Does research kill good ideas?
You don’t have to be in the creative communications business long to hear tales of how brilliant ideas die screaming at the hands of the process we call ‘research’.
Most creative directors will have their own tales of how the thing in the journals actually started out as ground breaking advertising but got sanitised and bullied into the set of features now staring out of the page at them.
So, what value should we put on research? Very few campaigns come into being without going through some sort of research. This can take the form of organised peer testing at various locations with the client and creative team huddled behind one way glass. Or it can be the concepts stuck on the wall in the canteen and opinions sought.
Either way someone’s view will help decide the fate of that award winning idea. It’s the interpretation of these results that is important.
David Ogilvy famously said ‘I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination’.
However he also said ‘Advertising people who ignore research are as dangerous as generals who ignore decodes of enemy signals’.
He understood the value of good research but also the danger of using it lazily.
Research makes a large hole in the marketing budget so it is essential that the research is worthwhile and not just a tick box exercise. There are some fantastic research agencies out there with great reputations for guidance and intuition – the good ones are worth their weight in gold.
The danger for the creative idea is that the marketer relies too much on the chapter and verse of the research rather than using their own experience and ‘gut’. The experience and expertise of those around them including the agency will also help get the best results from the research.
Most senior agency folk can look at a creative idea and know exactly how it will test if the research is ‘mediocre’ or the interpretation lazy. Their job is to make sure the idea is understood by the researchers and to input in how they will be evaluated. Experience shows that the very few ideas that emerge intact through the whole process depend on the conviction and bravery of the client and the support and guidance of the agency/researchers.
So what should you look out for when engaging with the research process.
1) Check the research critieria.
I sat in on one research session where 22 minutes of the 2 hours were devoted to the importance of colour. (Bizarrely the corporate guidelines already defined the overall colour scheme and this was untouchable!). Colour is of course totally subjective and most research companies actually have plenty of data on the effects of specific colours on mood, power, impact etc. Never the less the debate continued and our focus group defined which colour meant the most in the context of the ideas shown. When the final results were presented, nowhere did the colour play a part – in fact it wasn’t even mentioned.
Tip: Check how and what is being tested – is it pertinent? If you don’t know, ask. A good research company will tell you the research criteria and how it works.
2) Faddy gimmicks
One research company asked the focus group questions along the lines of ‘If the product were an insect, what would it be?’. The idea of this type of question is that the personality of the brand will begin to emerge! However, the focus group confessed afterwards they were totally bemused and the analysis of the results to that question was very open to misinterpretation. Tip: If it doesn’t make any sense think twice before going with it.
3) Leading questions
Unless it’s part of the strategy to ‘guide’ your focus group down a specific path, avoid the leading questions – they add little value but can steer you down totally the wrong route.
4) Testing the concept
Some research companies insist on testing the headline and the image separately. Unless it’s a typographic concept or a pure visual concept this is just plain wrong. Most concepts are a synergy of headline and image. They were not designed to work on their own so testing them that way gives very little guidance about the effectiveness of the concept. Again interpretation is everything here. If the image/copy is tested in isolation against the judging criteria, chances are the scores will be lower than the overall concept. If these scores are then added to the overall research summary, it’s easy to see how good creative scores lower than mediocre tick box creative.
5) True insight
The interpretation of the research results is everything. The best Research companies don’t dictate specifics, rather they give a summary of the results and they will help with the development of any changes to brief. They can become true partners to the process of developing the idea.
It is important to remember that most concept research takes place in an artificial environment. The focus group has been paid to be there and many will have been through the process a number of times. The fact specific questions are being asked means they are interacting with the creative differently to how they would normally. Also peer pressure and the need not to appear foolish all play a part.
On one memorable occasion we held a magazine test with various creative proposals stuck into the relevant journal. One idea in particular was added which was a little risque and featured ‘toilet humour’. Every person who was tested stopped on this page, smiled or laughed out loud and spent more time on this page than any of the others. Every single respondent could recall the ad in detail.
And every single one of them voted it lowest (lower than ads they couldn’t remember) purely because they didn’t want to be seen as puerile. At the end of the testing some of them admitted it was the best ad shown but they didn’t feel comfortable admitting it. These days it would have gone viral in seconds!…
Sometimes the research is non-conclusive. The worst thing here is to take the common denominator and ‘tweak it’ to fit the research. Compromised creative is always disappointing.
The point of the research is to create the best solution possible. Use the results to analyse why the ideas are not working. Was the brief right in the first place? Is the messaging wrong? Is it time for another round of concepts…?
Good research will guide and inform. Research about the product, the market, the competition and the opportunity all helps to give direction for an excellent brief to the creative. The concepts should come out of this intel and ultimately be in tune with the all the findings from the research. Then it should be tested to see if it has communicated the correct message, in the correct tone with impact and clarity.
But sometimes, just sometimes, you can’t beat going with your instincts.
“Vorsprung durch technik” may never have become Audis most famous sign-off if John Hegarty (chairman of BBH) hadn’t gone with his gut rather than follow the advice that it might not work in the UK market…
Posted on:
Monday, July 12th, 2010, at 8:49 am.
Categories: News