Unlocking Marketing Creativity Using Artificial Intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in enhancing marketing creativity by analyzing the synergy between computational and human creative processes. Through two studies, the authors investigate nongenerative and generative AI applications within marketing contexts using a conceptually driven and empirically derived approach. In Study 1, the authors observe how creative individuals, particularly artists, utilize AI and its effects on their creative experiences, revealing AI's role as (1) a new instrumental resource, (2) a tool for exploring possibilities, and (3) a means to deconstruct the creative process. Study 2 assesses 1,036 AI systems (2015–2021) and 241,292 AI models (2022–2024), categorizing them into four clusters and three levels of observed creativity. From these insights, the authors introduce a framework for AI-enabled creativity: (1) inspiring agile methods, (2) augmenting human creativity, and (3) inspiring unconventional thinking. Validated by three workshops, this framework equips marketing leaders with a deeper comprehension of AI's creative potential. The authors advocate for AI integration within agile, augmented, and unconventional marketing approaches, advancing our understanding of AI's contribution to marketing creativity. Additionally, they propose a research roadmap for empirical validation in real-world applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it