In Which Your Auuthor Is Told He's Dead Wrong

IT'S NOT ALL FAN MAIL

Last week, I took yet another swipe at advertiser research--about how it simply doesn't work.

The screed included documentation from a 1980s study in which J. Walter Thompson was able to produce extraordinary advertising recall numbers--as high as 32% of viewers for a particular show--for advertising that never actually appeared in the show they were researching.

A few of you wrote to applaud.

However, it's not often this weekly screed receives an email like this.


"HATE TO SAY IT, BUT YOU'RE WRONG"

That's exactly what it said.

Even more encouraging is the fact that this email came from my business partner--to whom I also happen to be married.

So, what I now must do is make a clarification--one I knew might be required even before I finished writing last week's rant, to wit: there is such a thing as Good Research.

To say all research is bad (which a reader could have inferred) is silly.

I stick by the main argument: a small business advertiser doing unscientific research about response--as if his customers were infallible advertising source computers--is shooting himself in the foot.

Too often, our advertisers are unwittingly determined to convince themselves the advertising they're buying with us doesn't work. This is an indisputable fact gleaned from more than a decade of working with small businesses.

The kind of research they like to do never works--but it makes them feel like they're doing something proactive, so they tend to operate on a feel-good mode of denial and eventual self-destruction.

So, I stand by my guns. This is lousy research and deadly to both an advertiser's budget and well-being.


SO, WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD RESEARCH?

My wife has written national radio advertising for a travel website. They did focus groups that put people in a room, they played the commercials, and asked, "Do you understand what our site does?"

The question is not, "How do you like it?" or "How would you make it better?"

The question is, "Do you understand?"

Now, they could be asking people off the street what's wrong with the creative and how to improve it--in which case they'd end up with the advertising equivalent of a Pontiac Aztek--ugly, unsellable and pointless.

Instead, they merely asked if the message is being communicated.

This is good research.

But the best kind of research does not come after the advertising is complete.

The best kind of research comes before we ever put pen to paper.


THE BEST RESEARCH IS NOT ABOUT THE ADVERTISING--IT'S ABOUT THE CUSTOMER

Back in the 1960s, San Francisco ad legend Howard Gossage landed the Fina oil company as a client, and set about researching the gasoline consumer.

Here's a significant piece of data that surfaced: the American driver thinks there's no difference between gasolines brands, and doesn't believe a single word about gasoline additives that are alleged to improve automotive performance.

Even back then, Americans were skeptical about advertising claims. Imagine that.

So, Gossage's respone to this tidbit was the creation of a ridiculous additive that cost Fina nothing to implement: the famous Fina "Pink Air."

Every Fina station offered pink air at their air pumps.

They even offered free samples of pink air through the mail, and sponsored a pink concrete giveaway.

They also ran ads that essentially said, "Try us if we happen to be on your side of the street." The message was that we know you think the gas across the street is the same, and if you try us, you don't have to turn around.

Fina sales went through the roof with what is probably one of the earliest examples of anti-advertising that plays directly to prospects' cynicism about advertising.

And it was predicated on research into customers habits and beliefs, rather than research into "how you heard about us."


NO ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CUSTOMER

Before writing any advertising, it's key to know what motivates the core customer.

Example: Lee jeans was in a disastrous sales slump. The Fallon agency did research into the core jeans buying market, males age 17 to 22.

Focus groups revealed kids saying things like (forgive the indelicacy, but this is a direct quote): "Lee jeans? They're for my mom and her fat ass friends."

How would you like your core customer base to feel that way about you?


SURPRISES IN THE RESEARCH

When Fallon's focus groups talked to these kids about what motivates them, they learned something interesting not by basking questions, but merely by watching.

A huge percentage of these kids gravitated to a Buddy Lee kewpie doll that was just sitting on a table.

They also found out that one of the most important things for these kids was jeans that last.

By building ads around (a) Buddy Lee as an action hero saving the day in ridiculous scenarios and (b) the slogan "Can't bust 'em," Fallon reversed a tragic sales slump.

At one point, surveys showed that Lee went from a "they're for my mom" position, to 82% of survey respondents saying Lee jeans are cool to wear. More importantly, Lee started kicking market leader Levis in the seat of the pants, taking a huge bite out of their sales figures.

All because Fallon talked to customers, found out what was on their minds, what was important to them, and devised advertising that addressed these issues.

They didn't walk around asking, "Where did you hear about Lee jeans?"

They tapped into the customer's emotions and sold them Lee jeans.


BUT SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T FOCUS GROUP!

Maybe not with big budgets.

But they still have customers, and they still have prospects.

Some of the most valuable focus grouping I've ever done was as simple as walking around the office hallways and talking to people about the product or service for which I was trying to create advertising. "Do you like your widget? No? What do you least like about the widget experience? What would make the widget experience better?"

Talking to the advertiser's existing customer is equally valuable. They have dramatic stories about the advertiser's results. It doesn't mean we're writing a testimonial. But it does mean we're tapping into the customer's psyche and the advertiser's difference.


YES, THIS IS INFORMAL AND UNSCIENTIFIC

But so is the Buddy Lee research when you get right down to it.

Sure, they might have serious data about whom they spoke to and what percentage of respondents said X, Y or Z. But that doesn't change the nature of the research: asking customers how they feel about buying and using the product, about the experience, and about the advertiser.

Asking these kinds of questions does something enormously valuable: it moves us from writing non-specific ad copy about unrelated funny business, to writing very specific ad copy about how the target market feels about the problem the advertiser is going to solve.


MAKING YOUR WIDGET MATTER

Bob's Widget World is running a contrived, funny ad about what happens to people who don't use his widgets, then telling everyone to come buy his better widgets.

Frank's Widgeteria is running an honest ad about how customers experience life-altering angst because of endlessly malfunctioning widgets nobody can fix--and how inserting a Frank's Widgeteria widget into the scenario completely changes things in a way no other widget can.

The first example knows nothing about the customer. It's a product of someone being clever alone in a room.

The second example knows the customer and is the product of someone getting out there and doing research.

Not all research is bad. Much research--especially preliminary research as described--can make the difference between lousy advertising, and advertising that changes lives.

We'll see how my wife likes this one.