But before you do anything else, write down these words and make them your screen saver: "How big is my universe and what size is my sample?" The reason for doing this will become obvious (hopefully).
I'm not sure anyone has ever agreed on the value of research. I have personally seen vast amounts of money spent on the most spurious research (and with ridiculously low sample sizes, too). Honestly.
David Ogilvy was, predictably, a huge proponent of research, saying:
"Advertising people who ignore research are as dangerous as generals who ignore decodes of enemy signals."
On the other hand, Charlie Brower, (who was more of a pragmatist, in my opinion,) said:
"Advertising research is at its best when it looks back... when it looks into the future it takes on a slight aroma of tea leaves and crystal balls..."
There are two essential types of advertising research - qualitative and quantitative.
Quantitative research is relatively easy to define. It's the simple analysis of numerical data (for example; demographic, pertinent to a population, from the Greek "demos", the populace). It deals with "quantum" - like how many people use a lawnmower.
Qualitative research is a little more complex.
It began receiving close attention several decades ago and instantly became the darling of the industry - highly credible - and was swiftly adopted by the social-science graduates of the time as a golden opportunity for applying their talents to a highly impressionable and gullible industry (which advertising always has been, believing in itself too much, for a start).
Very soon, guys with long hair and doctorates were explaining how qualitative researchers were capable of unmasking the unconscious and sub-conscious mind.
And when you hear researchers saying categorically that a man who likes a convertible car is thinking of his mistress while the guy who likes his hatchback is in love with his wife, then you have to start thinking of excuses of how the exit the meeting - quickly.
There are many schools of "depth psychology" and each has its own way of interpreting human behaviour. And, by definition, they cannot all be right and may, quite well, be all wrong. If one of them happen to be right, we have no way of knowing which.
Many years ago, Gerald de Groot, said: "the new techniques such as 'role-playing', 'psycho-doodle' and 'collages' etc, fall under the umbrella of 'the new qualitative research' and claim to produce information which is not superficial as they obtain responses that are cognitive (from the will) or affective (from the emotion)."
The problem, however, is that the so-called "superficiality" found with this type of research is that it is as much a function of the researcher as it is of the method. In other words, the person 'asking' the questions or 'guiding' the answers can strongly influence the result.
We've grown up since those techniques were fashionable and they weren't really that new, anyway. Such things as 'projective techniques' and 'psycho drawing' were used way back in the 1960s. Whilst the material elicited by this 'new qualitative research' may be useful, the user must bear in mind the small size of the sample, and that any quotations taken from individual respondents in terms of such things as identification with a brand can be blown beyond proportion.
De Groot is also credited with saying "Most of the results of qualitative research tend to reflect the obsessions of the researcher without having any relevance to the marketing problem in hand."
Advertising research is not a reliable forecaster of success or failure. It will not determine the perfect budget.
Like the skydiver who discovers after he's leapt from the plane that he's forgotten his parachute. Research will often only reveal vital information when it's too late. (In its predictive mode, research may tell the skydiver that the best results will be achieved if he puts on his parachute before he jumps.)
I'll be looking at the various facets of advertising research in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, please remember that research cannot predict.
*Note that Bizcommunity staff and management do not necessarily share the views of its contributors - the opinions and statements expressed herein are solely those of the author.*
