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
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
Labels: marketing advertising research
posted by stamblog1 at 11:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home