Creative Solutions

We all know that creative development research is fraught with methodological challenges and intellectual inconsistencies. It’s the worst-kept secret in insight.

Encountering an ad in a research environment is not like encountering an ad in the wild. Creative stimulus – whether that be a script, a mood board, or an animatic – does not realistically simulate the finished execution. Ads do not work by rational mechanisms, and respondents cannot describe either how ads affect them in general, nor how any specific ad is likely to affect them. 

And yet, despite the obvious flaws and pitfalls, creative development research can make a huge difference to the effectiveness of a campaign. It can provide the underlying insight that inspires an entire campaign, identify the most compelling beats of a script enabling the execution to focus on what really matters, spotlight a standout concept among a field of also-rans, or iron out creases and catch gaffes before they make it to air.

Recently, numerous new techniques are emerging that claim to eliminate (or minimise) the methodological challenges, promising a more authentic and therefore reliable response from consumers. These may be reformulations of traditional techniques (rapid-fire mini-groups, 15-minute one-on-one depth interviews), or enabled by new thinking or technology (facial coding, eye-tracking, EEG or other biometric/neuro monitoring). But they all tend be informed by the highly influential and generally useful behavioural science principles of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow (and others). They seek to capture the instinctive ‘System 1’ response, because we know that a considered ‘System 2’ response tends to be post-rationalised, overthought, and not reflective of the true experience of advertising.

This is a sensible diagnosis. And the instinct behind these new methods is a sound one.

But it’s not the whole answer.

Techniques and technologies that enable new forms of response are exciting and important, and expand the scope of what we as researchers are able to do. But while they may help resolve some of the research effects of traditional approaches, they bring research effects of their own which need to be explored and understood over time. 

Further, there’s a temptation to think that because there’s a new way, everything that went before must be old and outdated, and should be swept away. Out with the old, and in with the new. I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

But by telling ourselves we’ve found the One True Path to creative enlightenment, we narrow our options. We make everything fit this new tool. We do it this way now. Standardise, replicate, scale, sell.

We end up with a hammer that makes every brief look like a nail.

But advertising is complex. Messy. Subtle. Not every ad works the same way. Not every challenge requires the same solution. And engineering ways around well-known research effects is not a silver bullet for great creative development research.

There are many ways to run creative development research.

No single method provides the perfect answer. And different approaches will be appropriate to different situations.

You need researchers with a deep understanding of creative development.

Who can use their experience and expertise to devise the right approach for your challenge. Like deep, exploratory mini-groups to uncover rich and emotive truths that underpin a campaign platform (as we did for CRUK); semiotic analysis of hidden symbols to diagnose underperforming ads (for Camelot); or rapid-fire private response activities that tease out differences between executions and reveal opportunities for development (like the subtle but powerful revelation that casting a girl in place of a boy could transform a campaign for BT Sport). 

And you need researchers who really understand ads. 

How advertising works, how it’s made, and how it affects consumers both in the research environment and in real life. You need that hands-on experience to join the dots between imperfect responses to imperfect stimulus.

We know that the research environment affects how participants respond – but because of our experience in this forum we know how to interpret those responses into something useful.

We know that the stimulus is not the same as the ad – but because we understand what they ad is trying to achieve, we can bring it to life through a theatrical read and ad-libbed clarifications, and we can spot when respondents are responding to the stimulus rather than the idea and steer them back on course.

We know that respondents can’t recall, describe or predict how ads affect them – so we don’t take them at their word, but pay close attention to body language and non-verbal cues.

Lastly, you need researchers who understand the world of advertising.

All the evaluations, benchmarks and metrics in the world, however accurate, will not make a good ad for you.

That's why you need researchers who can engage and interface with ad agencies productively and constructively. Who understand what it takes to make an ad, and something of the pressures and dynamic within the agency. A creative debrief is not always a comfortable occasion, but after all – it's the ad agency who will need to act on any findings, so a trusting and collaborative relationship is essential. 

If you want better creative development, it might not be that you need the hottest new research technique. 

It might be that you just need an agency that really understands creative research.

Want to know more?