprietary” knowledge “owned” by a single organization. According to respondents, these claims that an agency has a unique way to approach advertising, “agency philosophies,” seem to give credibility and substantiation to the agency’s work, irrespective of the validity of that knowledge. Having a philosophy serves as a “second knowledge” base replacing a true theoretical knowledge about how advertising works. Despite the fact that this knowledge is clearly an incomplete and insufficient replacement, its existence fills a very real need: justification against clients’ expressed need for certainty. In fact, several informants, like the creative director quoted earlier, indicated that this justification role was the very reason agencies created and branded philosophies. “But a standardized approach or a more deliberate approach … not so much necessarily for our creative people to have it, it’s more for the benefit of our clients, the same reason they like the decision tree” (AP4). Most informants defined agency philosophies in terms of the process of arriving at particularized theories that constitute strategy. These philosophies, then, are mechanisms and accompanying directives about how to carry out upfront market research and turn it into idiographic bases for pursuing creative work (AM1; AP1, 2), again emphasizing an inherent logic in approach. An account manager, for example, described her agency’s process in such a context: You know, we do a process that’s called [name of proprietary tool], we go and talk to a lot of different people, we go and talk to the … inside the company, outside the company, their clients, you know, my client’s clients, talk to a lot of people, and kind of get an overall impression, and then we direct … and from a strategic area, we formulate what the strategy’s going to be. (AM1)

Many respondents acknowledged that while such agency philosophies were hardly unique, they were useful in selling work to clients (AP2; AM12; CD3). “We’ve got a chart. […] And you know, everybody, every ad agency has got a process. Everybody’s got a process and they all think theirs is unique. And trust me, 99% of all of them are exactly the same” (CD3). Referencing practical authority sources.  In the absence of what they perceive as a reliable and valid theoretical knowledge base, agency practitioners often use other knowledge sources for legitimation: They frequently turn to the writings of other practitioners who are perceived to have significant experience, advertising trade publications and business books, or conference presentations. These sources, like agency philosophies, are part of the “second knowledge base” for the advertising occupation. Because they come from “real life,” from the actual practice of advertising work, they are perceived to be more valid than academic research, which agency practitioners view with epistemological skepticism (Nyilasy and Reid 2009b). The perceived validity of “real life” commands high levels of “practical authority,” something with which the academic theoretical knowledge base cannot compete. The validity and reliability of this practical knowledge is never tested, yet the fact that it exists and can be referenced makes it a useful pseudo-professionalization tool. Several respondents commented that the influence of practical authority can be enormous in the advertising industry, mentioning the influence of David Ogilvy in particular. I mean, when David Ogilvy was still alive, you know, almost anything that he said was taken as gospel, you know, even though he would be the first to admit that he violated some of his own rules, too. (AM2)

162  G. NYILASY ET AL.

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

I noticed, over the years, at one point when I was first breaking in this business, David Ogilvy was still a very strong influence, especially in print. And some of the things he said we didn’t agree with, it was more of, “let’s break David Ogilvy’s rules and still make this thing work” (CD1)

Informants also referenced trade publications such Advertising Age, Adweek, or Communication Arts; trade books; and conferences of advertising-related associations such as the AAAA or the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) as sources where a “second” knowledge base can be found. As Creative Director 9 summed up: “You know, there are a lot of books that are written about advertising, and there’s a lot of competitions that go on, and I think a lot of folks, you know … You’d be a fool not to keep abreast of that stuff.” The utility of a “second knowledge” base is more indirect than the previously described pseudo-professionalization tactics. Second knowledge is only rarely referenced in front of clients and suffers the limitations of any pseudo-professionalization tactic: It cannot fully replace the legitimating force of academic knowledge. However, “second knowledge” serves as a private ethic, providing internal reassurance and helping practitioners believe in their own professionalism. This professional confidence in turn permeates agency–client relationships and operates as a pseudo-professionalization agent. Working in a “second knowledge” culture.  The creation, circulation, and negotiation of a “second knowledge” are not limited to explicit sources such as agency philosophies, practitioner writings, and the trade press. “Second knowledge,” in fact, is the very culture that surrounds practitioners every day, everywhere—in the routines of their work, through their interactions with peers, in informal conversations, and through special sites of negotiation such as advertising awards and recognitions bestowed. Practitioners accept (mostly unconsciously) the knowledge constituted and negotiated in this “professional” culture; they rely on the constructed knowledge of others or of the anonymous advertising community of which they are a part. While agency practitioners are not philosophically reflexive about their own social constructions, their accounts of certain parts of their knowledge and the use to which that knowledge is put are telltale signs of this idea. For example, several informants noted that the observation of trends and countertrends constitutes a large portion of creative thinking about what good advertising is: “And then you have executional techniques and those just come and go with their trends. It’s types of music, is the person in the center of the camera or off-center, or is it dark or bright? Those will always change, that’s style” (AM8). “There are certainly styles that get popular” (AM6). “It’s like advertising falls into styles like that, periodically and you can watch things just ... it’s like a pendulum. Things become very graphic-driven concepts, then they swing over and they become very word-driven concepts and then they, you know, down in the middle there are the two just work, you know, hand and glove together” (CD6). A clear dialectic of following and resisting trends (i.e., socially constructed ideas about how to create advertising) permeates advertising practice. The following somewhat-longer passage provides insight into the dynamics of the creative culture, as well as the resistance to openly acknowledging being under the influence of that culture. You’ll see little trends pick up. Okay, that’s an easy crutch, you know. I’ve got an hour to turn that ad around. I’ll do the old formulaic … Bamm, bamm. It’ll be a decent ad, and people see it in the

