How true! In today's digital world, Google seems to be the answer for everything, even research. But research is a much more complex yet organised field which cannot be substituted by Google. Google may help in getting some information but that's about it.
Webster defines research as a careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something.
There are two key phrases here. "Careful study' and 'new knowledge'.
Let's talk a bit about both.
Careful study means thought through. It means scientific, it means structured and it means focussed. So a good research should have a sharp focus, it should have a clearly defined target group and a thought through methodology. Unless these three are in sync, research does not hold good.
In marketing, research is a very abused term. And the onus of abusing it is on us marketers. I have lost count of how many times while presenting a communication story or idea the client has done what they call informal research. 'Let's ask some people in the office, I passed it through my uncle and father in law and they did not like it, why don't you show it to 20 housewives in your building and take their response...' And decisions are taken on the basis of these informal researches. Hey, remember target group, remember methodology, remember focus?
Now I know there are many who do not agree with research in advertising and communication. But I will come to that in a bit.
In my mind the phrase 'new knowledge' is more important in defining research. Research is all about knowing something new or validating or invalidating something new. Unfortunately new knowledge is also scary. New knowledge is a grey area. So many marketers are happy that research just validates old theories. Not only that in our profession we expect the target group to tell us "something new". We expect our consumers to articulate what they need or want. Mostly it is so predictable that you do not need a research to tell you that. Yet we do research to validate the same. Where is the newness? Let's not confuse research as a decision maker. At best it is a decision making tool, a prop.
Let me give you an example. If I today do a research to find out what consumers want in a cell phone then wont the answers be predictable. Big screen, more battery life, less price......Do we need a research to tell us that?
As someone put it so nicely "Research is to see what everybody else has seen and to think what nobody else has thought." This new thinking, this new knowledge is what truly defines research. All the data, all the observation is of no use by just parroting it. Does all that give a new angle? Does it allow a new take? A new insight? A new proposition?
What is therefore important is an interpretation of the research. It's looking beyond the obvious. It's about connecting the dots or sometimes inventing the dots. Therefore good research means having good researchers. People who connect with the respondent. People who can put a story behind the numbers. People who probe deeper. People who can see beyond the obvious. A good researcher (and there aren't many of these around) can often make or break a research.
In advertising research has two roles. The first role is to help in defining a strategy. What can be our proposition? Is the proposition right? Is the proposition relevant? I think there are not many debates on this. All that I said above holds good for this too.
The problem starts when it comes to evaluating a creative idea. If the idea is in the form of a press ad, it is easy to research it. But when the idea is in the form of audio visual the problem starts. Good creative ideas are emotional led. And it becomes very difficult to explain emotion to your TG without actually executing it. Making an ad is an expensive and time consuming proposition. Clients want to be sure that it will work. So various research techniques are used like storyboarding or narratives or animatics where rough ads are produced to explain and take feedback from the consumer.
Here comes in the research methodology into play. How will one do the research? What is the research stimuli? Qualitative vs quantitative?
My opinion is that while we are looking for answers for the same, we must remember that we cannot expect the TG to extrapolate. What he or she must see to evaluate should be as close to the finished product. Else the research will be wasted. Indulge me a bit. Imagine if the following ads were researched before making them. Do you thnk the TG would have got them as a storyboard drawing or animatics?
Cadbury Dairy Milk http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kKXR6ZZ1LU0
Hamara Bajaj http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scltYH13uEY
Vodafone Zoozoos http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=efRNKkmWdc0
Maruti Suzuki Kitna deti hai http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y0lKkolfR1g
What also becomes important is the methodology. More than a decade ago, Unilever Axe had come out with a brilliant series of ads. These had sexual overtones and were not deemed right for the middle east. However we had a belief that youth, who were the TG for this ad, are the same globally. Their hopes, aspirations, role models, gossip conversations, hobbies have huge similarities. So we decided to check this campaign in the middle east. (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLYXKZe0O9c)
We did some groups of youngsters aged 18-25. To our surprise the campaign was panned unanimously across 8 groups. The youngsters revolted saying this was against their culture and they will not accept this campaign. While we were definitely puzzled and surprised that 18-25 youngsters were offended by such portrayal of seduction we came up with theories. One was that the males in the region consider seduction by the opposite sex a sign of weakness. So we did some more research to validate but found that was not true.
The research agency then had an interesting thought. In the middle east because of authoritarian rule, censorship etc everyone wants to be politically correct. Say the right thing, seen to be doing right things, heard to be doing right things. So they suggested that rather than groups we do one on one interviews. Sure enough with a good moderator one on one talk with the same TG revealed that they loved the Axe campaign, they discuss such things amongst themselves and they also, like else where in the world think that they are so hot that the opposites sex makes the first move. But they will never say this in public as it is politically incorrect! So group discussions as a format for research was wrong in this case.
