00 POINT OF VIEW STAN STHANUNATHAN ADMAP JUNE 2012 would rather spend that money on driving better production value. The unfortunate reality is that, in the insights function, way too much emphasis is placed on measuring the past, testing and tracking performance. This has a strong ‘rear view mirror’ leaning. While it is important to learn from the past, it is counter-productive if we mainly live in analysing the past. The role of insights is to inspire and provoke people to take decisions that drive transformational growth. We would all serve our clients much better if we invest more money on obtaining deeper understanding of the human condition. We should provide insights that spark creativity early in the process. This invariably results in communications that create strong brands. The bottom line is that ad testing works. In fact, it is one of the few areas where we can clearly demonstrate a strong ROI. In my view, it is good, responsible business practice. We should always remember that insights, creativity, marketing etc, are a means to an end. The end is delivering strong, sustainable and profitable business results. And ad testing enables that. In this march towards driving testing discipline, we should ensure that the right balance between the art and science of marketing is struck. The science side of ad testing is well developed. The onus is on the insights professionals to convert test results into stories that inspire the creative development process. This can be best achieved by disseminating findings through ‘Creative Enhancement Workshops’ as opposed to stand-up, fact-filled presentations. Finally, while ad testing is useful and necessary, it needs to evolve significantly. Rapid growth of user-generated content is going to require a redefinition of what testing is all about. In addition, technology-enabled testing approaches are going to change the landscape – neuroscience, facial expression decoding, and other biometrics will go mainstream. Evolution of ad testing is going to be further accelerated by the rapid revolution taking place in digital media, combined with internet/mobile platforms becoming ubiquitous. This is going to change the way the ‘what’ and ‘how’ feedback is obtained from people. While all the seismic shifts of the plates are happening, let us not forget what David Ogilvy once said: “Never stop testing, and your advertising will never stop improving.” Ad testing isn’t dead Ad agency creatives say ad testing stifles creativity. Clients (especially Insights departments) insist they need accountability. While research agencies believe that ad testing works and there is enough proof of that. So who is right? With billions of dollars spent on media annually, marketing accountability is a business imperative, especially in a challenging economic environment, and delivering against this expectation is not optional. Most ad testing approaches deliver upwards of 70-80% accurate read of the potential impact of the ad. Very rarely have I come across ads that test well but did poorly in the marketplace. So, this level of accuracy should surely make any CFO happy. Yet agency creatives’ criticism that testing stifles creativity is also sometimes valid – too often, the conversation, post-test, revolves around a lifeless set of numbers. The emphasis for researchers should be on powerful storytelling, highlighting the implications, inspiring and provoking the creatives. When this happens, they start seeing the value in testing. They don’t just get a pass/fail report card on their work. They get valuable insights for making ads work better in the future. Ad agency creatives tend to quote Nike and Apple as examples of successful brands, which, they claim, do not test advertising. It is true that these companies have been very successful producing great creative work. But it had very little to do with them not testing the advertising. Testing or not is a function of how companies are structured globally. If organisations are decentralised, having the discipline of testing reduces the risk of poor quality copy going on air in certain locations where capability level might not be as strong. It is naïve to assume that all countries can produce great advertising all the time. The cost of running bad copy is very high… both in terms of media cost as well the potential damage it can cause to the brand. Companies in such situations should test ads before they are aired. At the same time, marketers should embrace risk a bit more. If an ad tests well in a few markets, they should be bold enough to roll it out to other countries and not spend more money on testing it in every market where it is going to be aired. I 13
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
00POINT OF VIEW
STAN STHANUNATHAN
ADMAP JUNE 2012
would rather spend that money on driving better production value.
