Abstract
Whereas the need for integrated marketing communication has been given considerable attention by researchers in recent decades, the integration of creativity into integrated marketing communication has not. Differences between how creativity is valued in advertising versus specialized digital marketing agencies within an integrated marketing communication environment may lead to brand message diffusion. The current study addresses these differences and investigates what defines, drives, and inspires creative collaboration and how it relates to the motivational theory of creativity. Drawing on a social-constructivist methodology, the authors generated empirical data from leaders of industry-acclaimed agencies from four European countries (Norway, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom). On the basis of that data, the authors propose a conceptual model which managers can use as a roadmap for improving the creative integrated marketing communication process, while opening the door to future research possibilities.
MANAGEMENT SLANT
Although marketing communication services provided by advertising agencies have diversified in recent decades, applied creativity has not, and it probably has not been adapted, prioritized, or implemented equally across services.
Because many agencies are still primarily geared toward radical creativity performed by traditional creative teams, the less understood data-optimized incremental creativity may suffer.
A useful first step is for managers to assess their overall creative resources, perhaps using the conceptual model presented; then, strategies and tactics that improve overall creative distribution and valuation can be used to strengthen an agency’s creative profile.
INTRODUCTION
Marketing in the digital age requires a more iterative approach than the traditional approach to marketing communications. Consumers engage in simultaneous media usage, both off- and online, and data-driven marketing can be continually optimized on the basis of performance and measurable customer behavior (Braun and Moe, 2013; Bruce, Murthi, and Rao, 2017; Kumar, Chattaraman, Neghina, and Skiera, 2013). This trend has led to a need for more iterative work processes with an ever-increasing focus on integrated marketing communication (Havlena, Cardarelli, and de Montigny, 2007; Naik and Raman, 2003; Tevi, Koslow, and Parker, 2019). Simultaneously, the complexity of consumers’ nonlinear patterns of omnichannel behavior requires new areas of expertise within the marketing communications field, creating an ever-more diverse environment to integrate (Fletcher, 2006).
Recent technological advances, however, have not diminished the need for creative, attention-getting, brand-building communication to separate a brand from its competitors (Goor, Kerr, and Jin, 2022; Ozuem, Howell, and Lancaster, 2008; Sasser and Koslow, 2008; Turnbull and Wheeler, 2017). Whereas a considerable amount of research has been conducted on the effectiveness of using integrated marketing communication processes (Batra and Keller, 2016; Calder and Malthouse, 2005; Ots and Nyilasy, 2015), minimal attention has been paid to the effect of creativity on integrated marketing communication work processes, despite the identification of a positive correlation as early as 2008 (Sasser, Koslow, and Riordan, 2007). Recent literature on digital marketing communication has called for contemporary studies and new constructs on the impact of creativity on digital advertising (Bruce et al., 2017; West, Koslow, and Kilgour, 2019). This request for new constructs in creativity research is what motivates the current study. This explorative research aims to provide a starting point for operationalizing creative integrated marketing communication.
The quantitative measurability of digital marketing, which is deemed a great advantage, may contribute to the lack of attention paid to creativity in marketing. The direct effects of creativity can be difficult to quantify with certainty, which can result in its contribution to results-oriented, data-optimized processes being undervalued (Bruce et al., 2017; Li and Kannan, 2014). Conversely, the contribution of data to the creative process is likely to suffer from attribution error when credit for creativity is given (Gong, Zhou, and Chang, 2013; Kay, Proudfoot, and Larrick, 2018).
These tendencies lead the authors of the current study to ask the following two questions.
RQ1: What, if any, are the motivational differences between marketing communication agencies that identify with creative accomplishments and those that identify with measurable data-driven performance?
RQ2: Are there different types of creativity that need to be motivated and managed in different ways?
If data-driven marketers are not motivated to incorporate creative marketing communication, and creative marketing communicators are not inclined to engage in data-optimized marketing, then integration is likely to be hindered; hence, these questions need to be explored on the path toward improved creative integrated marketing communication. The aim of this research is to explore possible motivational differences regarding creative marketing communication in different types of marketing communication agencies from a managerial perspective.
The authors of this paper first explore whether creativity is defined and managed differently in different types of agencies in various markets. This entails empirical research using a social-constructivist methodology to explore empirical data generated from interviews with managers of acclaimed agencies from four European countries (Norway, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom). Second, the authors attempt to identify key motivational factors and systems for integrated creativity and explore their relationship to the investment theory of creativity (Sternberg and Lubart, 1991; O’Connor, Kilgour, Koslow, and Sasser, 2018; Goor et al., 2022). Last, the authors seek to operationalize the results in a creative integrated marketing communication model.
THEORETICAL CONTEXT
An increasingly complex marketing communication environment (Fletcher, 2006) has led to a considerable amount of academic research regarding integrated marketing communication over the past two decades (Calder and Malthouse, 2005; Kerr and Patti, 2015; Kitchen, Kim, and Schultz, 2008; Ots and Nyilasy, 2015; Sasser et al., 2007; Tafesse and Kitchen, 2017). A holistic definition suggests that integrated marketing communication is the coordinated and consistent result of a company’s efforts to inform and remind consumers about its products and brands, as well as to persuade consumers to purchase them (Batra and Keller, 2016).
Much of the research on integrated marketing communication takes an abstract managerial standpoint, and the suggested practical applications tend to be for brand management. Integrated marketing communication coordination is frequently left to the advertiser or brand, which is considered to be the core of the integrated marketing communication industry structure (Keller, 2016). Although this approach makes sense from an ownership and financial standpoint, it may hinder efficient collaboration between the multifunctional team members in different companies and contribute to compartmentalization (Ots and Nyilasy, 2015). The increasing complexity of the marketing communication landscape means that more specialists in various disciplines need to be integrated not only with the advertiser but also with each other (Kitchen et al., 2008; Laurie and Mortimer, 2019).
Integration is not always successful in practice; since the onset of integration, critical research has suggested various explanations for its flaws. Some studies suggested that integrated marketing communication programs have been based on wrongful assumptions (Stewart, 1996), whereas others suggested that dysfunction is due to a lack of standards, as well as the various participants’ interpretations of integrated marketing communication and consequent different mental models (Gronstedt and Thorson, 1996; Ots and Nyilasy, 2015). As integrated marketing communication matured, recent research synthesized the problem into four main types of integrated marketing communication dysfunction: compartmentalization, lack of trust, communication, and context (Ots and Nyilasy, 2015). All four of these issues are also likely to be relevant to the differences in valuing creativity that are explored in this research regarding creative collaborations.
