JWT-Sri Lanka Blog

MTI Research Forum
8^th December 2010
Taj Samudra Hotel
Address by: Thayalan Bartlett – Chief Executive Officer JWT Sri Lanka

“Intuition over Information”

My fellow presenters have been sharing different perspectives of the impact of research on their marketing strategies. My task is no different, other than for specifically addressing the assessment of the merits and demerits of research on brand communications. At the very outset I would like to establish the significance of research and the importance to understand the limits to which this information is used to influence strategy. There is a definite line between me and research once the creative development process begins.  I have been asked to address two specific objectives which I have defined as follows:

• The repression of creative standout value in an overly expressive media regime.
• The challenges faced by marketers to decide between effective reach and idea impact.

I have come across two types of marketers during the span of my career: one who is led by the most important “I” in marketing – The Intuition Led marketer. The other, is one who is led by research and makes it a bible to build his strategy.  Whilst there is nothing wrong in being either, the latter type prevails in marketing society more than the former. Whether it is the internet, TV, print or the activation space media clutter is here to stay. It’s not going to get any better and at best it will get worse. 40 years ago a scholar by the name Herb Simon said “an abundance of information creates a scarcity of attention” what will he say about our media environment today? Caused by excessive media proliferation, the marketing tragedy of today is that there is greater emphasis on the fragmentation of media by clients and agencies than to understand how to deal with the fragmentation of the consumer’s mind. Exploring the mind using the power of intuition must take precedence over the literal use of information from research. This does not mean we ignore research but use it as information to base our judgment. It is likely that competing brands hire equally competent research companies that are in all probability speaking to equally similar consumer profiles in an attempt to mine insights. This could be one of the bigger contributors of brand parity than other known factors.

To break media clutter marketers have little choice other than to engage the consumer with a proposition through a compelling idea. The problem is not breaking through media clutter but the creation of compelling ideas and I believe the former is a consequence of the deficiency of the latter. One of the fundamental reasons is that ideas are regularly audited by research that sometimes contributes to the repression of ideas. I am a confessed believer of most forms of research but I am yet not convinced if we have mastered a “sure method” of researching ideas which often restricts the spirit of the creative process. To answer the objectives set by MTI, it’s not important what I have to say as much as it can be answered through real examples. I will be sharing two examples where a client defied the results of a pretest of a campaign and went on to score heavily in the market. The first example comes from Unilever one of the world’s most disciplined marketing companies where research is a very critical process of brand communications.

Lipton Ceylonta Tea, was a brand that was hanging-around in the market at just under 4% market share in 2003. It had a comparatively small but very loyal base of consumers who were ageing with the brand. The brand was reformulated and was on course for re-launch. When the agency began sifting through the research we discovered that tea drinkers were consuming the beverage as a relaxant and as a post-activity drink. We analysed all the competitive tea commercials and discovered that the category itself was endorsing and encouraging this consumption habit. This trend was consistent with the stagnant consumption of tea. We wanted to change it and engage the consumer with a new proposition and we identified an opportunity to re-position the brand as a pre-activity drink on the platform the “day maker”.

The idea was pretested and it scored far below approval levels at Unilever to be even considered for airing. This was largely attributed to the fact that the creative campaign was forcing a behavioral change which the research could not pick-up as a potential opportunity.  We responded with a few alternative ideas based on what research had highlighted but we continued to believe in the campaign that research condemned. What was condemned is what we wanted to recommend and this is where Intuition took over. A very bold Brand Director went up to the board and re-presented her case in favor of the rejected campaign. She not only put her neck on the line but years of credibility as a marketing professional. She had two options- she could have quoted research and probably been safe even if the campaign failed. The other option was not to take refuge in research and to put belief in her intuition. She did the latter and the brand recorded phenomenal growth for three consecutive years and continues to do well today.

Result:

• Vol growth from 2003 to 2006 was 87 %
• Growth in 2003 was 40%
• Growth in 2004 was 50%
• From a 143 million brand in 2003 to half-a-billion brand in 3 years. And much bigger today

At no point did the agency not believe in the research. It did! But the research guided us to a position and then we had to leave it to our intuition to make the right move for the brand. Where we mostly fail is we expect research to tell us how to act and think to the point it begins to control all our decision making. We are hired to make decisions and set new standards in the roles we perform and not translate research information to action. If the sentiments are to only go by research then we should hire a full service research company that provides brand management and advertising as value added services. It just doesn’t work that way and I personally feel we are unfair by our research partners as we expect them to predict the outcome of a campaign’s acceptability. What I am saying goes against the grain of most “traditional” MNCs but it is time that somebody in marketing starts breaking the rules or else we need to resign to the fact that standout-value and media clutter will coexist making no impact.

Here is an example where standout value was in conflict with media clutter for a cellular brand and the former prevailed. It’s also an example of how a client broke the rules.  It was our 23^rd presentation to launch “2 minutes in-coming-free” for Cellcard- a mobile company. Nearly exhausted by the continuous rejection of the campaign by the client and almost at the cost of losing the account we presented a campaign that would have failed any pre- test, done by any research company by miles. It depicted Death, a Funeral and a Cemetery. There is a single influence that supersedes all research, all professional experience and qualifications – “Superstition” and this script was shrouded by it from start to finish. Independent of my belief of superstition but going by past experience, connotations of death and symbols associated with it have bombed in research and have not gone beyond the boardroom. To our relief the client believed in his intuition and this idea went beyond the boardroom, it went beyond superstition and eventually went beyond market expectation.

Result: We had to stop the advertising in two weeks as we could not cater to the demand. But what was most encouraging is that it was awarded  Sri Lanka’s most loved commercial across every target classification as per AC Neilson in that year- Professionals, Housewives, Youth and Children. Would research have passed it? I am not so sure. But the client did and most importantly the consumer did. In a category that is inundated with standardised and unbelievable Telco offers, I attribute the success of this campaign to its emphasis in dealing with “mind fragmentation” over “media fragmentation” through the power of an idea which research would not have passed.

In conclusion, I would like to leave these 4 points for you to think about.

Firstly know that the repression of creative standout value is not always determined by media clutter but by its limitation of the creative expression of the idea. The overly expressive media regime for advertising is going to get worse and one of the critically defining moves you will ever make is through your brand idea.  A good advertising idea is the new currency for consumer engagement. So the point is! – be driven by Initiative using research but do not be driven by research to take initiative.

Secondly, the challenges faced by marketers on how to decide between effective reach and idea impact will no longer be a decision but a solution through the potency of your idea. To me idea impact equals effective reach and is definitely not an Either / OR situation. In the digital era you will see consumers seeking your idea out, more than you having to reach them.

Thirdly be a believer of research and use it selectively in assessing brandcom ideas in pretesting- our industry likes to believe in figures and then act. I think what we ought to do is stop believing in figures and start making figures that we can believe in.

Finally, we all need to be responsible for our decisions. Most often than not, I have seen marketers taking refuge behind research when campaigns fail because they have fulfilled their pre and post-test obligations. But what I would urge you to ponder is your role as a decision maker using the “I” in you – Intuition…..because research leads you to the edge and the decision to fly or fall is both in your hands. What choice will you make?