From time to time, I’ve commented on the subject of insights. Returning to this theme once again, I recently came across some good evidence to suggest why “the risk of an insight from immersion turning out to be trivial, biased or just plain wrong is high.” (I’m quoting myself, from this earlier post.) Everyone views the world through the lens of his or her own experience; therefore it can be difficult to appreciate how someone else might view things. That is why objective research is so important. We can’t count on the people who work in marketing to correctly predict how other segments of the population will respond to things, because they are very different from the rest of the population, and I can prove it.
A long time ago, when David Jenkins, was the CEO of Millward Brown, he passed me a copy of a presentation comparing the musical preferences of people who worked in advertising with those of the general population. The difference was extreme. It was a salutary reminder that we cannot assume that other people have the same tastes that we do. I have long since lost that paper presentation, but my colleague, Geoff Wicken, TGI Global Product Development Director, has provided me with something similar. Taking data from BMRB’s TGI Premier, he has compared the views of 107 Marketing, Advertising and PR Professionals in the U.K. with those of 5671 other U.K. respondents. Because all respondents come from the same socio-economic group, the likelihood that any differences observed are due to education or income has been removed.
While there are undoubtedly some cultural differences between the Brits and the rest of the world, I think the comparison provides some good evidence of why all of us need to use research to help us suspend our judgment about how others will respond to brands and marketing communication.
First let us have a look at some general attitudes to life and work. Compared to others (”them”), marketing professionals (”us”) were far more likely to say they want to get to the very top in their career. A laudable desire, no doubt, but then members of this group are also far more likely to say that they worry about work during their leisure time, and that they do not look after themselves as well as they should. Given their aspirations, it is not surprising that marketing professionals are less likely to agree that “Top, high-profile company executives are paid too much money nowadays” and that “In a job, security is more important than money.” So a greater proportion of “us” are fixated with work and money, sometimes to the detriment of our mental and physical well-being.
With regard to the social scene, compared to “them,” we marketing people seem to be more likely to have a obsession with personal image. “We” are far more likely to agree that it is important to be attractive to the opposite sex, enjoy shopping for clothes and liking to stand out in a crowd. “They” would rather buy clothes for comfort, not style.
Looking at TV programs watched by “them” and “us” reveals some interesting differences in our appreciation of entertainment and humor. “They” are more likely to watch the regional news, Antiques Roadshow and soaps, while “we” are more likely to watch “Grand Designs” (a Channel Four series about people designing and building their own homes), “Little Britain” (an irreverent BBC comedy series), “The Simpsons” and “Desperate Housewives.” This suggests that the sorts of lifestyle and humor that often appear in advertising may better reflect the standpoint of those who create the advertising than that of those who view it. Yes, many people do aspire to a wealthier lifestyle, but that does not mean that they all can relate to it, or envisage themselves being part of it.
Perhaps more important to our business than all of the above are the big differences the data reveals between “them” and “us” when it comes to marketing communications. “We” are much more likely to be reassured by expert recommendations and refer to the Internet before making a purchase. “They”—presumably lacking our professional interest—are more likely to claim that they do not notice ads in magazines and newspapers. Of course, we know that that is not actually true. People do notice advertising, but this data does suggest that “we” are more concerned with making the “right” choice than others. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that we tend to overestimate the importance of brands in peoples’ lives.
So there we have it. “We” are not like “them.” This is why we need immersion and similar exercises to help us understand the lives and desires of other members of society. But, unless we are very good at suspending our own viewpoint and agenda, we may well misinterpret what we see and hear. I believe we need independent qualitative and quantitative research to make sure that “we” are not misinterpreting our observation of “their” behavior. This may be particularly unpopular when it comes to testing advertising concepts and executions, but I believe there is good reason to do so; the final arbiter of what makes effective advertising is not “us,” it is “them,” that is, the intended audience.
So what do you think? Is research a necessary discipline or is it simply a safety net for those who are not willing to back their own judgments? Please let me know.
(22 votes, average: 2.82 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
August 15th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Right, its time to draw a line in the sand. Research is very good for advising what not to do but less so at advising what to do. The philosophical riddle in that is by not doing something, we sometimes are actually doing something…and vice versa.