Although integrated marketing communication is coordinated by the advertiser or by the brand, and is based on the overall strategic goals of the brand, it does not guarantee that all integrated marketing communication contributors share a unified goal.
Although integrated marketing communication is coordinated by the advertiser or by the brand, and is based on the overall strategic goals of the brand, it does not guarantee that all integrated marketing communication contributors share a unified goal. On a tactical level, strategies are often broken down into incremental, channel-specific key performance indicators and metrics, and sometimes the strategic vision is lost in translation. Clients frequently communicate different goals to collaborators on the basis of the project at hand and the perceived skill set of the contributing company (Hanssens and Pauwels, 2016).
Advertising or Marketing Communication?
With a growing need for integration, the view that advertising is a separate entity is losing ground. Some clients are now pressuring their advertising agencies to adopt more holistic thinking (Laurie and Mortimer, 2019).
Advertising creativity has been defined as using imagination and originality strategically to solve a marketing communication problem (El-Murad and West, 2004; Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003). If advertising creativity means using creativity to solve any marketing communication problem, then creative marketing communication may be a more relevant term for advertising in today’s complex and integrated marketing environment. Because the term “advertising” is still very much a part of the powerful advertising industry but rarely associated directly with digital marketing, terminology and current interpretations may need to be explored in relation to these differences.
Data-Driven Marketing
Although data-driven marketing communication today is frequently associated with digital technologies, gathering customer data to inform marketing communication content dates back to the late 19th century (Clark, 1999; Coolsen, 1947). As data quality, collection, processing, and analytics have evolved with digital capabilities, the evolution has been credited with transforming marketing from an art to a science. With today’s rapid data collection and real-time analytics, data-driven marketing communication in this article refers to marketing communication that is not only initially informed by data but also continually optimized by data for improved performance. The relationship between soft and hard performance metrics is complicated (Sasser and Koslow, 2008); however, although a heavy reliance on structured data may have shifted the focus away from softer metrics informing creative marketing communication, capabilities for analyzing unstructured data are rapidly evolving (Hanssens and Pauwels, 2016; Liu-Thompkins, 2019; Shah and Murthi, 2021). With improved text mining and visual content analytics, there seems to be a shift back toward message, content, and creative opportunities. Regardless, digital data have changed how creative marketing communication is performed (Goor et al., 2022).
Creativity in Marketing Communication
Many challenges are associated with researching creativity, even when limited to the marketing communication discipline (Sasser and Koslow, 2008; Steiner and Prettenthaler, 2015; Sternberg and Lubart, 1991; West et al., 2019). Although researchers have defined creativity in many ways, most agree that, for an idea or solution to be creative, it needs to be both original and appropriate for what it is meant to achieve (Sasser, Koslow, and Kilgour, 2013; Sternberg and Lubart, 1996). The terms “original” and “appropriate” are open to interpretation, and research has even revealed different interpretations by people in different roles within the same advertising agency environment (Koslow et al., 2003). In online advertising environments, for example, a creative element may simply refer to an advertisement execution, regardless of creativity in the communication (Liu-Thompkins, 2019).
Different perspectives of creativity have been revealed between agencies and clients (Bilby, Koslow, and Sasser, 2021). The ambiguity is further exacerbated by the variation in clients’ propensity for originality versus appropriateness in response to financial and market conditions (Sasser et al., 2013). Additionally, the creative culture of the macro environment in which the agency and client operate can affect their willingness to pursue creative solutions. Variations have been observed within and between countries, predominantly within urban locations. The tendency of creative industries such as advertising to cluster in urban locations is common across countries (Kemeny, Nathan, and O’Brian, 2020; Lazzeretti, Boix, and Capone, 2008; Miron-Spektor, Paletz, and Lin, 2015; Ucar, 2019).
Creativity research in marketing communication appears to lack theories regarding integration. A systems approach that focuses not only on initial creative development but also on a system’s resources and their interactions over time has been proposed (Sasser et al., 2013). Although an operational model for such a system was not presented, this concept seems well aligned with creative integrated marketing communication. Comprehensive and holistic theories to help explain the role of creativity in integrated marketing communication still need to be developed (West et al., 2019).
Motivational Theory of Creativity
Within the advertising agency environment, a certain group of positions, such as art directors and copy writers, are specifically referred to as “the creatives” (Young, 2000). Such creative staff have been characterized as being intrinsically motivated. There has been a great deal of controversy regarding how best to further motivate and encourage creativity extrinsically in the intense agency environment. A previous study concluded that creative individuals who are already intrinsically motivated can be incentivized, primarily through encouragement (Sasser and Koslow, 2012). Recent research suggests that both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives work, but for different types of creativity and goals (Malik, Choi, and Butt, 2019). Willingness to take risks is often linked to creativity in marketing communication and creativity research (El-Murad and West, 2003; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009; Sasser et al., 2013; Sternberg, Kaufman, and Pretz, 2003; Ucar, 2019).
The investment theory of creativity (Sternberg, O’Hara, and Lubart, 1997) suggests that creative people, similar to financial investors, are motivated by discovering ideas without an obvious potential so that they can develop them into successful, creative executions. Research exploring advertising professionals’ attitudes toward risk has revealed that, in advertising, creative individuals tend to assume a positive correlation between risk and creativity, whereas clients and advertising executives, who tend to be more risk averse, might not (El-Murad and West, 2003; O’Connor et al., 2018; Sasser et al., 2013). The risk-absorption capability of the advertiser or brand is key in this process (Bilby et al., 2021; Wang, Dou, Li, and Zhou, 2013).
Data-driven marketing and marketing communication minimize risk by using data derived for metrics to inform decisions, as well as to continually optimize strategies based on measurable effects or results (Kumar et al., 2013). Although quantitative data do not ensure accurate data or appropriate analysis, they tend to be favored as actionable by management. Because creative contributions are difficult to quantify or prove through metrics (Bruce et al., 2017; Li and Kannan, 2014), this seems to place data-driven digital marketing consultants and creative individuals in traditional advertising at opposite ends of the risk scale; but does the same risk propensity apply equally to all creative individuals in today’s integrated marketing communication process? With the democratization of the creative-person classification, anyone who performs an economic function in creating new ideas may be considered a creative person (Florida, 2004). This means that data scientists handling data-driven marketing may be considered to be as creative as the traditional creative advertising team, but in a different area.
In advertising, creative individuals tend to assume a positive correlation between risk and creativity, whereas clients and advertising executives, who tend to be more risk averse, might not.
