ad and uncertainty principle.pdf

7/30/2019 ad and uncertainty principle.pdf

1/7

to say the least. The question is: how

might advertising research come to

grips with this reality?

Part of the answer might lie in a

general understanding of the implica-

tions of a concept called the un-

certainty principle. Despite constant

attempts by many to develop new and

more sophisticated techniques, most

qualitative research is carried out intraditional focus groups and single

in-depth interviews. Getting the basics

of this type of research right certainly

helps to avoid advertising research

disaster. The basic problem addressed

here is that of observer dependency

and how to cope with it in advertising

research. As a metaphor, the uncer-

tainty principle provides an insight

INTRODUCTION

Advertising research has always been

viewed with skepticism by creative

people, planners and clients alike.

Most in the industry know the

anecdotes of New Coke being ap-

proved by research and turning out

disastrous in reality, or Stella Artois

Reassuringly Expensive campaign,

which tested terribly but turned outto be an overnight success. Moreover,

there is increasing attention being paid

to the fact that consumers make most

of their brand choices on intuition,

and that advertising should work at

this subconscious level.1 It is hard for

research to measure subconscious

responses, therefore accurate testing

and tracking of advertising is difficult,

HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 10, NO. 6, 403409 August 2003 403

Tjaco WalvisFrans Halsstraat 94-I, 1072 BXAmsterdam, The Netherlands.

Tel: 31(0)20 543 7859;Fax: 31(0)20 771 7526;E-mail: [email protected]

Avoiding advertising researchdisaster: Advertising and the

uncertainty principleReceived (in revised form): 23rd October, 2002

TJACO WALVIS

is a manager of research at FHV/BBDO, the global advertising agency. He holds degrees in economics and

philosophy, both from Erasmus University. He is also a leading expert in the field of world expositions. He is the

founder of Stardust New Ventures, an agency specialising in world exposition consulting and research, and has

published two books about the topic. He lectures and publishes articles in newspapers and magazines on

branding, world expositions and advertising research. His most recent paper Building brand locations was

published in the Corporate Reputation Review in September 2002. He is married with one child, and lives and

works in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

AbstractThis paper claims that despite innovation in research techniques, the majority of qualitative research

still takes place through focus groups and in-depth single interviews. In response to valid criticism of

these techniques, and following developments in the field of advertising, this paper proposes

techniques to make sure these research methods are applied properly. This is necessary to avoid

advertising research disasters killing great advertising and validating bad advertising. The paper

proposes three ways to get the basics right and gives some guidelines for buyers of research to

determine whether the researchers they hire apply the methods or not.


2/7

to measure speed and position, what is

seen of the object studied depends on

what is looked for. As Heisenberg said,What we observe is not nature itself,

but nature exposed to our method of

questioning. This observer dependency

does not mean that one creates reality

and the physical world through percep-

tion. It means that research does not

give direct or complete information

about the independent world. What is

seen must be interpreted in the light

of, among other things, the way one

looked.Heisenberg did much more ground-

breaking research and quantum theory

(of which the uncertainty principle is a

cornerstone) encompasses a lot more

than Heisenbergs principle. Neverthe-

less, both are often remembered for the

idea of observer dependency, and the

uncertainty principle may have started

the popularisation of observer depend-

ency within science and research in

general.

Experienced researchers often dealwith observer dependency either im-

plicitly or explicitly. Thus, many are

able to avoid mistakes that in ex-

treme cases may result in advertis-

ing research disasters such as the ones

mentioned in the introduction. An

understanding of observer dependency

is, however, of importance also to

those in companies and agencies which

use research in the process of build-

ing brands. These people need to beable to distinguish expert researchers

from the rest. To paraphrase Heisen-

berg, an expert researcher is someone

who has seen (and made) some of the

worst mistakes possible regarding ob-

server dependency, and who knows

how to avoid them. It is clear that the

value of such advertising researchers is

hard to overestimate.

that is a good way to start doing

something.

At the outset, however, the authorwould like to state that although the

problem addressed here is not new,

it remains a difficult and important

issue to tackle. Many experienced

practitioners recognise the problem

of observer dependency, but often

possess no ready solutions for it.

