Re: "Fantasea" show at Shedd Aquarium.

First, I refer you to the accurate account offered by Irina H. on Yelp.com (with the exception that in the show I saw today, the red tailed hawk did not fly at all, just the person dressed like a hawk. Really. Man does his job suck.)

This is a terribly conceived "show" and truly is an embarrassment to the city of Chicago. As other reviewers have mentioned, there is much to love about the Shedd, and many of the exhibits are breathtaking. This is a place to go to see wonders of nature, to learn a little, to experience the REAL, to actually get away for a little while from screens and digitized virtual realities and special effects.

Evidently Shedd management thinks differently -- that people would rather look at images projected on a screen rather than enjoy what was one of the best lake views the city had to offer (from the amphitheater seats looking out -- the windows are now masked by a large scrim on which is projected much of this horrendous show.) They seem to have lost sight of the reason for the original construction of that wonderful space: to take advantage of the unique natural resource at the back door.

After watching a video for about 15 minutes about how they intend to "let the animals talk for themselves" (!) we were subjected to a stupefyingly bad procession of professional biologists and animal trainers, forced to wear ridiculous costumes as part of this farce, occasionally putting the dolphins and belugas through their routines. They couldn't have come up with a better parody of this type of shmaltz - complete with rising crescendos of violins and kettle drums - had they tried.

The audience was silent throughout the 4:00 show today, despite being encouraged at the outset to clap, laugh at funny things (like...?) or otherwise show how much fun they were having. Nothing. What's more, the entire educational portion, where the trainers used to explain their actions and what the dolphins' movements signify, was eliminated entirely.

This is a collosal waste of time, not to mention millions of dollars devoted to the renovation. What were they thinking?

I've been involved with different forms of advertising research for 24 years. I'd estimate that at least 80% of the ad research I've attended -- sitting behind mirrors, munching peanut M&M's at countless focus groups and individual interviews -- has been an utter waste of time and money.

Why should this be? Don't we stand to learn from consumers, be guided by their desires and viewpoints, and so, be better able to connect with them in advertising and marketing? These are noble and reasonable goals, and can absolutely be achieved -- if the research process itself wasn't so abused and bungled.

Sometimes, it's because you're talking to the wrong people. Respondents aren't typically screened for ADS or OCD or lack of humor or any number of quirks and disorders that make them terrible at providing feedback on anything. You could ask how they feel about the color blue and they'd stare at you perplexed, groping for an intelligible response.

More often, poor research is the product of poor researchers. Ones that ask the wrong questions and have misguided expectations about what we can learn and how to go about getting it. Even "seasoned" interviewers often ask leading questions, putting words into people's mouths. For example, here's a question a moderator asked today about a minor element in a storyboard: "Did that get in way for you, or was it fine?" (Rather than suggest an answer, the interviewer should just ask something like, "what did you think about that?")

Too many interviewers take a ham-handed approach, asking people whether seeing a rough sketch of an ad and hearing the script will "make them do something" they wouldn't have done before. As if we sit at home, see an ad once, and then run out to find the product or jump online to check out the website.

But even the ineptitude of researchers talking to less-than-bright respondents doesn't fully explain why most advertising research is a waste of time. It's the mere fact of the research itself: sitting people down and asking them to focus on an ad as if they were in Art Criticism 101 -- to dissect it line by line and frame by frame. In what universe does this relate to how people actually see and consume advertising, or the effects advertising can have?

Asking for direct responses to advertising invites people to think far more than they ever do when watching TV, surfing the net, or flipping through a magazine, where sounds and images waft over them and either catch their eye the first time, or maybe not until the third time; where they don't consider their reactions, but their reactions add to cumulative perceptions of the product, brand, or company. And when someone later mentions that brand, or they notice it when they are shopping online, the residual effects of advertising -- however subtle they may have been when viewed -- come into play.

NS
December, 2009