Florida’s (2004) macro perspective and generalization of the creative person have been critiqued and elaborated without narrowing the definition, suggesting that creativity is a function of the people in a company rather than the company itself or the industry in which it operates. Thus, a creativity index that focuses on the characteristics of creative products and services has been proposed (Steiner and Prettenthaler, 2015). Using such an index, traditional advertising art directors and data scientists can have different degrees or types of creativity, and their work environments or end products may be equally creative. This viewpoint is supported by other studies (Shalley and Gilson, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2003, Sternberg, Kaufman, and Pretz, 2004).
A balance between creativity and standardization is needed in technology management, and it may be useful to consider managing creativity in ways that align with agile methodologies, commonly used in technology development, when integrating digital marketing. This approach would permit certain roles to perform incremental creativity, whereas others can work with what is referred to as “radical creativity” (Lynch and West, 2017; Malik et al., 2019). In marketing communication, it may be relevant to link incremental creativity to data optimization, whereas radical creativity is more appropriate for new concepts and campaigns (Shalley and Gilson, 2017). From an integrated and dynamic marketing perspective, radical and incremental creativity may also be useful at different stages of a problem-solving process (Malik et al., 2019). Although not discussed as incremental and radical creativity, this distinction between levels of creativity as they relate to tasks is supported by psychological creativity frameworks, such as the Four C Model of Creativity (Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009).
Investment theory has been challenged, because it is not applicable to all types of creativity with various risk profiles and diverse interpretations of risk. Also, it only concerns individuals, not creative environments or leadership (Sternberg et al., 2004). Risk orientation remains important in creative leadership and varies by degree. What management teams and creative individuals consider risky may differ.
If there are different forms of creativity and different types of risk, investment theory may need to be modified (Sternberg et al., 1997). Different types of creativity might require different investment profiles. Radical types of creativity may typically be a high-risk investment with short-term returns, whereas more incremental creativity has a considerably lower risk profile and long-term returns. A predominantly high-risk profile is not likely to be appropriate or best in all situations or markets. The market situation itself may influence the creative risk profile chosen by a company (Lynch and West, 2017; O’Connor et al., 2018; Sternberg et al., 2004).
The Creative Integrated Marketing Communication Environment
Leadership is described as the influencer that can cause creativity to emerge from within organizations (Somsing and Belbaly, 2017). Arguably, some leadership styles are more conducive to eliciting creativity (Andriopoulos, 2001; Jamali, Bhutto, Khaskhely, and Sethar, 2022) than others, and certain recurring traits have been identified. Qualities that have been identified as conducive to creativity include the ability to handle and nourish novelty, openness to new ideas and experiences, and willingness to take risks, among others (Sternberg et al., 2004).
Team creativity is a complex and dynamic collaborative work form, often with variations in structure over time (Lynch and West, 2017; O’Connor et al., 2018). Whether traditional or multidisciplinary, homogenous or diverse, all types of team creativity are influenced by the environment. Elements to be considered when evaluating whether a work environment induces creativity include not only physical workspace characteristics but also recognition of creative ideas, creative employee autonomy, and incentives for creative performance (Dul and Ceylan, 2014). In recent years, nurturing creativity has gained recognition as a key success factor for many contemporary organizations (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, and Kramer, 2004; Gong et al., 2013). Leaders within the creative industries, such as marketing communication, have always been dependent on nurturing—and sometimes defending—these creative environments (Sasser and Koslow, 2012). Within digital marketing, the range of marketing communication services has broadened: Traditional agencies are being asked to provide new digital services, and many new specialized digital agencies, such as search, social media, and branded content agencies, have come into existence to fill the demand. These agencies frequently serve both the traditional lead agencies as well as the advertisers directly, which further complicates brand management (Fill and Turnbull, 2016).
In the effective integration of marketing communications, the collaborative style and structure of an agency and its network may also affect the creative environment (O’Connor et al., 2018). The organization of integrated marketing communication agencies has been classified into five main approaches with various degrees of integration: democracy, autonomy, customer centricity, vertical alignment, and horizontal alignment (Gronstedt and Thorson, 1996). More specifically, the common denominator in managing a creativity-inducing environment (Dul and Ceylan, 2014) and an integrated marketing communication environment (Gronstedt and Thorson, 1996) is autonomy for each partaking individual business unit.
Integration across an integrated marketing communication network of companies is generally difficult, but necessary, when managing a brand across diverse units to maintain consistent brand communication for brand implementation and efficiency (Kallevig, 2021; Laurie and Mortimer, 2019; Reid, Luxton, and Mavondo, 2005, Tevi et al., 2019). In the case of creative marketing communication, the consequence of a lack of such integration therefore might be brand message diffusion, which, in turn, may weaken brand identity and ultimately damage brand equity, as maintaining brand identity is the foundation of a strong brand (Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan, and McDonald, 2013; O’Connor et al., 2018).
METHODOLOGY
Because of a lack of directly comparable research, this exploratory, qualitative, constructivist, and hermeneutical study used theoretical sampling and primary data collection techniques. Constructivism, which resides at the intersection between theory and practice, was at the core of this study. Constructivists consider that reality is based on shared experiences and is locally constructed. Because groups and individuals are changeable, the paradigm displays a “relativist realism” or “relative ontology” (Howell, 2013; Ozuem, Wills, Howell, et al., 2021a).
In line with this understanding of reality, the ontological position of social constructivism considers multiple social realities and rejects ideas of value-free contexts, which has permitted this study to address the historical and real-world contexts in which practitioners construct their lived experiences. For this reason, this study combines constructivism with hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is an interpretive principle in which researchers attempt to understand the intended meaning behind data submitted by participants (Habermas, 1987); thus, it permits interpretations and understanding of the contextualized experiences of participants (Azemi, Ozuem, and Howell, 2020; Koro-Ljunberg, 2008). Given the researchers’ ontological position, their theoretical viewpoint of the phenomena of interest emerged from their social frames of reference (Geer, 1988; Ozuem, Ranfagni, Willis, et al., 2021b; Peters, Amato, and Hollenbeck, 2007). The researchers’ social frames of reference influenced the selection of participants and interpretation of data (Gadamer, 1989). This implies that grounding theory requires going beyond the information given by the participants. The interactions between the researchers’ repertoire of experiences and observation of data created opportunities for gaining new insights and ideas beyond the applicability in which they are being observed. As researchers, the authors of this article held different disciplinary orientations (practitioners, academics) in tandem with a theoretical orientation (social constructivism). Grounding theoretical constructs is multilayered, and the act of interpretation is a combination of different experiential backgrounds (Ozuem et al., 2008). The authors’ roles in different universities across four European countries enabled them to test ideas and engage with different stakeholders in digital marketing communications. The aim was to identify practitioner-based constructs and explore how they affect motivation, performance, and collaboration across teams in real-world work environments.
