Qualitative and Quantitative Measures for Advertising Pre-testing

So, you have a strategy and your agency has developed some scripts. What's next? Are you are comfortable with a purely qualitative approach? Or do you want some type of quantitative methodology? Before choosing a methodology, you will want to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches.

Qualitative Approaches

Certainly, if you choose a qualitative approach, your agency will want to hug you. Proponents would argue that what it lacks in scientific rigor it makes up for in sensitivity, flexibility, and the opportunity to dialogue directly with the consumer. As well, it can be a way to keep a fledgling creative idea alive when a more conventional methodology would kill it before it had a chance to fully evolve.

There are some guidelines to keep in mind:

• Smaller groups reduce groupthink; pairs and triads are best.
• Keep it short and reduce overthink.
• Keep like people together: males, females, young, old, users, non-users.
• As finished as possible is best.
• Presentation is critical. Avoid bias.

Work with your agency for creative ways of communicating tone and mood. Have the creative team present the ideas (this presents its own challenges in ensuring that an idea does not get oversold).

Quantitative Approaches

Typically, quantitative methodologies are conducted online. A respondent views the advertising stimuli (typically an animatic version of the ad) and answers a series of closed- and open-ended questions.

There are a number of benefits to quantitative approaches:

• Typically, they offer a nationally representative sample.
• They use a monadic sample design.
• They use validated measures.
• They can accommodate longer, more complicated questionnaires because they are typically conducted online.

There are also issues with quantitative approaches. They lack interactive probing of issues, so respondents may be less introspective (e.g., "Why do you say that?" or "What do you mean by that?"). In addition, turnaround times for results are lengthy, often two to three weeks.

Quali-Quant Approaches

Typically, quali-quant methodologies are employed synergistically at a central location. Respondents view the advertising stimuli in a theatre-type setting and answer a series of closed- and open-ended questions. Often, the results can be viewed by clients in real time. A more detailed qualitative piece is conducted with a subset of the larger respondent group.

There are several benefits to quali-quant approaches:

• They afford deep qualitative insights driven by quantitative analysis of the ads, since they are better able to answer why.
• Quantitative direction helps eliminate the groupthink common in qualitative research.
• Issues that had not been anticipated in the research plan can be probed in real time.
• The research is interactive, so the marketing team, agency, and research supplier all see insights generated in real time.
• They provide consumer intimacy and confidence - the "seeing is believing" experience.
• They are fast: sometimes, decisions can be made the same day.

There are issues here as well. The use of a central location (typically one location per test) means that the results are not nationally representative, and smaller monadic samples can make subgroup analysis difficult.

What Methodology to Use?

When you need the quantitative rigor of a larger sample and validated measures, a quant design is your better option.

However, a quali-quant design fits better when:

• You have a number of very different creative ideas, and you want to get an early read on the best approach to pursue
• You have creative ideas that are very different or innovative for the brand, or ideas that could be controversial or potentially confusing, and you need to really probe consumers on what they think and why
• You need a decision very quickly
• You are not sure if your strategy is right (and you did not do separate research to validate your strategy)

What are the questions to ask?

However you look at it, most testing methodologies focus on some combination of four basic concepts. Whether you are testing qualitatively or quantitatively, you can structure your questions around these key areas: branding and impact, message communication, emotional response, and persuasion.

Branding and Impact

Do viewers remember the ad and know who it is for? Two concepts are key here. First is intrusion--the ability of the ad to break through the viewing environment. Second is brand link--the ability of the ad to link to the brand name. It is important to note that these two concepts are not necessarily related. An ad can be intrusive without being well-branded.

The academic literature suggests (and our findings also support) that intrusion goes hand-in-hand with enjoyment and attention. Intrusion can be effected by showing the brand in use, by imparting news about the brand, and by using music, color and sounds. It is also crucial to engage the viewer in the first few seconds--lower key spots may not break through the clutter.

There are two elements that are usually present in well-branded advertising. One is a brand-situation link. To achieve this link, the brand should have a role in bringing closure to the situation depicted in the ad--a starring role rather than one as a supporting actor or a sponsor. This means integrating the brand into the storyline wherever possible.

The second element of a well-branded ad is iconography. Ownable brand iconography contributes to strong branding, particularly when it can be leveraged into other channels (e.g., print, POP). Iconography tends to work best when applied in three dimensions (with weight, in multiple media, consistently over time). At their simplest, icons are bookmarks or cues for the brand (colors, logos); at their most effective, they become visual shorthand for the brand benefit (the Michelin Man, Mr. Clean, the Man from Glad).

Message Communication

The ability of an ad to motivate will be affected by how well it communicates its intended strategy, so we also must investigate message communication. Did it communicate what it was intended to communicate? Was it seen, understood, believed, remembered?

Emotional Reaction

How did it make them feel? Did they like it? Will they watch it again? In 1985 the Ogilvy Centre for Research and Development published a paper linking likeability and persuasion; In 1991 the ARF found that the single biggest indicator in predicting advertising success was likeability.

Interestingly though, many clients and agencies have interpreted these findings over the years to mean that likeability equals humor or entertainment. And while this can be true--it is also the case that many ads that are not particularly entertaining can create a positive emotional reaction. Equating likeability with entertainment value is a very narrow interpretation.

We have found that it's very important to understand the balance between likes about the strategy and likes about execution - We want viewers to like what we are saying ("Good Story") and how we are saying it ("Well Told").

Likeability in and of itself is not enough. Ideally, the entertainment still has to tie to brand; the humor needs to be linked to the brand benefit. The ad should make viewers like the brand, not just the ad.

Persuasion

Does the ad make the viewers do what we want them to do? Does it make them want to buy the brand (measured as purchase intent), buy it more often (measured as purchase frequency), or does it change their minds (measured as attitude shift)? Whatever the intention, the measure should reflect the intended behavior.

In our experience, there are a number of features that make commercials persuasive. Typically, persuasive commercials:

• Contain new or different information presented in an enjoyable way
• Are based on a consumer insight that is brand ownable
• Are relevant to the target group
• Create an emotional bond to the product
• Use both audio and video to support their message

Choose Wisely

In the end, select a technique that can be customized to fit your needs with a research supplier that listens to your concerns and understands your brand. While there are cost considerations and requirements to interpret results, research strategies designed to fit the advertising objectives provide the greatest value to you and your brand.

Excerpts from an article appearing in the May 2008 issue of VUE, the monthly magazine of the Market Research and Intelligence Association.