Proof Of Angels Dancing On The Head Of Your Client

ADVERTISERS KNOW EVERYTHING--AND PROVE IT REPEATEDLY

Faithful readers know this as one of my pet peeves: client "research."

We're always dogged by client "research" that "proves" their advertising is ineffective.

This research, of course, is almost always confined to the results of their radio advertising. Rarely do they subject the results of their newspaper or billboards to such scrutiny.

So, how would you like a little tidbit with which to arm yourself the next time you're confronted with a researcher client?


BACK BEFORE THE INVASION OF THE MICE

Think back to the good old days before the internet. Back when people weren't nearly as bombarded with advertising as they are now. Specifically, think back to 1983.

Apple computer has released the Lisa computer. For the first time, Michael Jackson has performed the dance that becomes the "moonwalk." And the musical Annie has closed after 2,377 shows at the Alvin Theatre on Broadway (2376 performances too late for some of us, but we'll leave such curmudgeonly debate to others).

Just to put everything in perspective from a viewpoint of computing, that Apple Lisa released in 1983 was the first personal computer to have a Graphical User Interface--specifically a GUI that today is referred to as the "desktop." It had a 5Mhz processor, a 5.25-inch floppy drive, and 1MB of RAM. No hard drive. It retailed for almost $10,000--which, accounting for inflation, is over $21,000 in today's money.


YOUR CELL PHONE IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE APPLE LISA

So nobody was spending time surfing "the information superhighway." They also weren't choosing between hundreds of TV channels. Most of us were still watching three major networks and a handful of local stations. We read newspapers. We listened to radio.

And, when a major television network released a miniseries, people paid attention. They watched.

1983 was when ABC released a miniseries based on Herman Wouk's epic novel, The Winds of War. It attracted 140 million viewers--roughly half the American population--whose brains were not nearly as saturated with electronic media as they are today.

So, with such a stupendous audience for such an epic TV broadcast, you'd know that this was an advertising venue that absolutely paid off for its advertisers--especially Volkswagen, Kodak, Prudential, Budweiser, American Express
And Mobil.


I MEAN, LET'S FACE IT: THE RESEARCH BEARS THIS OUT

J. Walter Thompson--one of the world's biggest ad agencies, currently with 10,000 employees in more than 200 offices in over 90 countries (including an office in Kabul)--did a survey in the wake of the 1983 miniseries. They questioned 100 viewers of The Winds of War.

The study showed 19% of the viewers recalled commercials aired by Volkswagen; 32% remembered Kodak; 32% Prudential; 28% Budweiser; 18% American Express and 26% Mobil.

Be realistic: these consumers were surveyed by one of the biggest ad agencies in the world about how they were reached by the biggest advertisers in America on one of the nation's biggest TV networks during the biggest miniseries ever--over 1 million feet of film shot!

And Prudential and Kodak tied for the top honors in recall of their commercials in The Winds Of War. If these 100 consumers are to be considered a representative sample, close to 45 million Americans recalled the advertising for Prudential and Kodak!

This is huge!


THERE'S ONLY ONE CATCH

Neither Prudential nor Kodak advertised in The Winds of War.

Nor did Volkswagen, Budweiser; American Express or Mobil.

How did six of America's biggest advertisers do so well in a miniseries in which they didn't advertise?

They did so well because this kind of research DOESN'T WORK!

It doesn't prove anything about what consumers remember or recall.

It proves ONLY what they *think* they remember or recall.

For all its worth as an accurate judge of advertising effectiveness, these viewers could have been asked how many angels can dance on the head of Steve Jobs.

You've heard me harp on this repeatedly in the years I've been writing this meager little screed, and with good reason: clients who insist on relying their unscientific research methods are doomed.


ADVERTISERS NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THEMSELVES

At best, if they're going to insist on doing research, they need to go into it with their eyes open.

I've already told the story about one of Slow Burn Marketing's clients whose research has proven this: that the vast majority of leads are coming from the internet.

Yet, when the prospects get into conversation with the client, they admit it was the radio--after they feel safe about saying so.

They've out and out lied to the person asking how prospects heard about the advertiser.

There's a huge retailer in Southern California who insists on formally surveying his customers--and when he does, he always includes the names of radio stations and publications where he doesn't advertise. He does this specifically to see how much credit for his success goes to people with whom he has no relationship.


PROTECT THEM FROM EVIL!

As advertising people, it is absolutely necessary to protect our clients from the evils of research about consumer recall.

Recently, I mentioned the Slow Burn Marketing Marriage Contract. We sign it alongside our new clients. In it, we detail in explicit (and frequently disarming) terms how we expect each other to behave in the client/agency relationship. (It is, after all, a two-way street--they should expect as much from us as we from them.)

And I'm seriously considering working in a clause about research.

Some advertisers are beyond help. They are bound and determined to sabotage their own advertising.

But some are smart enough to learn they can't know everything. That they must have faith.

Those are the clients we all want, and who deserve our best efforts to help them get the most out of their advertising dollars.