Copy Testing Under the Gun?

Copy testing and the measure of Related Recall have been in use for over 50 years: a lifespan that far exceeds most other services and products. They have weathered ongoing scrutiny and misperceptions from agencies, advertisers, and, of course, proponents of competitive methods. Recent criticism citing Related Recall's inability to predict sales effects of an ad, and its detrimental effect on creativity, requires revisiting the benefits of copy testing and Related Recall. As the leading provider of copy testing, and of Related Recall, we at Ipsos-ASI would like to speak up in it's defense - and in doing so correct some of these misperceptions and incorrect statements and offer some insight into why the Related Recall measure has stood the most difficult test of all ... the test of time.

In his keynote address to The Advisory Council of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) Management Conference in April, association Chairman Ken Kaess declared: "It's not productive to make communications decisions based exclusively on copy tests that are quantitative and rely on short-term memory." And in the June 9, 2003 issue of Advertising Age, John Kastenholz from Unilever Home and Personal Care is quoted as saying: "There's a feeling...that copy testing can undermine the ability to produce breakthrough creative ideas." He specifically cites Related Recall as a driver of this view. These are damning claims from some influential people.

One of the most common criticisms of Related Recall is that it doesn't relate to sales effects. Quite frankly, this is true. Related Recall by itself does not directly predict the sales effects of an ad. But then again, neither does any other single measure - including persuasion or the latest fad of "emotional measures."

Related Recall does measure something important to successful advertising. It measures whether an ad--in the cluttered, passive viewing environment of today's TV media--can leave a branded impression with the consumer. Advertising has little opportunity to work if consumers don't watch it or know whom the ad is for. We have seen this demonstrated repeatedly through sophisticated modeling studies that show you cannot predict whether an ad will drive sales without knowing its potential to be noticed, remembered, and associated with the brand; that is, to generate Related Recall. It is a key measure of advertising effectiveness, but by itself it only tells part of the story. That's why the best copy tests include a broad range of measures. These need to go beyond rational, verbal communication and recall to help identify how consumers are reacting to an ad, and why.

Ads work best when they engage viewers' interest, when consumers enjoy watching them, when they are relevant, and when they tell their story in a unique and interesting way. The data confirm this. Recent correlation analysis of recall and diagnostic measures from thousands of ads tests--representing hundreds of different clients and agencies in the U.S. (a far larger and more representative set than reported in other recent papers)--confirms that recall scores are related to both interest in the message and involvement with the creative execution.

On average, ads with higher recall do get higher ratings for the uniqueness and relevance of the ad's message, and for being convincing and informative. Recent results also show that those ads with a greater potential to build brand equity also generate higher recall. And they also get higher ratings for being fun rather than boring, personally and socially relevant and for overall likeability. In fact, ads with higher recall are more watchable with, on average, a greater numbers of consumers who say that they would "like to see this ad again". Recall does reward creativity.

Related Recall, however, is not intended to measure emotion; at least not directly. That is best handled by other measures. Emotion can be a powerful way to generate Related Recall and persuasion. The data show that advertising that generates a positive emotional response tends to have better results for recall and persuasion. Also, ads that have a positive emotional appeal are as likely to generate strong (or weak) Related Recall as those with a rational appeal. So don't believe everything you hear about recall and emotion.

We can understand the frustration that advertisers and agencies feel when their creative work does not resonate with consumers. It can be frustrating for us too. But we have a common goal: to make sure that advertising is the powerful force for building brands that we know it can be. Copy testing, including the correct use of a Related Recall measure, is part of the process of ensuring quality advertising. Moreover, it's an important part of the process advertisers use to ensure that the billions of dollars they invest in advertising pays off. And it works.