To experienced researchers the paper

provides, hopefully, a reminder of an

important philosophical research issue

and a listing of several available andfamiliar solutions that they might

elaborate upon and emphasise more

strongly in their own work and in

the coaching of apprentices. The un-

certainty principle is used to present

the issue of perception and reality in

the context of its historical entry into

mainstream science. For researchers,

it may serve as an interesting starting

point for reflection on how they deal

with observer dependency in their

own work, for example in the designof their research and the interpreta-

tion and presentation of their find-

ings.

THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

In 1927, science was shocked by the

discovery by Heisenberg2 of the now

famous principle of indeterminacy

the uncertainty principle. Generally,

this states that it is impossible tomeasure the value of two conjugate

variables with arbitrary precision at the

same time. In other words, the exact-

ness with which, for example, the

speed and position of an object can be

measured simultaneously is inversely

related more precision in one means

less in the other.

Since different instruments are used

404 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 10, NO. 6, 403409 August 2003

WALVIS


3/7

focus groups with a hundred thousand

people of their target group.

So, in general, the design of thestudy (respondent selection, the ques-

tions asked, how they are phrased,

how they are posed, in what set-

ting, by whom, and so on) influences

the answers obtained from respondents

(see Figure 1). If the research design

is changed, the answers change. It

could be said that the research design

changes the observed characteristics of

the people interviewed. To a large

extent, this is how one gets what onelooks for in advertising research, and it

is the research design that defines how

one looks (and what is overlooked).

The uncertainty principle does not

mean that research is useless or that

everything becomes relative. It im-

plies that researchers are not detached

observers but always participants as

are the people behind the one-way

IMPLICATIONS FOR ADVERTISINGRESEARCH

The focus group was conceived in the1950s by Freudian researcher Ernest

Dichter3 to delve into the psyche of

consumers. What is crucial, however, is

that the exact phrasing of the questions

or the order in which they are

presented strongly influences the out-

comes. Moreover, when interviewed,

being asked to come to a sterile room

with a camera and a one-way mirror,

frames anything in the mind re-

lated to the product under discussion.Focus groups and interviews even

teach participants a great deal about

the brand. Each question implicitly

tells the respondent this is relevant

and important, so the interviewee

learns something from the interview.

Indeed, the author has had discussions

with clients who considered spending

their advertising budget on conducting


Figure 1 Six aspects of research design that especially in fluence the results

Q u e s t i o n s

( d i r e c t / i n d i r e c t ,

n u m b e r , t i m i n g )

R e s p o n d e n t

s e l e c t i o n

A d d e d

i n f o r m a t i o n

I n t e r v i e w e r

R e s e a r c h

s e t t i n g

E x p o s u r e s

( q u a l i t y , n u m b e r ,

l e n g t h , t i m i n g )

R E S E A R C H R E S U L T S

AVOIDING ADVERTISING RESEARCH DISASTER: ADVERTISING AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE


4/7

someone can correctly interpret and

explain their own preferences, desires,

motives, drives, and so on. This isincreasingly acknowledged as unrealis-

tic, however. The idea of introspective

clarity is a tenacious heritage from

the influential rationalist philosophy of

Rene Descartes (15961650) that is so

ingrained in current thinking it has

become obvious. Psychological re-

search reveals, however, that the in-

tuitive and subconscious mind is not

accessed directly (through the con-

scious mind) but only indirectly. Di-rect questions, therefore, will provide

answers but probably not the most

reliable and valid ones. Even worse,

they can distort or erase the very

memories in the respondents mind that

the interviewer is looking for.

There are two things clients, adver-

tising agencies and research firms might

look for in researchers. First, they

might look for researchers who crea-

tively substitute direct questions with

indirect questions that draw out in-sightful responses. For example, Based

on these job advertisements, what kind

of people and work atmosphere would

you expect to find at this firm? Would

that make you feel comfortable? Or

the interviewer might ask, If I told

you that you are going to work there

tomorrow, what would you probably

worry about tonight? Answers to these

questions do not reveal if the person

would respond to the advertisement,but they do shed light on the way it is

interpreted.

A second thing to look for in re-

searchers might be good timing. Re-

searchers are sometimes lured into the

trap of asking the big questions too

early and too bluntly. In an interview

lasting 30 minutes, for example, it is

sometimes seen as a waste of time to

mirror or the television screen in the

next room. The questions are how can

this be dealt with, and what does itmean for advertising research? In the

authors view, it means at least three

things, namely that a move has to be

made:

from direct questioning to indirect

questioning

from snapshot deduction to all-in-

clusive analysis

from fragmented accounts to

balanced reporting.