Theoretical Sampling Strategy
Guba and Lincoln (1994) identified criteria to maintain authenticity in the constructivist paradigm and to improve others’ understanding of the constructivist paradigm. The criteria for achieving quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research is in line with rigorous sampling recruitment criteria (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) whereby participants are selected as theory emerges and evolves from interacting with, and analyzing data from, previous participants (Ozuem et al., 2021b; Pratt, 2009). This encourages theory generation through a systematic but transformative data collection process that leads to the authentication of data by specific participant groups. In line with theoretical sampling, this study devised a loose sampling strategy that used a four-step process developed specifically for qualitative interview sampling (Robinson, 2014). The participants recruited for this study are leaders of successful marketing communication companies within the area of study. The first sampling step was to establish the sample population by identifying successful companies. Success for advertising agencies has frequently been measured in one of two ways: revenue or industry acclaim in the areas of interest (Kübler and Proppe, 2012). Because revenue in this case is likely to skew the selection toward large multinational agencies that may or may not be successful in data-optimized marketing or creativity, industry acclaim in data-driven marketing and creativity was used as a selection criterion. The word “acclaim” in this article henceforth refers to industry acclaim in the areas of interest. Industry acclaim as a selection criterion included the winning of creative or digital performance marketing awards for major brands and organizations, both national and international, including Virgin, Samsung, and IKEA. Signaling digital performance marketing, awarded partnerships, such as Google Partner, Google Premier Partner, and Microsoft Partner badges, were considered. In some countries, records of award winners in major award shows that merit predominantly creativity, predominantly performance, or both, are publicly available. These records were used to create the initial dataset. In Norway, for example, the local Interactive Advertising Bureau affiliate INMA has two award shows: Gulltaggen (The Golden Tag) and The Performance Awards. Whereas winners of creative categories in Gulltaggen represented creative acclaim, categories related to performance marketing in both award shows represented performance marketing acclaim. The Deloitte Awards (Italy) and the eConsultancy award (United Kingdom) are examples of equivalent national awards utilized to select eligible agencies.
The participants recruited for this study are leaders of successful marketing communication companies within the area of study.
Processing and Sample Size
Datasets listing eligible agencies were explored, as well as trends within the overall dataset. This process initiated the creation of the first set of labels based on the initial findings, and the entries were grouped on the basis of agencies that had received predominantly creative acclaim, predominantly digital performance marketing acclaim, or both. In addition to the initial selection of agencies from Norway, agencies across Italy, France, and the United Kingdom were invited to participate. The four countries were selected because of their significant market share of the advertising industry. The United Kingdom is the largest advertising market in Europe (Statista Research Department, 2021a), accounting for 18.1 percent of the Western Europe advertising market, with a turnover of 26.4 billion U.S. dollars (USD; Euromonitor International, 2021a). Following the United Kingdom is France (14 percent), with a turnover of USD 20.5 billion, and Italy (8.8 percent), with a turnover of USD 13.1 billion in 2020 (Euromonitor International, 2021b, 2021c). The revenue of Norway, one of the most developed countries in the Nordic region, is forecast to amount to approximately USD 1,435.47 million by 2025 (Statista Research Department, 2021b). In total, 23 agencies across the four countries agreed to participate (four from France, eight from Italy, four from the United Kingdom, and seven from Norway). Some scholars have noted that a fully articulated, contextualized sample universe prevents unwarranted generalization and helps to locate the study within a place (Abrams, 2010; Howell, 2013). A sample of 27 participants from across the 23 agencies was considered sufficient to supply all the information required for comprehensive analysis and to avoid unwarranted generalization. All three agency types (agencies that had received predominantly creative acclaim, predominantly digital performance marketing acclaim, or both) were represented for maximum variety.
The sample of marketing communication agencies yielded a variety of company and ownership structures, of various sizes, including local and international companies. The agencies’ physical locations are similar, as their headquarters are within the central urban areas of various cities, which is consistent with research regarding attracting creative resources (Florida, 2004). The office layouts of the agencies that were visited are also similar, with modern, open work areas and several meeting spaces of various sizes for teamwork and other types of collaboration, in line with research recommendations for creative environments (Giffen Cheng and Wang, 2017). All the agencies have digital marketing departments in house or as part of their “house” of collaborating companies. Some also develop apps, services, and other digital products. The final sample of participants for the interviews comprised a top-level manager from each agency.
Enrollment and Interviews
The sampling method was based on voluntary participation, avoiding incentives that might threaten the validity of the research (Robinson, 2014). Because all the participants are experienced communicators and professional interviewees, the interview format was conversational to extend beyond possible learned responses. All the participants were open and forthcoming and did not refrain from answering any of the questions. Each in-depth interview was conducted using videoconferencing platforms (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet) and lasted between 30 and 45 minutes (Kvale, 2007). Qualitative researchers can develop insightful and rich understanding of a phenomenon using in-depth interviews (Ozuem et al., 2021a; Peters et al., 2007). Likewise, in-depth interviews are necessary for facilitating the constructivist narrative and discourse of participants’ perspectives and experiences (Geer, 1988), because they allow participants to provide insights with their own words and language and can connect the contextualization of a work-based advertising environment with creative integrated marketing communication models.
Data Analysis
Before data analysis, recordings were transcribed, which produced 202 pages of the exact wording of the interviewed participants. Data from three countries (France, Italy, and Norway) were translated into English. Structuring and analysis of the data were performed via thematic analysis using a six-step process:
Transcription of and familiarization with the collected data,
Code generation and data reduction,
Identification of candidate themes from codes,
Review of the themes’ coherency,
Definition and refinement of the final themes, and
Reporting the themes and their contribution (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
This process provides a systematic yet adaptable structure for qualitative studies with big data that do not follow a preexisting theoretical framework (King, 2004; Ozuem et al., 2021b); it results in a thematic structure with identifiable patterns (See Table 1). The thematic structure provides a comparative overview of the participants’ initial data and coded responses in the context of the themes as they were presented to them. The emerging patterns in the data across the participants then informed the thematic structure, where the emerging themes were connected to emerging key issues as well as to participants’ statements that were relevant to each theme, for verification and clarification. In this way, the data analysis process retained the richness of the data collected while synthesizing trends and patterns.
RESULTS
Consistent with this study’s theoretical concept and recent empirical studies (Kwan and Tsang, 2001; Mir and Watson, 2000;), the authors of this study aggregated participants’ perceptions into new insights for improving creativity in a data-driven context.