Research my dear friends is not for the faint hearted or light pockets. It is also a double edge sword. So please don't substitute it with Google. As one wag put it "Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing."
Webster defines research as a careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something.
There are two key phrases here. "Careful study' and 'new knowledge'.
Let's talk a bit about both.
Careful study means thought through. It means scientific, it means structured and it means focussed. So a good research should have a sharp focus, it should have a clearly defined target group and a thought through methodology. Unless these three are in sync, research does not hold good.
In marketing, research is a very abused term. And the onus of abusing it is on us marketers. I have lost count of how many times while presenting a communication story or idea the client has done what they call informal research. 'Let's ask some people in the office, I passed it through my uncle and father in law and they did not like it, why don't you show it to 20 housewives in your building and take their response...' And decisions are taken on the basis of these informal researches. Hey, remember target group, remember methodology, remember focus?
Now I know there are many who do not agree with research in advertising and communication. But I will come to that in a bit.
In my mind the phrase 'new knowledge' is more important in defining research. Research is all about knowing something new or validating or invalidating something new. Unfortunately new knowledge is also scary. New knowledge is a grey area. So many marketers are happy that research just validates old theories. Not only that in our profession we expect the target group to tell us "something new". We expect our consumers to articulate what they need or want. Mostly it is so predictable that you do not need a research to tell you that. Yet we do research to validate the same. Where is the newness? Let's not confuse research as a decision maker. At best it is a decision making tool, a prop.
Let me give you an example. If I today do a research to find out what consumers want in a cell phone then wont the answers be predictable. Big screen, more battery life, less price......Do we need a research to tell us that?
As someone put it so nicely "Research is to see what everybody else has seen and to think what nobody else has thought." This new thinking, this new knowledge is what truly defines research. All the data, all the observation is of no use by just parroting it. Does all that give a new angle? Does it allow a new take? A new insight? A new proposition?
What is therefore important is an interpretation of the research. It's looking beyond the obvious. It's about connecting the dots or sometimes inventing the dots. Therefore good research means having good researchers. People who connect with the respondent. People who can put a story behind the numbers. People who probe deeper. People who can see beyond the obvious. A good researcher (and there aren't many of these around) can often make or break a research.
In advertising research has two roles. The first role is to help in defining a strategy. What can be our proposition? Is the proposition right? Is the proposition relevant? I think there are not many debates on this. All that I said above holds good for this too.
The problem starts when it comes to evaluating a creative idea. If the idea is in the form of a press ad, it is easy to research it. But when the idea is in the form of audio visual the problem starts. Good creative ideas are emotional led. And it becomes very difficult to explain emotion to your TG without actually executing it. Making an ad is an expensive and time consuming proposition. Clients want to be sure that it will work. So various research techniques are used like storyboarding or narratives or animatics where rough ads are produced to explain and take feedback from the consumer.
Here comes in the research methodology into play. How will one do the research? What is the research stimuli? Qualitative vs quantitative?
My opinion is that while we are looking for answers for the same, we must remember that we cannot expect the TG to extrapolate. What he or she must see to evaluate should be as close to the finished product. Else the research will be wasted. Indulge me a bit. Imagine if the following ads were researched before making them. Do you thnk the TG would have got them as a storyboard drawing or animatics?
Cadbury Dairy Milk http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kKXR6ZZ1LU0
Hamara Bajaj http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scltYH13uEY
Vodafone Zoozoos http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=efRNKkmWdc0
Maruti Suzuki Kitna deti hai http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y0lKkolfR1g
What also becomes important is the methodology. More than a decade ago, Unilever Axe had come out with a brilliant series of ads. These had sexual overtones and were not deemed right for the middle east. However we had a belief that youth, who were the TG for this ad, are the same globally. Their hopes, aspirations, role models, gossip conversations, hobbies have huge similarities. So we decided to check this campaign in the middle east. (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLYXKZe0O9c)
We did some groups of youngsters aged 18-25. To our surprise the campaign was panned unanimously across 8 groups. The youngsters revolted saying this was against their culture and they will not accept this campaign. While we were definitely puzzled and surprised that 18-25 youngsters were offended by such portrayal of seduction we came up with theories. One was that the males in the region consider seduction by the opposite sex a sign of weakness. So we did some more research to validate but found that was not true.
The research agency then had an interesting thought. In the middle east because of authoritarian rule, censorship etc everyone wants to be politically correct. Say the right thing, seen to be doing right things, heard to be doing right things. So they suggested that rather than groups we do one on one interviews. Sure enough with a good moderator one on one talk with the same TG revealed that they loved the Axe campaign, they discuss such things amongst themselves and they also, like else where in the world think that they are so hot that the opposites sex makes the first move. But they will never say this in public as it is politically incorrect! So group discussions as a format for research was wrong in this case.
Research my dear friends is not for the faint hearted or light pockets. It is also a double edge sword. So please don't substitute it with Google. As one wag put it "Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing."