From direct questioning to indirectquestioning

The first way to accommodate ob-

server dependency is to explicitly

reconsider all aspects of the research

design. The author wants to focus on

moving away from direct questioning

to indirect questioning, and on the

timing of questions. Consumers are

rarely able to base brand choices onrational performance differences, be-

cause they are not significant. Thus,

intuitive, emotional and often subcon-

scious processes (must) guide ones

choices. It is also increasingly clear

from psychological and neurological

studies that this is how people are

biologically and mentally equipped to

choose. The truly valuable insights for

researchers, therefore, are not found by

probing the rational views of respon-dents but by accessing their intuitive

and subconscious knowledge.

For this purpose, direct questions

(Would you respond to this job adver-

tisement, if you were looking for a

new challenge?) are not very useful,

because they are asking the impossible.

This traditional type of research is

based on the implicit assumption that


WALVIS


5/7

it all on the spot, and who perform a

disciplined analysis afterwards.

Clients and researchers sometimesconvince themselves they know

enough directly after the interviews, or

even after having seen two or three

respondents. The author calls this

snapshot deduction, and considers it a

bad habit. That is because these

conclusions often translate into a

self-fulfilling prophecy by blocking the

registration of conflicting views voiced

by respondents or by influencing the

interpretation of everything elserespondents subsequently say. One still

gets what one looks for, but this time

by half-blinding the measurer. This is

where the politics of market research

become very visible the dealing and

deciding about the interpretation of

results.

Of course, first impressions are im-

portant but they are never more than

half the story. Every statement has

meaning with reference to everything

else being said and within the contextof the research design chosen. Even

the most senior or intelligent research-

ers are unable to generate a detailed

and structured overview of all these

elements on the spot. The context

in which statements have been made

should provide further insights for the

researcher. But no one has had the

time to take a step back and reflect

on the big picture, let alone carefully

analyse it. Moreover, it is physicallyimpossible to impartially process, say,

ten hours of conversation on the spot,

without any kind of reflection on the

body of data as a whole.

To account for observer dependency,

this paper proposes that the interviews

should be analysed from the perspec-

tive of the studys goal and its key

questions, and, to a degree, independ-

talk for the first 20 minutes about

related topics before gradually arriving

at the crucial parts of the checklist. Aresearcher may be advised to bring the

important topics up earlier, because it

is thought that otherwise very little

time will be devoted to the topic

that really counts. Often, this is bad

advice. The most interesting insights

can even occur after the interview.

Revelations often come when the in-

terviewer has finished the checklist,

puts it aside, wraps up the interview

and says, Those were all my questions,but I would like to go back with you

to this topic of ... and then chats for

five or ten minutes.

The logic of these approaches flows

directly from the analogy of the uncer-

tainty principle: we get what we look

for. The most valuable information in

the brains of consumers is stored in a

system that can only be accessed in-

directly. Direct questioning can destroy

the information one is looking for and

thus produce invented answers. Toprobe this area in face-to-face inter-

views and focus groups a diversion is

needed, through the questions asked

and the timing used. The result is that

less precise research results are ob-

tained, but the findings are imprecisely

right instead of precisely wrong. By

asking indirect instead of direct ques-

tions, precision is traded for validity.

From snapshot deduction toall-inclusive analysis

The second way to account for ob-

server dependency is to withstand the

seduction of drawing instant conclu-

sions. Clients, advertising agencies and

research firms might look for research-

ers who display realism in their own

ability (and that of their clients) to get




6/7

speed is traded off against insight and

impartiality.

From fragmented accounts tobalanced reporting

The final way to accommodate for

observer dependency is to give priority

to sound and balanced reporting. The

fact that the researcher is always a

participant and not a detached observer

means that the reader should be

assisted, in a way, to become a

participant too. Otherwise, he or shemay make incorrect inferences from

the research. The report should present

the findings to the reader within

the proper context. Therefore, clients

should demand a well-written report

which is not necessarily a long one

in which not only the results

are presented but also the frame of

reference within which to interpret

them.

Many researchers write their reports

on the (mostly correct) premise thattheir clients do not like to read lengthy

text documents. Unfortunately, out of

an over-eagerness to please clients (or

out of sloppiness, laziness or lack of

time) the findings are sometimes con-

densed to bullet points and over-

simplifications in texts that are badly

written, structured and styled. This

does not help the clients much because

the result is a fragmented account a

report devoid of context, which issuperficial, uninformative and a horror

to read.

