Ever since the question of how effective brands' communication activity really is came onto the agenda, there has been tension between advertising agencies and advertisers. Companies expect their products and services to be carried onto communication platforms accurately and effectively, and every penny they spend to serve their objectives. Advertising agencies naturally aim for the same. Yet beyond the assessments of the advertiser and the agency, some other important stakeholders are affected by this communication — for example, the product or service's target audience.
In search of efficient and effective communication, advertisers began using market research as a tool to learn what their target audiences thought about their communication activity. And that is the day market research firms and advertising agencies became “hostile brothers”. The focus of the argument became whether market research kills the creativity of advertising agencies.
Sir John Hegarty, co-founder and creative director of the international agency Bartle Bogle Hegarty, said in a 2015 interview: “Research kills more creative ideas than it supports.” In the same interview, Hegarty notes that research in communication is very difficult. For him, research results are only one of the opinions in the room. But nobody can take enough risk to ignore that opinion. In the end he states clearly that research is really used as a tool: “Guns don't kill people, people do.”
Kevin Roberts, former CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, holds a similar view. Roberts believes that projects in which advertising copy is tested quantitatively definitely kill creativity. In his view, such projects commit this offence by quantifying something that cannot be quantified.
Erik Du Plessis, CEO of Millward Brown South Africa and an author, argues exactly the opposite in his book *The Advertised Mind*. Noting that the proposition that research kills creativity essentially rests on the premise that “creativity is king”, the author reminds us that “the customer is king”, and asks how valid creativity will be if the advertising does not work in the eyes of the customer.
As you will notice, the positions of advertising agencies and research firms are very clear. So, is it possible to pause this argument and find a formula everyone wins from (since it would be in the advertiser's favour)? Might advertising agencies stop seeing research firms as an “inspection body”? And might research firms, in turn, design models that measure the performance of creative ideas independently of how well product or service benefits are liked? I think it is possible…
The Road to Peace
A spirit of partnership and strategic planning are the most important guides on this road. Working as partners who set out together from the start and provide support where it is needed — rather than as travellers who only see each other at certain points along the way — means more successful business results for everyone. In other words: instead of proceeding with research that only measures liking after the communication material has been prepared and/or measures post-campaign effects (recall, liking and so on), moving forward together on a journey that begins with testing the product or service idea at the very start and extends to jointly defining the metrics to be used in ROI (Return on Investment) measurement.
The process described above naturally requires good planning and, of course, a research budget. The planning part depends on the advertiser's way of working and on the agency's and research firm's competence to fit the timeline. As for budget concerns, I think they are misplaced. Because when you look at the figures used in media planning, the research budget will always remain very small — while significantly increasing the chances of success.
For those who say planning is fine and they are convinced on budget, we can briefly go through some research methods. Naturally, it is not necessary to do all of this research, which can be used by both the advertiser and the agency; proceeding according to need — and defining that need together (advertiser, agency and research firm) — will make the journey easier and the destination closer.
• Concept tests for defining the product/service: Conducting this type of research on the advertiser's side before the agency is even briefed makes the whole process run smoothly. Beyond showing how well the target audience finds the planned product or service suited to them and which of its benefits they emphasise, this research is critical for revealing which of the target audience's needs the product or service answers, and for forming the basis of the brief.
• Core needs and positioning research: This type of research usually involves broad-scope modelling using advanced statistical methods to examine human needs and motivations. While discovering the needs and motivations that create the advertiser's sector and may shape its future, it is possible to identify which of these need areas the brands align with most closely. In other words, it is possible to take a very clear photograph of the brand's position in the sector and of the entire playing field, by revealing how accurately those needs and motivations are targeted by brands in the sector and where the untouched points lie. This data is full of triggers for agencies' creative ideas.
• Symbol/code research: Among the research made available to agencies' creative teams in recent years is work that clearly shapes which symbols could be used for a product or service. Models showing what the product or service means to the target audience (the product/service code) and which symbols best express that meaning can generate material that sparks many associations for creative teams.
• Pre-tests: With this work — the most criticised when it comes to killing creative ideas — it is measured whether the communication material prepared is understood by the target audience and whether the intended message is perceived correctly. It can be run through traditional qualitative methods as group discussions or in-depth interviews, and there are also models conducted quantitatively through face-to-face or online interviews. In recent years, neuromarketing research has made it possible to measure the emotional response of the target audience to marketing arguments and brands, above all television advertising. In this research, conducted with devices capable of collecting EEG data, what viewers feel can be determined second by second throughout an ad film. This makes it possible to reveal clearly what the target audience feels beyond what they say. Making revisions to communication work in the light of the feedback obtained from pre-tests, and thereby increasing the chances of success, is critical because it creates the clearest benefit.
• Post-tests / advertising tracking research: This type of research produces the data (ROI) that shows how well communication activity has worked. By asking the target audience questions such as brand recall, advertising recall, matching the advertisement to the brand and liking of the advertisement, it seeks to establish whether the intended objectives have been reached. It is also possible to derive learnings for subsequent communication activity. Defining in advance which metrics the advertiser will use to measure success contributes a great deal to reducing potential friction between agency and research firm.
In light of all this, I think peace is not far off. A world in which market research supports creativity, in which the ideas that mature through this process are measured for their effect on the target audience and revised, and in which the advertiser's spend delivers a return, is not far away. A little planning, a little coordination, a little goodwill…