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  163

magazine thinking, not bad. But it’s really not pushing the limits of creativity ... Last five or ten … last five years the industry has been going through a real visual-dominated period. And the pendulum will swing back when the writing will dominate. If you’ve noticed the trends over the years, we’ll go back and forth from where there’s more writing-dominated advertising and there’s more visual kind of trick dominate there … There was a period where there was a visual trick that a lot of … and if you keep your eyes open now you’ll notice a lot of it, it’s kind of a crutch. If you’ve got a product that … its feature or its beauty or something like that … I was so enamored with the beauty of this product I didn’t realize this was going all around me. [Laughs.] It’s a formula. And if you start looking at ads, you’ll see it everywhere ... So people follow trends and … so that’s one that’s … that’s a trend going around I just despise. The thing is, when you’re creative, you’re trying not to do something that somebody will look at and say, “Oh, that’s that formula or oh, that’s that formula.” So there are little formulas that we kind of know about, but you do everything in your power. Even if you think it falls into it, you disguise it, so that people don’t know that it falls into it. (CD5)

While the informants wholeheartedly supported the ideology of creativity, the idea that advertising is, first and foremost, a creative art form, and that the most important directive is “be creative,” they also admit they sometimes copy each other, or copy the masters (CD2, 7). And perhaps as suggested in the preceding passage, sometimes they don’t even realize they are copying, so immersed are they in the “commonsense” understanding, the routine of the culture. Informants also noted that knowledge of what constitutes good advertising circulates in formal ways (i.e., two agencies meeting to discuss and evaluate creative work), but also in countless more mundane ways: compliments, subtle nods of approval and simple everyday conversation: “I think there’s a little community and ... You just talk about pop culture in general, what’s cool and what’s not. We are always commenting on each other’s work. And what we’re seeing in television, what we like, what we don’t like” (CD5). Perhaps the most obvious way in which the ad industry constructs “second knowledge,” and indeed, celebrates that knowledge internally even as it announces its legitimacy externally to potential clients, is through advertising awards. Here, the acknowledgment of advertising as a fundamentally creative (esoteric) product is evident in the fact that most industry awards evaluate advertising not on the basis of market results but on aesthetic merit as assessed by an “expert panel” of advertising practitioners, that is, by members of the community. One respondent noted: “It’s really how you differentiate yourself in this business. It’s to have that, to have a little shelf with some medallion on it. And otherwise, you know, how do we know it’s good?” (CD7). Here is a clear indication of the social construction of “second knowledge”: Superior work (and thus, implicit guidelines for producing such work) is defined by a social group, the elite of ad practitioners judging the work of other practitioners. “Oh, yeah. We get all the reels. We get the reels and the book from all the award shows. And we show them, and we look at them, and we critique them” (CD3). Still, like the other pseudo-professionalization tactics discussed thus far, this tactic remains less than perfect. It cannot directly be used in discussions with clients to legitimate ad work, even if it adheres to the socially constructed knowledge of what good advertising is. To do so, to admit that practitioner beliefs are simply “understood” by practitioners and not based in scientific knowledge, would undermine professional credibility instead of building it. Yet the constructed and, indeed, negotiated knowledge of what good advertising is permeates the advertising community, is fundamental to its private ethic, and in this way is an effective pseudo-professionalization tool.

