It is "cool to drool," as Sony Ericsson is proving with a campaign for the new T300 phone, in which packs of slobbering dogs have been unleashed across Europe, and hoards of trendy teens are pointing their browsers at www.drool-uk.com.
In fact, it became so "cool to drool" that a viral email about the campaign at one point topped Lycos' list for popularity.
The significance of this is not that the campaign is yet another example of the power of nontraditional advertising (although it is). Even more significant is that the campaign (via StrawberryFrog) was created by skipping traditional market research.
Basic instincts were all that were required to realize the basic insight that the more disgusting a concept is to adults, the more cool it is to kids. In other words, the key to success was not just a nontraditional campaign, but the nontraditional way in which it was developed. Had this idea been subjected to traditional research filters, the magic of it almost certainly would have been lost.
Instead, it is the credibility of old-school research that has gone "poof."
It's about time. Ever since men first pushed women off cliffs to test whether they were witches or not, humans have strived for understanding of the mysterious. In advertising, we have used every manner of strange and bizarre test and methodology to filter copy. Lately, these tests and the testers seem to becoming stranger and more bizarre.
Market researchers attach wires onto your scalp and measure your brain waves. They place electrodes against your inner wrist and measure sweat and heart rate. They recruit people in malls and on streets and give them joy sticks to play with while watching television commercials. They place 10-20 strangers in a room and mediate a conversation about an ad.
This makes the original witch tests seem acceptable by comparison.
But just as this type of scientific research seem to have reached its pinnacle of acceptability, its actual value has come under attack.
Companies pursuing pan-European advertising certainly have to understand pan-European consumers. So research, and talking to consumers to try to understand their similarities and differences is important. However, copy-testing research has become an old world luxury. Why? Because the market today moves at such a fast pace, that the typical research conducted in a 4-6 month period will likely be irrelevant and out of date.
Successful brands in Europe subscribe to a more adaptive nature. Smart marketing management realizes they cannot predict the weather (even with the best technology), so they have begun to focus on adapting to it. Their brands move fast -- jumping, ducking, and dodging their competition.
Just as scientific research seems to have reached its pinnacle of acceptability, its actual value has come under attack.
|
|
Brands like Ikea, H&M and Nike are proving that research is vital if it is used in two key roles: 1) To provide stimulus in finding an original and effective direction and 2) evaluate the impact of what you have done.
Filippo Dellosso, a planner with Le Singe, Paris (part of Euro RSCG), comments: "Having matured in a Nike world, I am not too in favour of copytesting. I have fewer problems with print, as the consumer can at least react to something close to the finished ad -- even if in artificial circumstances."
But for film, he says, things are different, because the copytesting usually asks consumers to react to a concept that still needs to be brought to life. "In this case," he says, "I don't trust the consumers know what they like. It's human nature to be biased for the familiar against the unfamiliar, which means that the original creativity is rarely embraced in its unfinished state. Also, so many reactions are increasingly subconscious rather than rational."
So, this is not to say that research has no role in marketing. Research often is critical to galvanize insight, and fashion golden nuggets of psychological inputs into messages that reflect these insights.
However, research that primarily tests copy -- both on written ads not yet produced, to have proof positive that once produced they will work -- and on finished shot and edited ads to have proof positive that they will work, can do more harm than good. There are even those who test tiny segments of TV commercials to see whether a smile is big enough or whether a face is more or less attractive to a wider audience.
Tom Harrington, the man credited with turning Adidas global advertising around as VP global marketing of Adidas, comments: "Creativity is about intuition, not about certainty. Research is important to understand consumers, but not to create advertising."
He continues: "Imagine Pablo Picasso and Bob Dylan, and think of the input they'd have gotten from the market researchers. The entire advertising process is often driven by flawed information -- delivered by the holy market researchers -- and all the wrong emotions. Too few people appreciate the value of advertising; too few understand how it works. Those responsible are often saddled with doubt or driven by fear. They find comfort in the siren song of market research gurus (a word people use because they cannot spell charlatan)."
Research often is critical to galvanize insight, and fashion golden nuggets of psychological inputs into messages that reflect these insights.
|
|
The French-run Publicis Groupe's Linda Kaplan Thaler recently called for closer scrutiny of the $4 billion testing industry. She suggested that focus group companies often function in a manner designed to produce continuing cycles of new work for themselves rather than practical information for their agency clients.
She said that because focus group members tend to be polarized about the creative work they review, proposed ad campaigns tend to get low scores. The agencies then go back to the creative drawing boards and produce new work requiring more testing -- thus generating another cycle of business for the focus group industry, she said.
"We've become a culture that has bred out risk-taking," she told the audience at the Grand Hyatt hotel during the panel discussion titled "Campaigns I Wish I'd Done." She bemoaned that in the current economic squeeze, Chief Marketing Officers have become overly dependent on logical, quantifiable marketing propositions.
These respected voices are not all. Recently in the Financial Times of London, Sergio Zyman, Coke's former marketing chief said "focus groups are a waste of time, filled with people telling you what you want to hear so they can go home."
And Brian Elliott, co-founder of StrawberryFrog, believes that copy testing is one of the most over-rated tools in the toolbox. "It's a tool, you can't deny that...but it is misused. And too many testing companies, mainly those associated with the big networks who create the ads in the first place, are presenting themselves with new super kinds of testing methodologies which on paper look great, but when you sit through a few of these sessions, you quickly realize are not unlike the Emperor's new clothes."
In the end, as a creative director, I would be expected to agree with these voices. And I do -- not because I want to have a free hand in my creative ideas, but because I think it's unnecessary to push a great idea off the cliff to see whether it floats…or drools.
Scott Goodson is co-founder and creative partner of StrawberryFrog, an international advertising agency that just happens to be located in Amsterdam. Employing more than 40 people from 20 different nations, in addition to a collective of talent around the globe, StrawberryFrog since its 1999 launch has worked for Ikea, Interbrew, Sony Ericsson, Levi Strauss, Sprint, Pfizer, United Pan Communications, Credit Suisse, Microsoft Corp., Mitsubishi, Swatch, Vittel Water and Xerox
|
