Qualitative Pleads "Not Guilty" to Advertising Manslaughter

Appropriately designed, implemented and analysed, qualitative is a strong diagnostic tool of ad concepts, one that can lead to better, healthier ads. If the research is properly carried out and the ad concept still dies, qualitative did not pull the trigger; the concept died of natural causes.

We have all heard the accusation before: "It was a good idea, but of course the focus groups killed it." Sometimes, it's spoken outright during creative planning meetings or - even worse, because you can't confront it - just muttered under someone's breath.

Often in the past, qualitative has had the "ad slayer" accusation thrown at it, particularly with respect to ideas in the early stages of development (giving rise to a whole new meaning of creative execution). The arguments used to condemn it usually take the following forms:

• The creative idea is too early-stage for it to successfully get the concept across, and ....
• Consumers are not savvy enough to be able to fully envision the final ad that would result, therefore ....
• Consumers default to rational "I like" and "I don't like," and then ....
• Consumers in groups fall into group think, in which one person's strongly stated opinion sways others who might have liked the idea if left to their own devices.

Let the record show that qualitative research on early-stage creative, if designed, implemented, and analyzed appropriately, is a strong diagnostic tool that can lead to better, healthier ads - not ad corpses. What's more, the early-stage nature of ad concepts cries out for qualitative if research is going to be used at all. It is the iterative, question-response-probe-explore process of the qualitative methodology that gets at the underlying perceptions and impulses prompting response to ideas. Without probing, projective techniques, and abstractions, you might be unable to interpret response correctly and/or understand how to act on the results if they are not perfect.

Qualitative research is not a go/no go methodology; rather, its role is that of a building tool and guide for creative development. With qualitative, you can identify whether the issue is the creative idea or the insight behind it, and you can learn if the issue is fixable.

At Ipsos Camelford Graham, we use qualitative for advertising exploration in two types of methodologies: purely qualitative ones using AdExplore and Next*Quali and quali-quant methodologies with our partners at Ipsos ASI using AdLab and Next*AdLab. Through the development of these products, we have gained insights into the best practices allowing qualitative to play the roles of diagnostician and guide as opposed to executioner. The general principles are as follows:

1. Understand what the elements of successful advertising are.
2. Explore the ad concept's performance across each of these elements and the ways in which they support each other.
3. Probe and project to get at sources of reactions.
4. Build in opportunity for individual response - written exercises, touchpads, excursions, however respondents express the thoughts and emotions they are feeling. It is often difficult to put these into words, so exercises and visuals can help. You also want exercises that provide enough direction and confidence to allow for meaningful analysis/implications.
5. Use the dynamics of small group interaction (usually around six people) to go deeper into response; let them challenge, question, and build on each other.
6. Analyse the responses by looking for the connections between them and for subtext pointing toward what consumers are truly feeling (as opposed to what they are saying).
7. Report with an optimization mind-set, showing which elements of individual ad concepts have potential for strong performance and which need to be strengthened to achieve greater success.

Elements of Successful Advertising

For an ad to do its job, it needs to reach its audience and engender a desired response. That is to say, it has to be good at the following things.

Message communication. An ad must deliver a message consistent with the brand strategy and identified brand insight and be understood and considered to be interesting by and relevant to consumers.

Branding. If they can't figure out who's sending them the message, how will consumers know what to run out and purchase?

Differentiation. An ad must be seen as distinctive, or else it may get lost in the background noise that bombards consumers daily.

Impact. An ad must capture attention and leave an impression in order to be recalled after the viewing moment and remain in the consumers' world.

Emotional response. An ad must be engaging and, in most cases, likeable at some level if its message is to be given the fair consideration it will need.

Persuasion. An ad must be clear about what it wants consumers to do and persuade them to do it (a function of engaging communication of the branded, motivating message).

When we do advertising research, we make sure that the discussion covers consumers' reactions to the ideas in light of these elements, delving as required to truly understand what lies beneath the initial rational responses.

The Case for the Defense

As for the other points from the counsel for the prosecution - the arguments introduced at the top of this article - let's take them one at a time.

Challenge: The idea is too early-stage for it to successfully get the concept across.

Response: A good idea is a good idea regardless of its level of finish. But you may need to be creative in the way it is presented. For example, does it need a visual, a reference point, a piece of music?

Good, relevant, differentiated communication will usually resonate, regardless of being written in a script, demonstrated on a storyboard, or part of an animatic. As long as it has been based on a true and relevant target insight, the target will be interested in hearing it. Give consumers what they need in order to understand the concept, but don't try to sell it to them; a good idea should sell itself.

Challenge: Consumers are not savvy enough to be able to fully envision the final ad that would result.

Response: Two things: full envisioning is not necessary to get at many of the key elements at which advertising needs to succeed; and consumers are smarter than you think (after all, we're all consumers).

Obviously, you want to take into research ad ideas that are as finished as required in order to get across the main ideas. Nevertheless, the qualitative nature of the methodology allows the team to explore the ideas with consumers, seeing how well they do without explanation, and then adding description in the form of "what if you saw ...."

Everyone has an imagination. Qualitative research has many techniques specifically designed to encourage consumers to use their mind's eye to flesh out the bare bones of what they are seeing and hearing into full, glorious, living, breathing ads. This requires time for the team to agree on alternatives and elements for exploration. If the concepts arrive as the groups begin, it is unlikely that we will have had the opportunity to agree on these things.

Challenge: Consumers default to rational "I like" and "I don't like."

Response: Where do I begin?

Remember that it's not just about liking but also about the elements of successful advertising and how they all work together. Remember that a good qualitative researcher pushes through the rational to get at the emotional and hidden drivers of response - that's what we do for a living, folks. Remember that "I don't like" is only consumer shorthand. Qualitative's role is to understand what exactly is prompting this; then the decision can be made as to whether the issue is critical or trivial.

In our experience a rational response of "I don't like the ad" can mean various things:

• "I don't get it, and I feel stupid because I do not understand it. And because I don't like feeling stupid, I'm going to punish the ad by dismissing it wholesale and taking my attention elsewhere." This speaks to a problem with message articulation and/or situational clarity. The issue could be language choice or too many ad elements demanding attention at the same time. We would probe to uncover and isolate which it is.

Challenge: Consumers in groups fall into group think.

Response: The trick is a judicious use of individual exercises and careful listening to group dynamics.

It is true that what people hear influences what they think. It had better be, or else we may all have to rethink why advertising exists in the first place! It is also true that getting an unbiased opinion can tell you what a person's first instinctive reaction to an idea is. This is why, even in a group discussion, you will want to have respondents write down some of their responses before discussion, and sometimes even during discussion.

Of course, when a synergistic quail-quant methodology (like AdLab) is chosen, you have the benefit of individual responses from the quant built in. The qualitative can then focus discussion on the whys and wherefores of the responses.

But don't be so quick to dismiss group influence - for the simple reason that consumers don't experience advertising in a vacuum. Ads get seen in social, interactive settings; good ads (and bad ones) get talked about. We form opinions not only from our own impressions but from hearing the opinions of others.

And that leads to perhaps the most important thing to remember. Research doesn't make decisions; it informs decision-makers.

If you have a skilled moderator doing your research, one who truly understands the structure of successful advertising and how to get consumers to talk about the less rational and more instinctive impulses and emotions that lead to reactions, and an ad concept still dies, then, honestly, qualitative did not pull the trigger. The concept died of natural causes; it had a weak insight or foundation. Qualitative is just the forensic pathologist. You may not like the news, but you can learn from it about how to build stronger campaigns in the future.

Republished with permission from Vue Magazine, the monthly magazine of the Market Research and Intelligence Association.