164  G. NYILASY ET AL.

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

DISCUSSION: UNDERSTANDING ADVERTISING’S PROFESSIONAL CULTURE As noted in the preceding literature, scholars have examined particular aspects of advertising’s professionalization efforts, the success or failure of those efforts, and even the (im)possibility of advertising ever attaining professional stature. By contrast, our findings are the first to provide a detailed, theoretically engaged and empirically grounded account of how practitioners deal with the pressures of professionalism in the agency context. That is, they provide a glimpse into advertising’s professional culture, the shared understanding of what it means to be an advertising professional. Scott (1999, 8) has noted that “professional cultures do not emerge accidentally [...] they are fostered through conscious and unconscious action.” As we have reminded you throughout, a solid academic theoretical knowledge base for the practice of advertising exists, but is largely dismissed by advertising practitioners in favor of their own subjective theoretical and meta-theoretical thoughts (Nyilasy and Reid 2009a, 2009b). Still, agency practitioners clearly understand that they operate in a professional context and live with the dynamics of professionalization. They feel the need to legitimate their work to satisfy clients’ need for certainty. The use of commercial market research has long been considered a potential solution to legitimization problems. However, these agency practitioners have serious epistemological concerns about the validity of that research. The value of market research tools for many advertising agencies lies in its tactical, utilitarian use, not its inherent information-provision role. Many agency practitioners use research opportunistically, if and when it supports the claims to be made about proposed projects. The use of market research often lends an “air of science” to agency practice, but whenever it interferes with the autonomy of advertising work, it is vehemently rejected. It is noteworthy that the suggestion that advertising practitioners’ use of research is largely self-serving is a long-standing one. Reilly (1929, 8) wrote in Advertising and Selling, “Those with a craze for facts frequently are not interested in facts until they have decided what they are going to do, then they go out to gather facts in an attempt to justify what has already been done.” Our findings correspond to the more recent findings of Cronin (2004), who suggests: Practitioners’ engagement in research is directed less at unveiling the ‘truths’ of the consumer—most practitioners (and indeed clients) are dubious about the possibilities of achieving this and freely admit their own ignorance. […] Most research is thus directed by pragmatic, short-term aims of producing acceptable material that can be used to pitch a campaign. (350)

Agency practitioners have developed several tools, which we call “pseudo-professionalization tactics,” in order to respond to legitimization needs. These tactics are viewed as “professionalization” tools because they deal with knowledge and are deployed in response to clients’ professionalization needs. They are “pseudo” because they are philosophically and sociologically insufficient solutions to the professionalization problem of the advertising industry. As shown in Table 3, the tactics discovered here vary in their underlying mechanisms. The first three tactics are rhetorical mechanisms. They reflect practitioners’ layered meta-theory (Nyilasy and Reid 2009b), recognizing that strategic development has a much stronger connection to theoretical knowledge bases and rationality than does the creative concept, which ultimately cannot be theorized. Yet creativity constitutes the core of the service offering of the ad agency. When “selling creative with strategy,” agency professionals use the foundation of strategy to project legitimacy onto the creative concept. In the case of “presenting creative as if it were logical,” ad practitioners pretend that creative ideas can be derived through rational processes. These

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  165

TABLE 3 Working Mechanisms of the Pseudo-Professionalization Tactics Name of pseudo-professionalization tactic Selling creative with strategy

Projecting a substantiable layer of knowledge onto an unsubstantiable layer Transforming an unsubstantiable layer of knowledge into a substantiable one Using the logic of induction to create support

Rhetoric

Positioning practitioners as partners, not vendors

Changing the dynamics of professional legitimation needs of clients towards agents

Relationship management

Articulating agency philosophies Referencing practical authority sources Working in a “second knowledge” culture

Transforming subjective “practitioner theory” into intersubjective “second knowledge base”

Knowledge creation

Presenting creative as if it were logical Suggesting “This worked for others”