Description of Marketing Communication Agencies
Most agencies employ traditional creative teams (e.g., art directors and copywriters) internally, and all the agencies employ digital marketing specialists. The interviews revealed that all these agencies engage in more than the classic type of paid media marketing communication commonly defined as advertising (Richards and Curran, 2002). All the agencies have digital marketing departments in house or as part of their “house” of collaborating companies.
Most of the participants reported that their agencies have a broad range of specialists internally. A British participant stated, for example, “We work on projects for clients with different requirements, so we set up our teams with professionals with different specialist areas, some even possess a range of skills.”
Some agencies develop apps, services, and other digital products. Despite these amendments to the traditional advertising agency model and services provided, several of the agencies still identify themselves as primarily advertising agencies. This was not unique to the “creative acclaim” environments but extended across all the categories. This finding supports the broad definition of advertising creativity (El-Murad and West, 2004; Koslow et al., 2003).
Interestingly though, friction was considered both a barrier and an advantage. This duality was expressed indirectly by some and directly by others; for example, a Norwegian agency director said, “Friction can be positive or negative.” It was implied that positive friction can improve creative work, whereas negative friction disrupts collaboration (Sasser et al., 2013).
How Creativity Is Defined and Managed
Most of the participants agreed that the proposed definition of creativity as original and appropriate was relevant to defining creativity in their field (Sasser et al., 2013; Sternberg and Lubart, 1996). Some participants, however, suggested that an idea could be creative without being appropriate; it would not contribute to effective marketing communications. A British marketing consultant explained this (See the fourth participant quote for “Defining creativity” in Table 1).
There were also some differing opinions regarding whether novelty or appropriateness was more important in marketing communication creativity. The relationship between creativity and innovation was somewhat unclear to the participants, with various explanations given. Some admitted to using the terms interchangeably, whereas others linked innovation more strongly to appropriateness and linked creativity more strongly to originality. It was also proposed that an idea does not have to be creative to be innovative; it can be an improvement on an existing idea. A Norwegian advertising agency chief executive officer explained this quite effectively with a historical but transferrable example (See the second participant quote for “Incremental creativity” in Table 1): Although improving fire engines over time had been appropriate innovation to incrementally prevent deaths by fire, the use of creativity to approach the problem from a new angle and to invent smoke detectors led to a radical impact on the death rate. This may also suggest that incremental creativity (Shalley and Gilson, 2017) is, for some, innovation rather than creativity, as argued by another Norwegian agency manager (See the first participant quote for “Incremental creativity” in Table 1).
Creative individuals are willing to take a risk to obtain attention and acknowledgment, but the drivers are attention and acknowledgment, not the risk itself.
There are variations in management styles across the agencies, both in general and as they apply to managing creativity. All the agencies utilize different methods, project management systems, and frameworks, largely cited as their own. Some have overarching systems of collaboration within their international network; although these systems are aligned, they are not, apparently, strictly adhered to in daily work processes or throughout all groups in an agency. Some cited using multiple work processes because of client requests. Thus, there is limited evidence of an emerging integrated marketing communication standard in the agencies (Gronstedt and Thorson, 1996; Keller, 2016; Ots and Nyilasy, 2015).
The dominant view, however, was that members of the creative team, and their ideation processes, have the most creative roles and tasks in agencies. Distinguishing the roles within the creative team has become less important, and the team members are referred to only as the creative staff/creators. A brand strategic planner providing market insights (Parker, Ang, and Koslow, 2018) generally works closely with the team initially in an otherwise closed and independent initial process. The team can be extended after the initial creative concept has been developed. Several participants said all roles in the agency could be creative, as described by an Italian-based digital advertising participant (See the second participant quote for “Creative distribution” in Table 1). Although this indicated that big ideas could come from anyone, only a few had actually done so. One participant from an Italian-based marketing automation consulting company attributed this to individuals’ psychological constraints that may vary between roles (See the second participant quote for “Incentives—intrinsic motivation” in Table 1).
The participants’ responses indicated that criteria for appropriate and original creativity can vary across companies, even with similar department structures, and that open creativity does not always generate the desired results because of psychological or company policy constraints.
When creative drive is considered purely intrinsic, it cannot be motivated, only incentivized to a certain degree (Sasser and Koslow, 2012). Several participants confirmed this perspective and saw themselves as facilitators, creating habitats to attract and retain desirable creative individuals. Creative people attract creative people, according to one participant, so an important task for the manager is to create a culture of creativity within the agency. Hiring only the best creative people was cited as a starting point. Entering competitions and winning awards is part of the strategy to attract them. Salary was cited as less important, as one participant explained (See the first participant quote for “Incentives—extrinsic motivation” in Table 1). Gaining a reputation for being a place where good ideas get sold and realized is also an integral part of such a strategy. Building and nurturing these creative environments was considered a prime responsibility of these executive managers.
Creativity Theory in Practice
Several participants considered willingness to take risks very important, but risk was not accepted as a main intrinsic driver for creative people only, as proposed in the investment theory of creativity (Sternberg and Lubart, 1991; Sternberg et al., 2004). As one advertising agency manager in Norway indicated, intrinsic motivation was perceived to be driven by acknowledgment rather than risk (See the third and fourth participant quotes for “Incentives—intrinsic motivation” in Table 1). Creative individuals are willing to take a risk to obtain attention and acknowledgment, but the drivers are attention and acknowledgment, not the risk itself. As one Norwegian participant stated, “The [creative individuals] are ambitious and very vain. In a good way, for the job they do.” Risk and creativity thus were often intertwined as a form of innovation reflecting both the capabilities of companies and the attitude expressed by the internal departments. Participants expressed that their creative employees are team players who work strategically for the client.
Barriers to creativity can often originate from the expectations of clients as well as from existing company regulations and policies. Choosing to address new ways of creative practice or thinking can be perceived as a competitive move.
Distributed Risk
Risk as a driver of creativity yielded high agreement, but as collective risk rather than individual risk, which was distributed differently across various roles within an agency as well as being shared with the client (Wang et al., 2013). In most cases, the creative team was cited as being the most motivated and interested in risk, whereas those in project management and production roles were the most risk averse. A British participant described the management role as opposed to that of the creative team (See the seventh participant quote for “Attitude toward risk” in Table 1).
This emphasizes the complexity in accommodating both creativity and effective project management and its effect on a whole company as opposed to it being limited to individual departments (See the first participant quote for “Attitude toward risk” in Table 1). The collective risk orientation of the agency as a whole, as well as that of the client, was emphasized as key to retaining creative employees and necessary to attract the best talent. Professional marketing communication creative employees are dependent on work environments that are willing to take risks to realize their creative ideas (Amabile et al., 2004).
