One of the coolest things about New York is that there are a vast number of fields available to scientists, ranging from academia to the arts. So when I head that the CU Biotech Association had invited a speaker to talk about what a career in advertising is like, I thought I would check it out.
The speaker was Jim Joseph, managing director of Saatchi & Saatchi Consumer Health + Wellness (SSCH+W). SSCH+W is an advertising agency that focuses on consumer wellness, responsible for advertising many big name pharmaceuticals like Ambien CR, Plavix, and Nexium. They also advertise what Jim describes as wellness products, such as Transition Lenses.
Jim, a New York educated businessman, was really a master of his domain. In addition to his previous experiences at Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Arm and Hammer, and Carnation, Jim stepped into SSCH+W when it was a failing pharma-specific advertising agency and rebuilt the company, transforming it into a wellness label.
While I don’t think advertising is the career path for me (a scientist wanting to transition into advertising must start at entry level), I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between Jim (a successful businessman) and the successful scientist. He had a clear passion for marketing and advertising, a feeling that he described as love, that was there straight from the get go (and by get go I mean undergrad). Not to mention, he spent years becoming an expert in consumer marketing, developing the skills that aided in his transformation of SSCH+W. As a scientist trying to become an expert in the field of lipid metabolism, I could really appreciate his dedication. He most likely spent years developing his advertising lingo, perfecting the usage of works like brand recognition and consumer behavior. Is the development of his advertising vocabulary so different from my usage of words like intracellular sterol traffiking and subcellular lipid stores? Not really. Finally, he worked with clients in the same manner that a scientist would work with a collaborator, a colleague-type relationship where they are constantly in contact and sharing knowledge. I guess one could argue that elements such as passion for your career, expertise in your field, developing a field-specific vocabulary, and successful collaboration are required in for success in any career path, but I thought Jim really exemplified these characteristics within the consumer marketing/advertising domain.
There were also some clear differences. In describing his work, Jim was not nearly as detailed as a scientist would be. His explanations were less fact-based and a bit vague (by my standards), as a deep understanding of every product you advertise may not be applicable to advertising it. You only need to know that aspects of the product that are relevant to the consumer. I must also point out the obvious difference that advertising is primarily profit-driven, rather than knowledge-driven.
None-the-less, I felt Jim accurately described what a career in advertising is like and the skills necessary to succeed in the field. What he didn’t realize is that he also conveyed some of the more universal characteristics of success. Perhaps he picked them up in New York.
I think sales/advertising and science both require another important skill: the ability to sell. Standing by your poster isn’t all that different from a sales person standing by her company’s booth at the exhibition in the next room over. Seminars/talks are part sales pitches too…though more data-driven than the average pitch. I’m sure many scientists tend to look down at sales people but I think we can all learn a lot from them. Selling something is one of the hardest things to do, in my opinion.
Good point Corie. I was actually discussing this with a friend after the event. I had mentioned that I was not interested in sales not did I think I would be good at it. But now that you put it in a scientific prospective, I actually do sell my work. For example, at the last conference I was at I asked people to come see my poster if I wanted their critique on my work.
I’m not sure that scientists make good salespeople. I did think so, many years ago, but I think that scientists’ methods of selling are to do with explaining their work, what it means, etc. On the other hand, professional salespeople are interested in, er, selling – the “product” (in this case the scientific result) is in some senses irrelevant. A person can make a lot of money (commission or otherwise) selling something that’s either useless, worse than useless, or not in the
victim’spurchaser’s best interests – hastily moving on if necessary. A few examples spring instantly to mind if one considers banks pushing various “products” or real estate agents….say no more.Some scientists make excellent salespeople, especially those who are familiar with the production process of, for example, a drug or a cosmetic. From the raw stages to the final product, they can explain the interesting stuff. But it takes a lot of creativity on their part, to filter out the unintelligible details while at the same time making sure that it still remains attractive and appealling to the audience in the end.
I think its safe to say that a good salesman can sell sell the product but a good scientist may or may not be able to sell their science. It would probably be best to be a good scientist, salesman, and a PR rep. That way we could get the best data, convince our colleagues that it is correct, and create enough hype to publish it in a high impact factor journal. Wouldn’t that be nice!
Interesting post Caryn. My wife works in advertising and it is surprising how much science and advertising have in common. There are the obvious aspects like statistical analysis of market research etc. but the “creative” process (ie dreaming up experiments vs. ad campaigns) is remarkably similar.
I guess it shouldn’t be that surprising – the need to “sell” your science (for want of a better term) in a concise, accurate and informative way is not that far removed from the basic aim of trying to sell a product.
A glaring difference however are the relative budgets of your average ad campaign vs your average research project. I am constantly astounded (and depressed) at just how much cash is splashed around to make a single 30sec TVC, let alone the amount spent on buying airtime. From the perspective of pharma R&D, this article makes an interesting case in point.
@Maxine, on the subject of people in banks making obscene amounts of cash selling something useless, there was a great article in Wired last month on the Gaussian Copula function. This was the formula used by many banks etc to estimate investment risk and their failure to understand the its inherent assumptions and shortcomings was one of the underlying weaknesses in the system responsible for the recent meltdown.
Budgets are always the issue in science. If only it was reversed and those large sums of advertising money were going toward medical research, which could benefit everyone (instead of just the target audience). I guess it is still quite important that those who could benefit from a new drug do get wind of it, but maybe there is a less expensive way to do it so the extra money can be put to good use elsewhere (i.e. supporting non-pharma research).
I was thinking some more about this last night, it’s not just the size of the budgets that is stunning, it’s the speed with which decisions are made on how to spend the cash. Entire campaigns can be created, produced and screened in a timeframe that thouroughly shames the average grant submission/review process.
I am curious Darren, what is the w=average time it takes to execute an add campaign?
It varies, but I’ve seen a major national TV, print and radio campaign done in 2-3 months. That is, from the point the client decides they need to advertise, up to time of screening (planning, creative process, production, post-production). I’ve seen it done faster though (ie govt. advertising in response to some kind of “crisis”).
Actually, it just occurred to me… considering how long it normally takes govt to decide anything, it’s amazing how fast politicians can spend money when they’re promoting themselves!
I guess spending is much faster when it is self-motivated, no bureaucracy. It’s a shame scientists don’t have a PR budget. Think NIH would approve that?
Hmmm, nice idea but I doubt it! Most institutes indirectly fund PR through their communication offices I guess, and there are small amounts of cash around for what amounts to science PR, like Cafe Scientifique.
Mind you, most scientists have egos the size of rock stars… do you really want to unleash that beast?
On the subject of advertising and, ahem, science – here’s an interesting story developing in the courts back home over the marketing of Vioxx.