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

Working mechanism

tactics try to establish a link between strategy, rational process, and creative, intentionally misrepresenting practitioners’ genuine belief about the layeredness of advertising production, in order to achieve pragmatic legitimation gains. The third rhetorical tactic, “suggesting ‘this worked for others,’” makes inductive claims about the future success of advertising programs, based on analogous positive cases. Again, upon closer scrutiny, it becomes obvious that a simple similarity cannot control for the infinite number of extraneous variables that can influence the outcome of the campaign at hand. The fourth tactic involves the management of the client/agency relationship. In positioning themselves as “partners rather than vendors,” agency practitioners attempt to influence the dynamics of professional legitimation; in a partnership, the agency is perceived to be closer (or even almost identical) to the client decision-making unit, lessening the need for hard-edged professional accountability. The last three tactics are grounded in the creation and circulation of intersubjective forms of knowledge, which we identify as “second knowledge.” This knowledge goes beyond personal theories (Nyilasy and Reid 2009a, 2009b), but is still fundamentally different from academic knowledge. “Agency philosophies” and “practical authority sources” are the written tradition of advertising practitioners, a loosely substantiated pool of knowledge (agency manifestos, business books, blogs, trade publication articles, conference papers, case studies, etc.). A “second knowledge” culture acknowledges the fact that this knowledge permeates the ad community in ways that may not have crystallized into written expression but are formed in communication among infinite agency practitioner everyday exchanges. The pseudo-professionalization tactics that emerged from our investigations are consistent with similar ideas reached by a few other researchers. Following a historical examination of J. Walter Thompson’s research department through 1925, Kreshel (1990) concluded: Mechanisms to facilitate “scientific research” at the agency at the same time became PR tools, reinforcing the importance of factual information as the basis for decision-making, and providing evidence of Thompson’s competency to a science-conscious business community (80).

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

166  G. NYILASY ET AL. In 1949, from an analysis of the professional aspirations of advertising, Baur (1949) concluded that lacking the true possibility of professional status, ad practitioners turn to “ceremonial behavior” (358), creating “pseudo-science, myths, and rituals” (359). Similarly, Alvesson (1994) suggests that “advertising professionals often have difficulties in convincing customers about their ‘know-how.’ Their abilities and products seldom talk for themselves. This allows the customer ample opportunity to take command of the evaluation processes” (543). Under such circumstances, “linguistic and other symbolic means” (544) are often used for substantiation. The traditional means of professional legitimization are exchanged for “impressions of professionality”: “Because results are not clearly visible, the impression of professionality becomes equally important. The success of projecting the special capability of creating a good advertisement and of being able to decide what is right is, of course, completely connected with the other parties’ acceptance of this—it is the recognition that one must fight for” (545). Malefyt (2003) also emphasizes the importance of the “impression of competency” (144) in advertising work, and Southgate (2006) editorializes about a specific area of pseudo-professionalization tactics, practical authority sources, the body of knowledge created by business book writers and gurus. In the related field of public relations (PR), Pieczka (2000) analyzed legitimation attempts used in prize-winning PR case studies and concluded that genuine professionalization dynamics built on scientific knowledge are often replaced with rhetorics to justify public relations expertise and professionalism to clients. Further research is needed to validate our findings on the issues of uncertainty and pseudotactics, from both the agency and client sides of the business. Of special importance, survey studies are needed using probability samples to replicate and generalize our findings to broader practitioner populations and to address comparative questions on uncertainty as a driver of client/ agency decisions and the presence and prevalence of the use of pseudo-professionalization tactics to promote decision legitimacy. Additionally, practitioners’ attempts to replicate an intersubjective base of knowledge (“second knowledge”) seem an especially fruitful area for further investigation, especially in their written forms (written agency philosophies, professional publications, informal writings, award judging documents, etc.). The exploration of secondary materials would harvest the “written tradition” of practitioner thinking to validate and expand these first-person accounts. The payout from such analysis would be a more comprehensive understanding of how advertising functions in context clearly grounded in the logic of professionalism. Our findings also have implications for the professionalization prospects of advertising and the often-cited problem of the academician–practitioner gap. For academic researchers who are willing to follow Hunt’s (2002) call for “problem-oriented research,” there is a great opportunity to more fully explore the ecosystem of practitioner thinking, in terms of subjective practitioner theories about how advertising works (practitioner theories); underlying practitioner assumptions about the nature of advertising phenomena and the possibility of knowledge about these phenomena (practitioner meta-theories); and pseudo-professionalization tactics, practitioners’ pragmatic attempts to counter legitimation problems (including the formulation of a “second knowledge”). The three practitioner-based knowledge areas are interrelated, and future research into the three aspects of practitioner thinking could greatly benefit the construction of both academic and industry-based research programs by complementing and extending them with practically relevant, practitioner-based information. Such research would accomplish at least two outcomes: (1) improve advertising knowledge and advertising education and (2) provide the