Corporate managers and directors have to balance company objectives and creativity with the risk of delivering solutions that are irrelevant to the company and its clients (See the seventh participant quote for “Attitude toward risk” in Table 1); one way in which the agencies minimize risk is with experience. As experience with risk-taking in the agency accumulates, perceived risk decreases, as one Norwegian business manager explained. With cumulative agency experience, an experienced project manager can also compensate for an inexperienced creative team, for example.
The Role of Data
All the participants implied a positive relationship with data, not only on an individual level but also on behalf of the entire agency. Data as equal to insight was stated across the population. This could simply refer to data informing the initial development of creative ideas as it has since the 19th century (Shah and Murthi, 2021). Statements such as “we love being measured, and most things we do are measurable” from the director of a Norwegian agency acclaimed for its creativity indicate, however, positive associations with a broader use of data as well. An Italian participant stated that data insight gave them “a critical eye to screen, filter, and rework the ideas.”
On the creative side, some displayed negative attitudes toward pretesting and responded vaguely regarding the optimization of creative work based on data. This may be due to the misuse and misunderstanding of pretesting (Bilby et al., 2021).
Performance-driven agencies were positive toward data optimization and pretesting, with statements such as “pretesting helps stretch clients toward bold solutions.” Both types of marketing agencies (those predominantly acclaimed for their creativity and those acclaimed for their digital marketing performance) cited no conflict between data and creativity. One of these was a media agency that does not employ creative staff directly, so the significance of the data from this group is inconclusive.
Radical versus Incremental Creativity
Unless prompted, none of the participants mentioned incremental creativity. When prompted, most agreed that it was likely that both types of creativity exist in their agency, but few seemed to have given it much thought. One Norwegian participant disagreed with the distinction, considering both terms trendy buzzwords. When asked if it was possible to inspire both types of creativity in the same process, the responses varied. The Italian participants alone presented several perspectives. A CEO and founder of an Italian-based digital advertising company argued for the existence of both, and that individuals could adapt their creative thinking to both types of creativity (See the fifth participant quote for “Incremental creativity” in Table 1). Another Italian-based participant suggested that creativity can begin as incremental and that any identified ideas can support the generation of radical creativity. Yet another participant from an Italian-based advertising agency emphasized that application of the two types of creativity depends on the project (See the sixth participant quote for “Incremental creativity” in Table 1). Other participants in the study argued that one type of creativity was needed more than the other type or that one type of creativity strengthened the other (See the first and sixth participant quotes for “Incremental creativity” in Table 1).
DISCUSSION
The sampling process, early in the research, provided a clear indication that most marketing communication agencies identified with either creative accomplishments or measurable, data-driven performance. Most of the agencies had both creative and digital marketing departments. This suggests that the most relevant differences may not be between agencies but rather between prioritized areas of expertise within each agency system. The prioritization may arise from the resources each leader manages and/or from the leaders themselves. This somewhat changes the perspective when revisiting the initial research questions.
RQ1: What, if any, are the motivational differences between marketing communication agencies that identify with creative accomplishments and those that identify with measurable data-driven performance?
Although advertising is considered a progressive and creative industry, it is still quite traditional in the way creativity is managed. Although all the agencies represented in this study employ digital marketing specialists, there is a clear difference in how integral they are to the identity of the different agencies. Most leaders of creativity-oriented agencies conveyed a clear perception of the purpose and processes related to the traditional creative team, while creativity, as it relates to other roles in the agency, was frequently described vaguely and not as integral to the business strategy. The level of creativity in the role of other practitioners executing marketing communication messages, such as social media managers and digital content creators, was not mentioned specifically. This may be because advertising agencies have traditionally been geared around protecting and nourishing the product of the creative team, with most other competencies playing supporting roles. Providing an environment that protects the creative staff has long been regarded as the best way to feed their intrinsic passion and creativity (Sasser and Koslow, 2012). The exceptions were among the performance-oriented agencies. These agencies were founded as digital agencies and were structured differently. Although these agencies also saw creativity as the starting point, they had a more distributed perspective of where creativity takes place within the organization.
The view of one participant that there is no creativity without risk, as creating something new always involves a level of risk, aligns well with earlier findings (Sasser et al., 2013). Although risk was not accepted as a primary, intrinsic motivation in the creative individual (Sternberg and Lubart, 1991), risk was reported to play an integral role throughout the organization as well as the agency ecosystem, including the client. All roles in the agency were hired for what one participant called “creative drive,” which implies a certain propensity toward risk. Submitting work to creative competitions is in itself a risky and substantial financial investment. This illustrated that, in these environments, a propensity to risk is multifaceted and engrained (Sternberg et al., 2003). All the participants displayed positive associations with risk. Because they all held leading agency roles, this is likely to affect the risk orientation of the agency, which, in turn, is likely to attract clients with similar positive attitudes toward risk.
RQ2: Are there different types of creativity that need to be motivated and managed in different ways?
Creativity, as a social construct, is not only subject to interpretation but is also defined by the environment in which it occurs. What that environment values is signaled through what it incentivizes (Sue-Chan and Hempel, 2016). Most agencies in this study valued winning awards as an important incentive for creative individuals. This signals that the agencies value the form of advertising creativity that wins awards (West, Caruana, and Leelapanyalert, 2013). It thus can be concluded that the creativity criteria by which the award shows are judged represent the type of creativity that the agencies are incentivizing. If a creative awards show rewards the radical creativity from traditional creative teams by means of heuristic decision making, then that is the type of creativity the agency is incentivizing. Other types of creativity requiring other incentives may suffer. It may also be useful to explore the two aspects of the creativity definition—originality and appropriateness—separately (Sue-Chan and Hempel, 2016), as they apply to the various award shows’ criteria. Per definition, an award for advertising performance is likely to give more weight to measurable appropriateness than to originality compared with an award for creativity. When creative marketing communication agencies do not enter performance or effect-oriented award shows, they may inadvertently signal that they value originality more than appropriateness in creative contributions.
Although all the agencies represented in this study employ digital marketing specialists, there is a clear difference in how integral they are to the identity of the different agencies.
Might this stifle the opportunity for more distributed forms of creativity? All the participants agreed there are other forms of creativity within their organization, but there seems to be no clear strategy to utilize or nourish it. As one participant said when considering the creativity in “digital” versus “creative” employees within the agency, “I think they get their energy from different places.” Precisely where they get this energy was not specified. This accentuates the motivational differences at the intrinsic level without improving clarity or providing a solution. No incentives for incremental creativity were mentioned. Participants verbalized clear ideas about how to work with creative teams in a radically creative process, but few cited a clear strategy for integrating it into incremental work. This does not mean that such processes do not exist in the various agencies and parts of groups; it may simply mean that the leaders are less aware of them. Participants’ clear and realistic suggestions for the type of management needed to lead a diverse creative environment alluded to preparedness and flexibility when such management is called for (Somsing and Belbaly, 2017).
