When it comes to making great ads, few issues are more polarising than the role of research.
Such is the level of distrust between researchers and creatives that one New York based agency head described research as a “disease,” stifling creativity and contributing to the closure of his company.
But are the two approaches really mutually exclusive? We invited Heather Andrew, UK CEO of consumer neuroscience research specialists Neuro-Insight, and Greg Phitidis, founder and chief creative of ad agency Team Darwin (both pictured below), to debate the issues.
M&M Global: Let’s start with the upside. What does research bring to the creative process?
Greg Phitidis (GP): “With research, as with any discipline, its best examples are a showcase for why everyone should use it, and its worst, ammunition for those who have witnessed the cold-blooded murder of a great idea by five housewives in Stevenage.
“Sometimes, though, the great idea wasn’t so great after all. Because – and here’s a news flash – creatives and agencies can get a little carried away with just how good they believe their ideas to be, leaping, mentally at least, to the awards table, black ties and hunks of precious metal. So before your work gets celebrated by peers, why wouldn’t you run it by those who will actually determine its success – the punters?
“That’s what research brings to the table: the opportunity to test our ideas and to learn from them. The trick is in how you go about that.”
Heather Andrew (HA): “When it comes to evaluating creative work, research contributes the most when the methodologies are exploratory and provide feedback that can be used to build an idea.
“Qualitative research – giving people’s conscious responses to an approach – can be helpful in this respect provided that it’s taken as what it is: conscious views of a relatively small sample of people. Neuroscience methodologies can also be positive in building ideas, giving second-by-second feedback, allowing brands and agencies to see which specific aspects of creative are triggering strong and positive responses, and which elements are eliciting a less powerful response. This is the sort of granular information that creatives can use to take their work forward.”
Does research stifle creativity by prescribing a route of action, or resulting in ‘creative by committee’? What does over-reliance on research look like?
HA: “It can do, but doesn’t have to. When research is part of the creative process, the key is to use an approach that aids learning without stifling ideas. Research that simply gives a ‘pass or fail’ verdict to a creative idea or execution isn’t very helpful, while prescriptive measures like scores out of 10 that have to be reached can be counter-productive – a rigid reliance on just one or two critical scores can emphasise the wrong things. It also runs the risk of killing a great idea on the basis of a poor execution or a failure to take account of qualities that aren’t well-covered by the scoring criteria.
“The problem is that ‘score-based’ approaches are very comforting to some organisations.”
“For big companies in particular, where there are many decision-points, they can introduce consistency and uniformity. This has clear value, but it does tend to discriminate against originality and willingness to pursue something that doesn’t conform to the norm.”
GP: “That’s the fear in the heart of every creative, but well-conducted research shouldn’t and doesn’t lead to that outcome. If the creative idea isn’t meeting the comms objectives then the creatives must be shown where it’s falling short.
“Sometimes an idea can cope with what you’re asking from it, and sometimes it can’t. When it can’t, it’s time to drop that idea and find one better equipped for the job. The problem arises when there isn’t the option to take the idea off the table because it’s already been sold in up the line. Then the creative shoehorn is brought out to force Cinderella’s ugly sister’s foot into the slipper. Not a happy ending.
“We all want a formula for success. But creative work is risky business. It’s a new prototype every day. Some big global marketers counter that risk with prescribed formulae derived from decades of research to ensure their work delivers a reliable return on investment for their media spend. Yes, those types of briefs do limit creativity, but then that’s kind of the point of those processes.
“The bigger worry is from smaller brands who use research infrequently and cling to every word uttered as if it were gospel, taking it forward through future projects.”
Researchers and creatives are often kept separate in the process of building ads, but is this a problem?
GP: “It isn’t a problem to keep them separate while they do their work, but it is a problem for them never to meet. And they rarely do. Mostly creatives have just heard horror stories that prove that research is the enemy, and inherit their prejudice. Or the research findings are turned into an amends list by account management and simply briefed in. It’s little wonder that there’s a (mostly one-sided) cold war between the two camps.”
HA: “Traditionally the research agency and individuals have been set up as the judgement committee casting a verdict on the advertising, which sets up a potentially difficult relationship with creatives. In turn, creatives have become very defensive when it comes to research.
“In an ideal world the two functions should be working together – researchers will do better work if they understand what creatives are aiming to achieve, and the extent to which research material truly reflects a broader creative idea. And creatives will benefit if they hear objective feedback from the researchers direct, and are able to question and probe their learnings.”
Is there a way for marketers to encourage research specialists and creatives to collaborate?
HA: “It’s already happening with some of the more open-minded clients and agencies that we work with. But this approach will take time to catch on because there’s a legacy of mistrust. Fostering greater collaboration between researchers and creatives also requires pragmatism on both sides.
“Creatives need to be open to hearing the good, the bad and the ugly, and researchers need to deliver good and bad news objectively in a way that helps build understanding going forward and contributes to better material in the end.”
GP: “You can’t have an effective team without trust. So I’d start by promoting understanding. Maybe a research industry body should put out some winning case studies that show research’s role in effective and creative campaigns. On a more day-to-day level, simply kicking off the project with a briefing that has the actual creatives who will be doing the work (not just the suits) in the room, along with the researchers. Use that time to explain the importance of getting the best work out – work that cuts through in order to deliver on the objectives. That might be a start, mightn’t it?”
What advice do you have for marketers on managing research in the creative process?
GP: “Some people say, ‘sod research’ – it only starts un-put-outable doubt fires that tempt you to tinker your ideas into mediocrity.
“Developing creative work is a delicate process and the truth is every idea can be shot down from some angle while it’s being built and interrogated.”
“Marketers must make that process a constructive one, rather than considering it a traffic light system, in order to get the best results from it.”
HA: “There’s no perfect way to research ads – it’s a subject that will always attract controversy. But for marketers who currently use research to improve their advertising, I’d ask the question, ‘Would the creative team benefit if you put the research agency in front of them?’ If the answer is no, I’d seriously consider the methodology being used.
“For marketers who don’t currently research ads, it’s worth a bit of honest reflection about why that is. Usually it’s to do with a lack of belief that research will give a helpful answer. There are few situations where adding knowledge and information doesn’t improve things, but the challenge is choosing a research methodology that delivers the right sort of knowledge and information – findings that can help build an idea rather than simply approve it or kill it.”