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  167

foundation for more effective and better-fitting knowledge-dissemination programs sponsored and promoted by professional associations (e.g., American Academy of Advertising, ARF, AAAA, American Marketing Association, and World Advertising Research Center). At present, advertising remains something short of a profession as measured by the criterion of an agreed upon and validated base of theoretical knowledge. As our findings indicate, agency practitioners perceive fundamental problems with the possibility of professionalized, academically substantiated theoretical knowledge about advertising. While this situation may be difficult, if not impossible, to alleviate, efforts should be undertaken that promote and enhance dialogue between academic and practitioner constituencies for the sake of mutual knowledge gain to advance the profession. These efforts should be done in a more self-conscious way than ever before, especially paying attention to practitioner knowledge autonomy and the ramifications of this autonomy in the context of academic research and thinking. A full-fledged, theoretical knowledge base-backed profession is still a worthy goal for all involved in advertising.

REFERENCES Abbott, Andrew D. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. The Advertising Red Books: Agencies January 2005. 2005. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis. Allport, Peter. 1974. “Professionalism in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 3 (Fall): 18–20. Alvesson, Mats. 1994. “Talking in Organizations: Managing Identity and Impression in an Advertising Agency.” Organization Studies 15 (4): 535–63. Baur, Jackson E. 1949. “The Functions of Ceremony in the Advertising Business.” Social Forces 27 (May): 358–65. Beverland, Michael, Frances Farrelly, and Zeb Woodhatch. 2007. “Exploring the Dimensions of Proactivity Within Advertising Agency–Client Relationships.” Journal of Advertising 36 (Winter): 49–60. Brown, Lyndon O. 1948. “Toward a Profession of Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 13 (July): 27–31. Burawoy, Michael. 1991. “Reconstructing Social Theories.” In Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis, edited by Michael Burawoy, Alice Burton, Ann Arnett Ferguson, Kathryn J. Fox, Joshua Gamson, Nadine, Gartrell, Leslie Hurst, Charles Kurzman, Leslie Salzinger, Josepha Schiffman, and Shiori Ui, 8–27. Berkeley: University of California Press. Carr-Saunders, A. M., and P. A. Wilson. 1933. The Professions: Their Organisation and Place in Society. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Charmaz, Kathy. 2005. “Grounded Theory in the 21st Century.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds., 507–35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coe, Ted L., and Barbara J. Coe. 1976. “Marketing Research: The Search for Professionalism.” In American Marketing Association Educators’ Proceedings: Marketing: 1776–1976 and Beyond, edited by Kenneth L. Berhardt, 257–59. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Collins, Randall. 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Creamer, Matthew. 2007. “Marketers Can’t Grade Shops but Fail Them Anyway: Most Clients Can’t Measure Agencies’ Exact ROI yet Feel ‘Vague Disappointment.’” Advertising Age 78 (9): 1, 41. Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cronin, Anne M. 2004. “Currencies of Commercial Exchange: Advertising Agencies and the Promotional Imperative.” Journal of Consumer Culture 4 (3): 339–60. Gerhold, Paul E. J. 1971. “Sixty Years in Search of a Profession.” Journal of Advertising Research 11 (February): 47. Gerhold, Paul E. J. 1974. “Why We Need a Profession, and How to Get One.” Journal of Advertising Research 14 (October): 9-14.