Managing Motivational Differences between Radical And Incremental Creativity
The solution for managers may lie in catering to the goal orientation of the different roles within the agency and how they relate to radical and incremental creativity. The advertising agencies in this study strongly support the intrinsic motivation of creative individuals involved in radical creativity. These creative individuals have an intrinsic learning goal orientation, in which discovering and exploring are goals in and of themselves (Malik et al., 2019). Individuals involved in incremental creativity can also have this orientation but are not entirely dependent on it. Incremental creativity can also be oriented toward and motivated by performance goal orientation (Malik et al., 2019). Measurable performance as motivation is extrinsic and can therefore be incentivized more directly than the more intrinsic creative motivation. Because both types of creativity relate positively to learning goal orientation, this is not necessarily an either/or orientation but, rather, both. Management, therefore, may benefit from identifying similarities and differences between radical and incremental learning goal orientation, as well as from identifying creative performance goals to incentivize it.
Creative Integrated Marketing Communication
If the advertiser or brand is usually the integrated marketing communication coordinator (Keller, 2016), then this might limit efficient coordination between multifunctional team members and contribute to compartmentalization (Ots and Nyilasy, 2015). Creative integrated marketing communication should perhaps reside at a more operational level, closer to the creative resources. Although all the participants in this study were top-level managers with responsibilities for managing the brands, they clearly had a close relationship with the creative level and output. Although they did not communicate equal understanding of all the creative capabilities within the agency, they are likely to be the most appropriate level of management for creative integration. Although the company structures varied, most of the agencies were central to a network of other services, either internally or in their extended networks. This may facilitate a coordinated brand message across the units delivering it (Kitchen et al., 2008). Placing creative integrated marketing communication responsibility at this level is also likely to operationalize it from the outset, thereby firming the somewhat abstract integrated marketing communication concept (Keller, 2016). Although not avoiding the threat of misaligned interpretations and integrated marketing communication dysfunctions (Gronstedt and Thorson, 1996; Ots and Nyilasy, 2015; Stewart, 1996), placing responsibility at an operational level is likely to reveal these potential threats at an earlier stage so they can be rectified before they reach dysfunctional proportions. An agency manager’s perspective on utilizing friction as a positive force toward creative outcome (Sasser et al., 2013) might further facilitate a creatively oriented form of integration.
A Conceptual Model (Substantive Theory)
On the basis of the results of the inductive study and the data structures that emerged regarding the theoretical dimensions of creativity and risk through sampling and coding, the following can be reasoned:
Willingness to take risks is an attribute of a creative agency and its clients, not just its designated creative resources.
Both expertise and data minimize risk.
Risk is perceived as an investment in reaching a goal rather than a motivational trait in and of itself. It thereby aligns with the other investments that an agency makes to gain a reputation as creative.
If willingness to take risks is considered a success factor of the entire agency as well as of the advertiser rather than the individual creative expert, then the initial investment theory of creativity (Sternberg and Lubart, 1991) is not applicable. The investment analogy, however, appears to still be relevant with regard to risk orientation (Sternberg et al., 1997). An updated investment perspective forms the foundation for the proposed model. The agency as a whole invests in creative work, with various degrees of risk. The invested assets can be in the form of financing, time, human resources, and reputation, for example. An agency may have different risk profiles for different clients, which diversifies its client portfolio, to minimize its overall risk.
To secure a reputation as a creative agency, all work delivered by the agency should hold to a representative creative standard, but not necessarily in the same way. At present, there seems to be an imbalance toward short-term creative campaign wins, with room for improvement in managing creativity in the longer term and distribution for a consistent, omnichannel, brand identity. For digital always-on marketing communication, such as continually optimized data-driven marketing, the lack of a long-term approach can prevent consistent and efficient brand management by the agency. Because there seems to be uncertainty regarding the opportunities for distributed creativity throughout the agencies, a useful first step may be to raise awareness and facilitate the assessment of resources.
Returning to the theoretical background, if creativity exists on a continuum between radical and incremental creativity, and the concept that data-driven, incremental creativity is more closely associated with standardization than radical creativity (Shalley and Gilson, 2017), then it may be useful for agencies to diversify the types of creativity in which they engage instead of taking on more or less creative projects and clients. If radical creativity requires more risk than incremental creativity, a creative agency investment model can be devised.
Figure 1 is a conceptual model for mapping agency resources. The outer parameter of the diamond represents the overall management perspective needed for creative integrated marketing communication as it relates to less integrated management styles in common use. The four dimensions are at the opposing ends of two axes. The horizontal axis spans the range of creative work processes from incremental to radical, and the vertical axis represents levels of risk propensity. The relationships between the axes define consequences for coordinates within each quadrant as they are placed in relation to the two closest dimensions.
The model can be used in different ways. First, it can be used for situational analysis and as a strategic auditing tool. For an overall resource audit, internal resources can be positioned in the different quadrants according to their overall creativity/risk orientation profile. This is exemplified in this model with roles that are common across the markets explored in this study.
By raising awareness of untapped potential in a more distributed view of creative management, an incentive for managers to incentivize a broader spectrum of creativity is provided. The research confirms the need to find other forms of incentives for different types of creativity, but it does not specify how, so this area needs further research.
The model fulfils the request for a more operational and dynamic integrated marketing communication model that accounts for longitudinal effects (Batra and Keller, 2016). If future creative marketing communication research needs to focus on the realm of creative development and creative effectiveness in the field (West et al., 2019), the proposed conceptual model may also provide a practical starting point.
CONCLUSION
Although the results of this exploratory research cannot be generalized to verify a definitive trend, they provide some clear findings that might be useful in developing operational creative integrated marketing communication. The findings indicate that creativity is not valued or implemented equally throughout the elements of integrated marketing communication programs, even within the same agency. There is likely to be creative development in various parts of creative advertising agencies, but without a unified system, the coherence of the results is questionable. There are few standards regarding integrated marketing communication and even fewer for creative integrated marketing communication in the advertising industry in Europe. Integrated marketing communication and creative concept integration are practiced in a variety of ways using agency-specific methods in many types of agency configurations; therefore, making generalizations is difficult (Ots and Nyilasy, 2015).
