We’ve known for decades that a chasm has existed between the professional or practitioner’s view of “advertising knowledge, practice, and application” and that of the academic or scholarly community. Practitioners have focused primarily on marketplace and/or financial end results. Those are the “whats” of advertising—that is, what was the result? Did the activity result in sales or returns on investments or product movement or the like? In short, economic results. Alternatively, academicians have been much more focused on understanding or learning the “whys” of advertising. Why or how were consumers influenced? Or not influenced—that is, did they simply ignore the advertising messages? Does repetition influence learning and the like? How do people acquire, take in, and process various forms of communication? In short, academicians are more interested in the “whys” of advertising than the “whats.” Simply put, practitioners are generally focused on an economic view of how advertising “works,” while academicians favor a psychological view. They seemingly should be connected, but in the world of the practitioner and the academician, they are not. Each is separate. Each is different. Each is unique. But both are legitimate lines of inquiry, depending on how one poses the “advertising” question. It’s just that in the world of the practitioner and the academician, they have been separated, seldom if ever to be combined. These two, almost polar opposite, views have been developing separately and independently for more than a century. Both parties continue to refine their research and findings into ever more infinitesimal and finite elements. More separation and differentiation. Rarely more accumulation or consolidation. More and more pieces and parts, few if any overall concepts or explanations. The “scientific method” seemingly run amuck. And both parties have learned to live with that approach ... or at least ignored the issues this separation creates. Clearly, advances in data capture and management, digitalization, and applications such as artificial intelligence, neural science, and a host of other emerging factors have upended many of the historical advertising concepts on both sides. And there seems to be nothing to replace them. Just the identification of more “pieces and parts.” No holistic views. No guiding principles. One can only wonder if the “twain” between advertising practitioners and academicians will ever meet. This special topics issue attempts to get at some of these basic issues, although at what seems to be to me at the “pieces and parts” level. Not at the more strategic holistic level that is needed. The questions being raised in this special issue of Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising (JCIRA) are not new, and unfortunately, they are not unique. But at least they recognize some of the issues. Just not the major ones. And until we start to work on those, closing the gap between academician and practitioner is not practical nor possible. In short, today we live in an increasingly transparent world of data and information. Ignoring issues is no longer practical or possible. Just because we have ignored this division between advertising practitioners’ and academicians’ thinking all this time doesn’t make it less relevant; it only shows how derelict all of us have

中文翻译：

---

重定向我们的沟通目标

几十年来，我们已经知道，在专业人员或从业者的“广告知识，实践和应用广告”观点与学术或学术界的观点之间存在鸿沟。从业者主要关注市场和/或财务最终结果。这些就是广告的“内容”，即结果是什么？该活动是否导致销售或投资回报或产品变动等？总之，经济成果。另外，院士们更专注于理解或学习广告的“原因”。消费者受到影响的方式或方式是什么？还是不受影响？也就是说，他们只是忽略了广告信息吗？重复会影响学习等吗？人们如何获取，接受和处理各种形式的交流？简而言之，院士们对广告的“为什么”比“什么”更感兴趣。简而言之，从业人员通常将注意力集中在广告“如何运作”的经济学观点上，而院士则倾向于心理学观点。他们似乎应该联系在一起，但在从业者和院士的世界中，它们却并非如此。每个都是独立的。每个都不同。每个都是唯一的。但是，两者都是合法的询问线，具体取决于人们如何提出“广告”问题。仅仅是在从业者和院士的世界中，他们已经分开了，很少合并在一起。这两个几乎相反的观点已经分别和独立地发展了一个多世纪。双方继续将他们的研究和发现改进到越来越小的和有限的元素上。更多的分离和分化。很少有更多的积累或合并。零件和零件越来越多，几乎没有整体概念或解释。“科学方法”看似无所适从。双方都学会了采用这种方法……或者至少忽略了这种分离带来的问题。显然，数据捕获和管理，数字化以及诸如人工智能，神经科学等应用的发展以及许多其他新兴因素已经颠覆了双方的许多历史广告概念。而且似乎没有什么可以替代它们。只是识别更多的“零件”。没有整体看法。没有指导原则。只能怀疑广告从业者和院士之间的“纠葛”是否会相遇。这个特殊主题的问题试图解决其中的一些基本问题，尽管在我看来是“零散”的。并非处于所需的更具战略意义的整体水平。本期《广告与研究的期刊》（JCIRA）特刊中提出的问题不是新问题，而且不幸的是，它们也不是唯一的。但是至少他们认识到一些问题。只是不是主要的。在我们开始研究这些问题之前，缩小院士与实践者之间的差距是不切实际的，也是不可能的。简而言之，今天我们生活在一个日益透明的数据和信息世界中。忽略问题不再可行或不可能。只是因为我们一直无视广告从业者和院士之间的这种区分并没有减少它的相关性；