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

168  G. NYILASY ET AL. Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Halliday, Terence C. 1987. Beyond Monopoly: Lawyers, State Crises, and Professional Empowerment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hughes, Everett C. 1958. Men and Their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Hunt, Shelby D. 2002. Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Keane, John G. 1974. “On Professionalism in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 3 (Fall): 6–12. Khurana, Rakesh, and Nitin Nohria. 2008. “It’s Time to Make Management a True Profession.” Harvard Business Review 86 (October): 70–77. Kreshel, Peggy J. 1990. “The ‘Culture’ of J. Walter Thompson, 1915–-1925.” Public Relations Review 16 (Fall): 80–93. Kvale, Steinar. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Larson, Magali. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lynn, Jerry R. 1974. “Professionalism Is a State of Mind.”Journal of Advertising 3 (Fall): 13–17. MacDonald, Keith M. 1995. The Sociology of the Professions. London, UK: Sage. Malefyt, Timothy deWaal. 2003. “Models, Metaphors and Client Relations: The Negotiated Meanings of Advertising.” In Advertising Cultures, edited by Timothy deWaal Malefyt and Brian Moeran, 139–62. Oxford, UK: Berg. Millerson, Geoffrey. 1964. The Qualifying Associations: A Study in Professionalization. London, UK: Routledge and Paul. Morse, Janice M. 1995. “The Significance of Saturation.” Qualitative Health Research 5, 147–49. Mullman, Jeremy. 2007. “If Only All Marriages Could Last Like These: How Some Marketers and Shops Manage to Stay Together for Decades.” Advertising Age 78 (31): 6. Murphy, John H., and Kenneth A. Coney. 1976. “Accreditation of Marketing Researchers?” In American Marketing Educators’s Proceedings: 1776–1976 and Beyond, edited by Kenneth L. Berhardt, 260–65. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Nixon, Sean. 2000. “In Pursuit of the Professional Ideal: Advertising and the Construction of Commercial Expertise in Britain 1953–64.” In Commercial Cultures: Economies, Practices, Spaces, edited by Peter Jackson, Michelle Lowe, Daniel Miller, and Frank Mort, 55–74. Oxford, UK: Berg. Nixon, Sean. 2003. Advertising Cultures: Gender, Commerce, Creativity. London, UK: Sage. Nyilasy, Gergely, and Leonard N. Reid. 2007. “The Academician-Practitioner Gap in Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising 26 (4): 425–45. Nyilasy, Gergely, and Leonard N. Reid. 2009a. “Agency Practitioner Theories of How Advertising Works.” Journal of Advertising 38 (Fall): 81–96. Nyilasy, Gergely, and Leonard N. Reid. 2009b. “Agency Practitioners’ Meta-Theories of Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising 28 (4): 639–68. Pieczka, Magda. 2000. “Objectives and Evaluation in Public Relations Work: What Do They Tell Us About Expertise and Professionalism?” Journal of Public Relations Research 12 (July): 211–33. Pike, Kenneth L. 1954. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. Part 1. Glendale, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ramond, Charles. 1974. “Toward Professionalism.” Journal of Advertising Research 14 (October): 91. Ramond, Charles. 1980. “Toward Professionalism.” Journal of Advertising Research 20 (June): 71. Reilly, William. 1929. “Why This Craze for Facts?” Advertising and Selling 13 (October): 82. Resor, Stanley. 1924. “What Do These Changes Mean? Do We Fully Appreciate the Nature of the Job?” Address before the meeting of the Western Council of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, Chicago, 1924 [reprint], JWT Archives. Ross, Billy I., and Jef I. Richards. 2008. A Century of Advertising Education. American Academy of Advertising. Accessed July 9, 2012. http://www.aaasite.org/Century_of_Ad-Education.pdf. Rubin, Herbert J., and Irene S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schultze, Quentin J. 1979. “The Trade Press of Advertising: Its Content and Contribution to the Profession.” In Information Sources in Advertising History, edited by Richard W. Pollay, 49–62. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Schultze, Quentin J. 1981. “Professionalism in Advertising: The Origin of Ethical Codes.” Journal of Communication 31 (Spring): 64–71.

ADVERTISING PSEUDO-PROFESSIONALIZATION TACTICS  169

Downloaded by [Gergely Nyilasy] at 03:14 22 October 2012

Schultze, Quentin J. 1982. “An Honorable Place: The Quest for Professional Advertising Education, 1900–1917.” Business History Review 56 (Spring): 16–32. Scott, Joan Wallach. 1999. Gender and the Politics of History. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Southgate, Nick. 2006. “The Academic–Practitioner Divide: Finding Time to Make a Difference.” Marketing Intelligence and Planning 24 (6): 547–51. Stewart, Dan. 1974. “Professionalism in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 3 (Fall): 48–49. Takai, Bill. 1973. “The End of Professionalism in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 2 (1): 47–48. Walker, David S., and John Child. 1979. “The Development of Professionalism as an Issue in British Marketing.” European Journal of Marketing 13 (1): 27–54. Wilensky, Harold L. 1964. “The Professionalization of Everyone.” American Journal of Sociology 70 (September): 137–58.