Yesterday I put my car in a ditch. The weather forecast, my own natural optimism, and my confidence in my car’s 4-wheel drive allowed me to venture out into a blizzard when I should have stayed home. Luckily a guy with a truck stopped to haul my car out. Since then I have considered what advertisers might learn from my experience.
When Andrew, the guy with the truck, first stopped, he said, “I think I can pull your car out.” He then suggested that I might give him a few dollars if he managed to do so. He didn’t imply that his effort would be contingent on my payment, simply that he would be grateful if I paid something for his time. Since my car was resting almost on its side pointing down a steep slope, I happily agreed. Less than 10 minutes later, when my car was back on the road, I gave Andrew $50. In Vermont that’s a lot of money for a few minutes’ work, but it was well worth it. Here’s why.
First, I had an immediate need. I was not going to get the car out of the ditch by myself. My alternatives were to walk back through the storm to the nearest service station to get help or to sit tight and hope the Sherriff or some other good Samaritan turned up.
Second, Andrew didn’t treat me like an idiot. When you come across a sports car stuck in a ditch, it is pretty tempting to assume that the driver was going too fast for road conditions. (I will plead the Fifth Amendment on that one, thank you.) But Andrew was friendly and helpful and did not overpromise. Maybe he had been in the same situation himself and could relate to how I felt. He introduced himself and we chatted while he hooked up the tow rope.
Third, he did not demand money from me. He simply suggested up front that I might give him a few dollars. He made the proposal feel like a fair exchange.
As a result of those three things, I was more than happy to give him the $50. Maybe it should have been more. Maybe less. But it seemed fair to me.
So what do I think marketers might learn from my experience?
Andrew not only solved my problem quickly and efficiently, but he did so in a way that left me feeling good about the experience. He treated me as a human being, not simply a source of ready cash.
Based on my observations of U.S. TV commercials, I am not sure that most advertisers are likely to leave their customers feeling as good. While travelling recently, I spent a lot more time than usual watching television. As I flipped through the channels looking for something of interest, I wondered who on earth was likely to respond to the commercials. The people in them were portrayed as caricatures, seemingly vapid and lacking intelligence. The exhortations that abounded in these executions could make you think the brands in question were offering to deliver world peace instead of alleviate allergy symptoms, clear a blocked drain, or provide a quick breakfast. It makes me wonder if the fundamental problem with most advertising is that it does not respect the real needs and feelings of the people it is intended to reach. Data from our U.S. Link pretest database suggests that I might be right about this. On average, only 1 person out of 4 strongly agrees with the statement “I could really identify with the people in the ad.”
Of course it’s easier to relate to a real live person in front of you than to an audience full of abstract individuals you will never meet. But given the amount of money spent on research to understand the needs and feelings of consumers, I wonder why so many ads still go wrong. Are marketers starting out with a lack of empathy, because they don’t take the time to walk in consumers’ shoes? Is research failing to provide a view of life from the consumer perspective? Or are good intentions led astray during the ad development process?
I don’t know the answer. But one thing I do know. If we don’t respect our customers and portray them appropriately, how on earth can we expect them to respect our brand? And if they don’t respect our brand, why on earth would they be willing to pay a premium for it?
So what do you think? Am I being too harsh? And what role does market research play in all this? Please share your thoughts.
(9 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
December 10th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
As a psychology major, I took a class with a Dr. Jeffrey Fischer, who co-created the IMB framework for behavior change (people get Information, need a Motivation, which leads to Behavioral change). Much of the research for the model was in HIV research (in trying to educate people to stop spreading the disease). One of the keys to this was using the “just like me” approach. Using celebrities or preachers or elders to communicate safe-sex/abstinence did not work in changing the sexual behavior of youth - though showing them youth just like them who contracted HIV and preached a similar message did lead to behavior change. I would guess similarly if an ad is trying to change my behavior - sure, I wanted to Be Like Mike as a kid, but I would think personally relevant/relatable characters in ads would be more persuasive.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I believe you have been kind to advertisers. I’d have to say the tone and empathy reflected in most commercials is weak. Whether it’s making dad look like an idiot or general “snarkiness”, I bless my DVR and remote control
December 15th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Nigel - This post speaks to me. In years past I designed a rival system to Link, and have spent a lot of time with advertisers around the world trying to figure out how to build more empathy into ads. One issue is clients and researchers treat empathy as a continuous variable, a varient of “liking” so it’s OK for an ad to be 6/10. In fact it seems to me to have a tipping point, above which an ad is really empathetic, below which it is merely warm and bland. Researchers for years have invented (sometimes dubious) Persuasion scores that get treated as pass/fail marks for ads, but seldom is the empathy response treated so seriously by either cleitns or researchers. In addtion, genuinely empathetic ads are often like messages in greeting cards - high emotional impact for 60% of the key market, while 20% of people express nausea. For mass media this brings down “average” response, plus scares the client. No matter how good your ad research systems are it takes a certain creativity of analysis and simple guts on the part of a researcher to suggest that really getting through and relating to your market may mean you take the ad that appeared to be “2nd best” overall on test results. Do we, as an industry, do a good enough job in training ad researchers on the importance of interpreting issues of strength and quality of response to ads - not just the straight numbers? If not, maybe we are part of the problem in this?
December 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Hi Alastair, thanks for the comment.
I think there is a long standing and endemic problem within the market research industry and amongst out clients. People want simple answers. They want research results to tell them what to do. They are not willing to invest the time or effort to figure it out for themselves. Nor are they willing to pay someone else to do it for them.
I think the truth is that advertising works in different ways to achieve its goals. An ad may well score high on persuasion by delivering new, relevant and credible information but fail to strike an emotional chord. They may be motivated to buy based on that information but not motivated to feel affection or loyalty for the brand. And ad which did both could be far more effective in the long run but not generate much more in terms of immediate sales. As you say, without concrete evidence it would take a lot of guts for someone to say, “Don’t run that ad.”
December 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Yes, addiction to over-simplification of complex issues is an increasing problem in much of marking and mangement - I recall one my old lecturers who would always quote the saying “There’s a simple answer to every problem - and it’s usually wrong”.
I agree on ads working in many ways. I’ve always taught young researchers to use the main measures (empathy, persausion etc.) as a “framework” for analysis - they keep you within reasonable bounds and help prioritise what you should be looking at, but aren’t the complete answer. It needs some commitment to do this, however: it’s tempting to simply choose the top score.
But to be fair on current mid-level researchers if we want them to be less simplistic in interpreting/diagnosing ads, are we (as an industry, since this is MB’s bread and butter you may be better) giving them the training, mentoring and time that equips them to do this? I have a strong feeling (with some reasonable evidence) that these days they are facing a lot of time pressures to do all sorts of “non-research” activities, while at the same time at local company level many potential mentors have been “let-go” in the recession and training budgets cut-back.
I think bland research advice, especially in communications research, links at least partially to issues with MR business models and failure to get clients to pay consultancy rates for what effectively needs to be consultancy services.
December 16th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Nice quote! And “keep it simple” should not be an excuse for being simplistic. Totally agree with you about frameworks. They should provide guidelines not rules.
As to your last point I guess we have to ask whether bland advice is the chicken or the egg? Maybe what is really required is a no holds barred discussion with each client on the topic “what do you really want from your research?”