The unfortunate reality is that, in the insights function, way too much emphasis is placed on measuring the past, testing and tracking performance. This has a strong ‘rear view mirror’ leaning. While it is important to learn from the past, it is counter-productive if we mainly live in analysing the past. The role of insights is to inspire and provoke people to take decisions that drive transformational growth. We would all serve our clients much better if we invest more money on obtaining deeper understanding of the human condition. We should provide insights that spark creativity early in the process. This invariably results in communications that create strong brands.
The bottom line is that ad testing works. In fact, it is one of the few areas where we can clearly demonstrate a strong ROI. In my view, it is good, responsible business practice. We should always remember that insights, creativity, marketing etc, are a means to an end. The end is delivering strong, sustainable and profitable business results. And ad testing enables that.
In this march towards driving testing discipline, we should ensure that the right balance between the art and science of marketing is struck. The science side of ad testing is well developed. The onus is on the insights professionals to convert test results into stories that inspire the creative development process. This can be best achieved by disseminating findings through ‘Creative Enhancement Workshops’ as opposed to stand-up, fact-filled presentations.
Finally, while ad testing is useful and necessary, it needs to evolve significantly. Rapid growth of user-generated content is going to require a redefinition of what testing is all about. In addition, technology-enabled testing approaches are going to change the landscape – neuroscience, facial expression decoding, and other biometrics will go mainstream. Evolution of ad testing is going to be further accelerated by the rapid revolution taking place in digital media, combined with internet/mobile platforms becoming ubiquitous. This is going to change the way the ‘what’ and ‘how’ feedback is obtained from people. While all the seismic shifts of the plates are happening, let us not forget what David Ogilvy once said: “Never stop testing, and your advertising will never stop improving.”
Ad testing isn’t deadAd agency creatives say ad testing stifles creativity. Clients (especially Insights departments) insist they need accountability. While research agencies believe that ad testing works and there is enough proof of that. So who is right?
With billions of dollars spent on media annually, marketing accountability is a business imperative, especially in a challenging economic environment, and delivering against this expectation is not optional.
Most ad testing approaches deliver upwards of 70-80% accurate read of the potential impact of the ad. Very rarely have I come across ads that test well but did poorly in the marketplace. So, this level of accuracy should surely make any CFO happy.
Yet agency creatives’ criticism that testing stifles creativity is also sometimes valid – too often, the conversation, post-test, revolves around a lifeless set of numbers. The emphasis for researchers should be on powerful storytelling, highlighting the implications, inspiring and provoking the creatives. When this happens, they start seeing the value in testing. They don’t just get a pass/fail report card on their work. They get valuable insights for making ads work better in the future.
Ad agency creatives tend to quote Nike and Apple as examples of successful brands, which, they claim, do not test advertising. It is true that these companies have been very successful producing great creative work. But it had very little to do with them not testing the advertising. Testing or not is a function of how companies are structured globally. If organisations are decentralised, having the
discipline of testing reduces the risk of poor quality copy going on air in certain locations where capability level might not be as strong. It is naïve to assume that all countries can produce great advertising all the time. The cost of running bad copy is very high… both in terms of media cost as well the potential damage it can cause
to the brand. Companies in such situations should test ads before they are aired. At the
same time, marketers should embrace risk a bit more. If an ad tests well in a few
markets, they should be bold enough to roll it out to
other countries and not spend more money on testing it in every market where it is going to be aired. I
13
it had very little to do with them not testing the advertising. Testing or not is a function of how companies are structured globally. If organisations are decentralised, having the
discipline of testing reduces the risk of poor quality copy going on air in certain locations where capability level might not be as strong. It is naïve to assume that all countries can produce great advertising all the time. The cost of running bad copy is very high… both in terms of media cost as well the potential damage it can cause
to the brand. Companies in such situations should test ads before they are aired. At the
same time, marketers should embrace risk a bit more. If an ad tests well in a few
markets, they should be bold enough to roll it out to
other countries and not spend more money on testing it in every marketwhere it is going to be aired. I
ADM June Stan_2nd.indd 3 5/22/2012 16:25:27
Related Documents
