You are here: Home | White
Papers | In Creative Self-Defense
Download PDF Version
In Creative Self-Defense
By
Jerry W. Thomas
Often the copywriter or art director in an advertising agency is bombarded,
crushed, and mangled by marketing research results. Is there no defense to this
useless slaughter of great ideas and brilliant campaigns? Must more tender souls
be sacrificed to the gods of “facts” and “numbers” and “statistics”
and “focus groups”? Do not despair.
The notorious marketing researcher, Dr. Juggler Vain, credited with sending over
36 creative types to an early grave, was recently recruited by the C.I.A.
(Creativity In Advertising) to assist them in fending off the vicious
“facts” attacks of researchers. A copy of Dr. Vain’s secret Counter-Research
Handbook has just come into my possession. The following excerpts from
that work are presented as a public service:
(Page 26) “. . . Any research study is a potential danger. Prevention
is the best strategy. Go to the library. Do your own research. Prove that so
much good information is available that no new research is necessary, even though
you personally would like to see the new study conducted. If account service
or the client insists on doing the research, then support the new study with
enthusiasm. Ask for information. Ask for more information. Write a list of 50
questions you want added to the questionnaire. Ask for a sample of 2,000, instead
of the proposed 500, to permit regional breakouts of the results. Argue that
only heavy users of the product should be interviewed (heavy users are usually
a small percentage of the population and, therefore, expensive to reach); or
if everyone uses the product, then ask for a subsample of nonusers. By now,
your support and enthusiasm have run the cost of the research to over $100,000
and the whole study is canceled by the client...”
(Pages 68-71) “. . .Your copy or art is going to be exposed to focus
groups. What do you do? Go to the groups yourself. Insist that the opportunity
to learn is so great that you must attend the discussions. Once you are in the
observation room behind the one-way mirror, play it cool. Groups are strange
animal-like organisms which have a mind of their own. They are very
unpredictable and usually uncontrollable. Listen. If the results go your way,
keep cool and brag on the client’s wisdom in suggesting groups. If the
results don’t go your way, spring into action.
Get some hard liquor out and quickly mix drinks for the clients. Encourage them
to drink up. Get them new drinks the instant their glasses are empty. Start
pointing out how the lady in the blue hat is dominating the group (this planted
idea may be useful later). Tell dirty jokes. Get the observers to laughing so
they can’t hear what’s going on in the focus group room. Make wise
cracks. Light up a Honduran cigar and drive everyone from the observation room.
Unplug the audio equipment and pretend the sound system isn’t working. Try
to fix the equipment yourself, so no one else will discover the source of the
problem. Accidentally hit the light switch so that all of the observers (hidden
in the dark behind the mirror) are suddenly exposed to the members of the
discussion group. This so unnerves clients they usually forget everything said
in the groups.
As soon as the group is finished, do not . . . repeat . . . do not allow any
debriefing or instant analysis by the moderator or the clients. Insist that
everyone go home and try to digest all the great new
information produced by the groups. Warn against the dangers of instant analysis.
Tell everyone to 'sleep on' the results. Tell the researcher you want a really
good report and to take as much time as he needs to write it. Again, act quickly.
Hold follow-up meetings on the focus groups first thing the next day. Speed the
clients into whatever decisions you wish. They won’t remember much from
the previous night’s groups anyway. By the time the moderator’s
report comes in two or three weeks later, all of the decisions will be history
and no one will even bother to read the report.
If perchance the report does come in before the final decisions are reached,
then brag on the learning provided by the report and note that the research
results have been incorporated into the new creative. Chances are the client
has not read the report; thus, you might get away with this little ploy. But if
the client has read the report, you must retreat to the final fallback
strategy.
Say focus groups are interesting and entertaining, but that the results from
groups are only 'hypotheses.' Mention the lady in blue hat who biased the group’s
results. Suggest that interpretation of group results is a very risky business
and subject to great error. Note that everyone sees and hears something different
from groups. And, lastly, mention that the moderator still lives at home with
his mother. Usually, this will carry the day for your side. But if it does not,
then insist on some real research, some 'hard' numbers,
something statistically reliable. Demand a quantitative study to provide answers
which everyone can trust. Argue that the decisions are too important to be trusted
to focus groups . . .”
(Pages 158-60) “. . . Okay, so the client wants to evaluate your creative
efforts with some type of 'numbers' survey, such as a day-after recall, or an
advertising concept test, or a copy test using one of the standardized testing
services.
If the client suggests a day-after recall study, tell him what an excellent idea
that is. Now, you have two options to pursue. First, you can jimmy the
commercial to force a high day-after recall score. Just repeat the brand name
about 12 times in 30 seconds, show the brand name during the whole of the
commercial, and repeat one simple message over and over. Or you can protest.
Point out that day-after recall is a simplistic measure which cannot hope to
measure the motivational depth and subtlety of the persuasive masterpiece you
have created. Argue that one market may not be representative of the whole
United States. Argue that the audience of one television program may not be
representative of the whole United States. Insist that the day-after recall
test be national in scope (which might make the test too expensive; see Chapter
Three).
If the client wants to test creative in rough form (storyboards or rough print
ads), tactfully explain that executional values add a great deal to
commercials, that it is most important to test only finished commercials. By
the time the finished commercial is ready, the client may have forgotten about
his intent to test it. But if he does go ahead and test it, how likely is the
client to believe any research which says the commercial is no good—after
he has sunk 200 grand into producing the commercial? You’ve won again.
If the client persists and wants to submit the finished commercial to one of
the standardized testing services, tell him what a smashing idea that is. Hold
your breath. The creative may do well and achieve high test scores. If high
test scores are not achieved, then suggest that the client consider a real
evaluation and not trust such an important decision to survey research. Tell
him the only thing that really counts is the real world and real consumers buying
in a real store with real money. What is needed is a live
test market, you explain. A real experiment. None of this unreliable research
stuff. . .”
(Pages 388-91) “. . . The store audits, the telephone tracking studies,
supermarket electronic scanner data, and actual sales figures from the test
market in Omaha all indicate that no one is buying the product. The panicked
client bemoans the failure of the new creative. What to do? Stay calm. Say the
creative works on the unconscious mind and requires several months to have a
dramatic effect—unless the client can afford to increase the media budgets
to accelerate the advertising response function. After six months at 300 GRPs
per week, the client again complains about the lack of success in the marketplace.
At this point, it is necessary to explain that a real-world experiment (a test
market) is difficult to read because of uncontrollable variables such as competitive
activities, pricing changes, weather, the general economy, and the moods of
consumers. Suggest, too, that the advertising may be overly effective, causing
consumers to raid the warehouses, ambush the delivery trucks, and steal the
product off the supermarket shelves, a fact not reported by the marketing research
data since only sales are being measured, not thefts.
Accuse a major competitor of sabotaging the test market with unfair and un-American
activities. Suggest a counterattack: roll out the program nationally, immediately.
That way, the Communist-inspired competitor would not be able to undermine the
program; he simply could not sabotage every market simultaneously . . .”
For those of you interested in the complete writings of the good doctor, please
send 25¢ and pieces of your broken heart and crushed ego to Dr. Juggler
Vain at C.I.A. headquarters.
Copyright © 1997 by Decision Analyst, Inc.
This article may not be copied, published, or used in any way without written
permission of Decision Analyst.
Additional Resources from Decision Analyst
To contact the author, Jerry W. Thomas, please call 1.800.262.5974 or
email him at jthomas@decisionanalyst.com.
Related Services
Related White Papers
|