Especially in qualitative studies,

careful phrasing is almost a necessity

and good writing skills and a linguistic

feeling are a prerequisite. Researchers

should demonstrate to their clients the

superior value of a well-written report

above quick-and-dirty key findings

ently of personal impressions. A practi-

cal way to do this is to make a

categorisation of the data in a structureresembling a decision tree, with the

research questions serving as their

branches. The key questions should be

a mutually exclusive and collectively

exhaustive translation of the research

goal. Often, this exercise generates

results that are counter-intuitive, even

to the most experienced researchers.

This is because the categorisation forces

researchers to let go of their personal

biases, early conclusions, memorablemoments and quotes, and so on, and

view all aspects of all interviews more

factually and objectively.

Good researchers combine this ap-

proach with an interpretation of the

statements made by respondents within

the context of the research design,

the questions and information already

presented, the tone of voice and body

language of the respondent, and so on.

In other words, good researchers com-

bine factual breakdown with a kind ofVerstehen4 to arrive at an all-inclusive

analysis.

In this way, good researchers can

gain deeper and more valid insights

based on the same information that

everyone else has who was present

during the interviews. These insights

cannot, however, be gained directly

after emerging from the interview

room, in the debriefing with the client.

The idea that solid conclusions can bebased on snapshots is, in the authors

view, founded on a lack of experience,

intellectual arrogance or laziness. By

moving from snapshot deduction to

all-inclusive analysis, more time is

needed to complete the research.

Within the limits of observer depend-

ency, however, the findings will be

more perceptive and objective. Hence,


WALVIS


7/7

what are obtained are precisely wrong,

biased and fragmented results that will

translate into bad decisions if followedliterally. Due to the uncertainty prin-

ciple and its implication of observer

dependency, a different approach is

needed with consequences for re-

search design, analysis and reporting.

Three of these implications have been

discussed, so that advertisers, marketers,

advertising agencies and research firms

may look for people who possess the

research skills to avoid the biggest

errors. These researchers use indirectquestioning, all-inclusive analysis and

balanced reporting.

Within the limits of observer de-

pendency, results are obtained that are:

imprecisely right (instead of precisely

wrong), impartial (instead of biased)

and integrated in meaningful sum-

maries (instead of stuffed into un-

representative highlights). This is what

it means to get the basics right, in

qualitative research.

References

(1) Heath, R. (2001) The Hidden Power of

Advertising, Admap Monograph No. 7.

(2) Heisenberg, W. K. (1927) Uber den

anschaulichen Inhalt der

quantentheoretischen Kinematik und

Mechanik, Zeitschrift fr Physik, Vol. 43, pp.

172198.

(3) Packard, V. O. (1957) The Hidden

Persuaders, Random House, New York,

NY.

(4) Weber, M. (1921/1968) in Rheinstein, M.

(ed.) Max Weber on Law in Economy and

Society, translated by Shils, E. andRheinstein, M., Simon and Schuster, New

York, NY.

(5) Pascal, B. (1957) Lettres Provincales, letter

16.

alone. Writing a representative sum-

mary means reducing an exhaustive

and structured overview to its essence,without compromising it. This takes

considerable skill. Translating this into

elegant and valid presentation slides is

then quite easy and feasible but it is

risky to do it the other way around.

It is good to be clear and con-

cise, but not to make things simpler

than the subject allows. Quick writing

does not breed quick reading. On

the contrary, it takes more time to

present findings in a condensed andclear document than in an elaborate

one. I did not have the time to write

you a short letter, so I am writing you

a long one instead, as Blaise Pascal

said.5

By substituting fragmented accounts

of highlights with balanced reporting,

more effort and better writing skills are

needed. Within the limits of observer

dependency, however, the presentation

of the findings can be as condensed

and simple as possible and notsimpler. Hence sterile and uncharac-

teristic highlights are traded for mean-

ingful and representative summaries.

IN CONCLUSION

Asking direct questions seems to create

precision. Performing snapshot deduc-

tion seems to create speed. Reports

on highlights seem to provide only

the essential insights. This seems agood package that a researcher can

sell and a client can be happy with.

But looks are deceiving. In reality,



ad and uncertainty principle.pdf

Documents