Gergely Nyilasy

The academician–practitioner gap in advertising

The existence of the academician–practitioner gap is readily acknowledged and widely discussed in the marketing/advertising literature. This paper analyses key writings on the nature of the academician–practitioner rift and proposes a new approach complementing the literature. The review identifies five prevailing explanations why miscommunication between academicians and practitioners exists: (1) the failure of academic knowledge dissemination systems; (2) problems with the knowledge content and knowledge form academicians produce; (3) counterproductive academic organisational systems; (4) questions of philosophy of science; and (5) practitioners’ inability and unwillingness to process academic information. The study concludes that one potential explanation is entirely missed in these accounts: the possibility that practitioners’ knowledge about how advertising works is an autonomous construct, which has its own rules and deep structure, and resists simple assimilation attempted by academicians. The study also complements the existing literature by basing the review on firm theoretical grounds: the authors apply the influential sociological theory of professionalisation. Finally, future directions for research investigation are suggested, which moves the predominantly normative discourse into the empirical world.

Agency practitioners’ meta-theories of advertising

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 acknowledge 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’ epistemological scepticism, which questions the validity of both academic and commercial social research as applied to advertising, and suggests instead that knowledge about advertising 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.

Checking the Pulse of Print Media: Fifty Years of Newspaper and Magazine Advertising Research

ABSTRACT This article examines the state of newspapers and consumer magazine print advertising as reflected in the public research literature over the past 50 years. Its purpose is not to present a scientific and in-depth analysis of every research article on newspaper and magazine advertising published since 1960 but (1) to identify key findings that advance the interface between the academic study and practice of advertising and then (2) to develop research-based recommendations to guide future researchers. Articles were categorized into major content areas (readership, recall and recognition, executional/stylistic components, social issues, cross-media comparisons, engagement, and media models), and key findings are reported. Future research issues are suggested to advance advertising research on the two media analyzed.

Just doing it: theorising integrated marketing communications (IMC) practices

Purpose This paper aims to elaborate on the concept of “integrated marketing communication (IMC) practice” and provide an empirical exposition of how integration is enacted in the lifeworlds of marketing practitioners, drawing from the “practice turn” in management studies. Although IMC is a well-known conceptual idea in academia, there is insufficient theorisation of what it means “to do” IMC. Despite broad acceptance for IMC, there has been scant application of available organisational and sociological theories to illuminate actual IMC practices in the field. Design/methodology/approach The paper introduces practice theory as a lens through which to study and analyse IMC practices. Using qualitative coding and interpretative analysis, the framework was operationalised and applied to a two-year organisational ethnography encompassing IMC planning activities in at a leading Swedish retailer. Findings Findings demonstrate how practitioners develop explicit and implicit strategies to enact strategic integration. The study conceptualises IMC as a set of interrelated practices, or routinised behaviours, which are repeated and organised by some social or formal rules and conventions. In the ethnographic context of the study, “IMC as practice” is exhibited in the forms of routines, material set-ups, rules and procedures, cultural templates and teleoaffective structures. Originality/value The paper proposes a novel set of theoretical and methodological tools that can be used to understand how IMC lives as a set of practices inside organisations. It specifically conceptualises the link between mental and objectified, materialised and routinised activities that has previously been escaping the sphere of theorisation. By creating language and tools to capture hitherto unmodellable phenomena, the paper opens many new avenues for future research.

Media business studies as we see it: why does it matter, for whom, and how do you get published?

To the delight of the renewed editorial team, the Journal of Media Business Studies (JOMBS) receives an increasing number of submissions every week. Given the growing interest in the study of media business, whether from the angle of economics, management, strategy, organisation studies, marketing, consumer behaviour, innovation and entrepreneurship or other contributing disciplines, this editorial aims to clarify how we look at the field and wish to move the journal forward. In particular, we want to address a few questions that we believe are central for those who wish to publish their research with us and thereby contribute to the academic discussion. This article gives a more elaborate explanation to the aims and scope of JOMBS.