Creative marketing communication agencies still identify strongly with advertising and advertising creativity; hence, they interpret advertising in its broadest form (El-Murad and West, 2004; Koslow et al., 2003). One participant explained, “The job we do as an [advertising] agency is the same as 50 years ago: make people like and care and think and do something. We influence people. That is our core.” The advertising agencies of today manage digital departments and provide digital marketing and marketing communication services. Although the agencies value and perform data-driven marketing services, creative agency cultures and environments still seem built largely around the creative team performing radical creativity (Sasser and Koslow, 2012). The desire to inspire other forms of creativity is there, but there is a lack of awareness regarding why and how.
If data-driven marketers are to be motivated to engage in creative marketing communication, and creative marketing communicators are to be motivated to engage in data-driven marketing, awareness of what motivates the different types of creative individuals, as well as how to encourage them in the agency ecosystem, must be improved. The development of the operational model proposed in this research can help clarify the extent and need for change within agencies, but further research is needed to discover how a creative integrated marketing communication agency can be as conducive to new forms of creativity as it is to the traditional, radical creativity environment without sacrificing either of them.
Implications for Practice
Prioritizing one form of creativity may have sufficed before integrated marketing communication. Today, however, marketing communication agencies provide a broader spectrum of services, with practitioners performing other forms of creativity that are likely to require other incentives. Channel-neutral concepts are a good start, but to manage brands coherently, omnichannel, and over time, awareness regarding the integration of creative concepts across all marketing communication channels is needed.
Creative agencies need to show that they value all creative contributions, not just the type of radical creativity that wins awards. Incremental forms of creativity used in data-driven digital marketing communication over time need to be facilitated and incentivized so that both the creative team and the digital specialist prioritizes them. There seems to be untapped potential both in incentivizing creative individuals to partake in incremental creativity furthering their initial concepts and in rewarding other roles for creative contributions within their areas of expertise.
A useful first step for managers is to assess their overall creative resources. A creative investment portfolio perspective may be useful (See Figure 1). On the basis of this perspective, strategies and tactics designed to improve overall creative distribution and valuation can be used to strengthen an agency’s creative profile.
Strategies and tactics designed to improve overall creative distribution and valuation can be used to strengthen an agency’s creative profile.
Limitations and Further Research Directions
Although this study extracted data from four European countries (France, Italy, Norway, and the United Kingdom), the findings may not represent the perceptions and experiences of creativity within agencies from other countries within or outside Europe, or those of various demographic segments. Additionally, future research should consider country-specific valuations of various creative skillsets.
Because of the limited scale of this research, creative integrated marketing communication theory and, especially, the conceptual model, need to be tested rigorously in other cultures, markets, and agency constellations. The conceptual model, in its operational form, should be tested both as a theoretical model and as an operational one for the purposes intended. Risk is a multifaceted construct integral to the core of a creative marketing communications agency. From a creative integrated marketing communication perspective, it might be useful to explore the role of the project manager in this. How do they manage radical versus incremental processes? To what degree are the processes linear or agile?
For more operational insight, a suggestion for further research is to replicate the study with creative directors and to replace the overall managerial perspective with one focusing on specific creative and data-driven processes. Another direction would be to interview practitioners within the various roles in the agencies regarding what they regard as creative tasks and accomplishments in their area. What motivates them? This may further be used to compare and contrast the roles or tasks most likely to utilize incremental or radical creativity. As research on the subject continues, it may also become necessary to explore what impact integrated marketing communication might have on creativity.
The sizes and structures of the agencies that the study participants represent may be most comparable with medium to small markets. Future research could investigate the effects of the size and structure of agencies on creative integrated marketing communication.
Although this research focused narrowly on marketing communication as it is managed in specialist agencies, the friction caused by managing various types of creativity and risk within a single work environment likely will be transferable to other creative industries and environments, such as fashion and luxury goods (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Kallevig, 2021). This should also be explored further.
The plethora of interesting research topics at the intersection of creativity and digitalization in marketing communication is ever increasing, with new technological advances. As much as the authors hope to inspire in-depth research with this exploratory study, their conceptual model is a practitioners’ guide to improved distribution and valuation of creativity in agencies (See Figure 1); therefore, the true test of the model may be in the marketing communication environment itself. The authors believe that this research reveals potential for improvement in creative integrated marketing communication and hope that this potential and the model they propose will inspire discussions and change in the management of creativity in marketing communication agencies as the research continues.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Annette Kallevig is assistant professor of digital marketing communications at Kristiania University College in Oslo, Norway. Her research interest lies in the relationship between creativity and data in digital marketing communications. Kallevig’s work is inspired by 25 years of experience as a creative consultant and strategic advisor in advertising and digital marketing in Norway and the U.S. Although she has presented her work through an international academic anthology (Palgrave Macmillan) as well as at industry and academic conferences (including the European Marketing Academy Conference), this is her first academic journal article.
Wilson Ozuem is associate professor of digital marketing and innovation at University of Cumbria and associate professor in management at Anglia Ruskin University, both in the U.K. His specific research interest lies in understanding the effects of emerging computer-mediated marketing environments (CMMEs) on consumer-brand engagement. Ozuem’s work can be found in the European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Information Technology & People, Psychology & Marketing, and International Journal of Market Research, among other outlets.
Michelle Willis is a university lecturer in digital marketing at University of Cumbria, U.K. Her specific research interest lies in emerging technologies, particularly the interface between social networking sites and the development of marketing programs, and online service failure and recovery strategies and in consumers of the millennial generation. In addition to conference papers, Willis co-authored the book, Digital Marketing Strategies for Value Co-Creation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022) with Wilson Ozuem, and she has contributed individual textbook chapters, and articles for the journal Psychology & Marketing, and Qualitative Market Research.
Silvia Ranfagni is associate professor of marketing at the department of economics and management at the University of Florence, Italy. Her research interests include innovation, internationalization, and brand management with special reference to the fashion and cultural industry. Ranfagni’s work is published in the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Management Decision, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Interactive Marketing, and elsewhere.
Serena Rovai is associate professor of marketing at Excelia Business School, La Rochelle, France. She is also chair and director of the BRaND LuxuryLab, a center for global studies and operations in luxury, globalization, and sustainability, which partners with universities. Previously, she was founder and director of luxury and fashion programs at Grenoble Ecole de Management, and she has held visiting professorships in the U.S., China, and Italy. Rovai’s research interests focus on internationalization and sustainability of luxury brands. She has published in the Journal of Global Fashion Management, Marketing and Psychology, Regional Studies, and has contributed to volumes and chapters with Palgrave and Routledge.
- Received January 10, 2022.
- Received (in revised form) August 24, 2022.
- Accepted August 26, 2022.
- Copyright © 2022 ARF. All rights reserved.