Download - Research world vs real world

The Yellow Papers Series

Research World vs.Real WorldWhy Current Research isn’t Enough

“I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant” - Alan Greenspan

Isn’t this an exciting time to be in communications? We spend our days trying to understand people. Then we turn this human understanding into ideas which change our clients’ businesses. So aren’t we lucky that there is so much fascinating new stuff emerging right now from so many directions- evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, network theory, behavioural economics and anthropology- all of which is transforming our understanding of us as 21st century primates.

But at the same time, there is a bit of a problem. It’s becoming clear that the research we all routinely use- to come up with strategies, and to pre-test and track our communication ideas, is the same old research we’ve been using for decades. So there’s now a growing and worrying disconnect between what the latest science tells us about how people think and are influenced by communications in “the real world”, and how in the “research world” we attempt to understand and measure these things. It’s as if the dials on our research dashboards are no longer reflecting what’s going on under the bonnet (i.e. inside our brains). We’re not measuring what’s really going on.

This paper isn’t going to solve all our problems. It’s too soon for that. But things do need to change. And we all need to be part of making this happen. Here we outline some of the issues that we all need to grapple with over the coming months and years. And then, we point to some very new ways to try to resolve this disconnect. So• Let’srecaponwhatwe’relearningabouthowourbrainsreallywork

• What’sthedisconnectbetweenthesenewlearningsandhowwestilluse research today?

• Finally,whatsortofresearchshouldwebeusinginstead?

Research World vs. Real World The Yellow Paper Series 02

Research World vs. Real World The Yellow Paper Series 03

How Do Our Brains Really Work?This is covered in much more detail in the accompanying “Do you Know Your Audience as well as you think?” yellow paper. But for our purposes, here’s a quick summary of the brain learnings which are important when we think about research.

• OurbrainsareledbySystem1(emotionalbrain)thinking-fast,automatic, effortless, rooted in habit and heuristics. This is the system thatresearchisnowrevealingasdominatingdecision-makingandbehaviour.Wecan,anddo,engageinSystem2(rationalbrain)thinking–slower,conscious,usuallyverbal–sometimes-butonlywhen we have to. Usually we manage very nicely without it, so we don’t bother. The result: we think much less than we like to think we do. As Kahnemann1said “ humans are to independent thinking like cats are to swimming. We can do it if we have to but we’d much rather not”.

• Thisleadstoasecondveryimportantthingtounderstand.Itmeanswhen it comes to the order in which things happen in our brains, we tendto‘Feel–Do-Think’NOT‘Think–Feel–Do’.Soifwethinkatallabout anything, and remember often we don’t, we are more than not merelypost-rationalisingwhatwehavealreadydecidedviaSystem1(theemotionalbrain).Wehumansareabsolutelybrilliantatpost-rationalising(yesnotjustplanners!).Sogood,infact,thatveryoftenwehavenoideathatthisiswhatwearedoing.Sorememberwehumansare not rational creatures but rationalising creatures.

• Becausemostdecisionsareledmostlyortotallybynon-verbalSystem1(theemotionalbrain),itfollowsthatitisverydifficultforusto understand or articulate in words why or how we have made any particular decision. That’s why, when we do verbally explain why we dosomething,it’susuallyaconvenientpost-rationalisation–nottherealexplanation.Itsnotthatwe’relying–we’retryingreallyhardtobehelpful–butwejustcan’tdoit.Assomeonesaid2, it would be like dancing about architecture.

SarahCarterisaStrategyDirectoratDDBLondon.WithLesBinetsheco-editsallourIPAEffectivenessAwardsentries,writesamonthlycolumnforAdmapandwithLeswillberunningDDB’snewBrainLabproject.ThisisapioneeringnewjointventurewithGoldsmiths,UniversityofLondonwherebyaResearchFellowfromtheirPsychologyDepartmentwillactaspart-timeScientistinResidencewithusatDDB,helpingustocontinue to be at the forefront of understanding how communication works.

Research World vs. Real World The Yellow Paper Series

• Wehaveevolvedtobebrilliantcopiersofotherpeople.Weliketothinkof ourselves as highly independent, free–thinking individuals, don’t we? But, actually, we’re much more influenced by what other people say and do, than we like to admit to – or are even aware of.

AsMarkEarlssays3, “we are a we species that thinks it is a me species”. This is important because it means that groups of people behave in ways that are not easily predictable from the behaviour of individuals.

04

• TheworkofWatzlawick(anexpertincommunicationtheory)hasshed fascinating light on the important elements of communication. According to him, all communication has a “content” and a “relationship” aspect. The important bit of this theory for us is that it is the relationship bit that has the greatest influence on any communication–that’swhyhecallsitmeta-communication.

Foralessoninthepowerofmeta-communication,rememberhowNixonwassaidtohave“won”the1960debatevs.Kennedybutonlyfor those people who heard it on radio. Those watching it on TV were moreswayedbyKennedy’stanandconfidentdemeanourvs.Nixon’ssweatandpallor,thananywords–highlightingthepowerofSystem1(theemotionalbrain).

Inotherwordshowyousaysomethinghasmoreimpactthanwhatyou say. Anyone who has a teenager, who grunts “whatever” regularly, knowsexactlywhatImean!Sowhenitcomestoadvertising,thesamethingapplies.ThedominanceofSystem1(emotionalbrain)thinkinginourbrainsmeansthatitsthemeta-communication–themusic, pace, typeface, casting, facial expressions, production values, media context, etc, which is much more influential than the words, the message, proposition, support, etc. A humbling thought when we considerhowmuchtimeanddiscussionwedevotetothose2aspectsofourcommunicationideasinourday-to-daywork.

• OurbrainsareledbySystem1(emotionalbrain)implicitthinking.ButresearchisledbySystem2(rationalbrain)thinking.Wemerrilydo research as though rational, cognitive, verbal and logical thinking and behaviour lead us. We live by the questionnaire. We ask people rational, logical, verbal questions in a nice tidy order, then collect unquestioningly their logical, post rationalised verbal responses.

• Wearerationalising not rational creatures,aswe’veseen.Sowe can’t help but be unreliable witnesses to our own minds and behaviour. But in research we assume that what people think, believe and feel, they can easily understand and then helpfully explain in words to a researcher. We assume that there are always good reasons for what people do. We then gratefully take these verbal responses at face value.

Okay,sothat’saquickreviewoftheimportantthingswearelearningaboutus21stCenturyprimates.

Let’s turn now to how we tend to do research at the moment.

Well, by and large it seems we’re doing it all wrong.

• Wearea“we”species,butwe research people as a “me” species. We ask people questions as individuals and then aggregate answers up bycomputer.Sothere’snoopportunity for people to be influenced(researchwouldcallit“contaminated”)bywhatothersthink or do. But this is what happens all the time in real life. Sometimeswedoputpeopleingroupsinresearchofcourse-the“focusgroup”-buttheseareartificialgroupsinartificialsittingrooms.Sothismaybeabitbetterthan individual research, but usuallywespecificallyprevent people from being in groups with the sorts of people they are most influencedbyinreallife-i.e.weactively exclude their friends, peers or family.

05

• Inresearchingourideas,we slavishly obsess over thecommunication(thelanguageormainmessage)at the expense of the meta-communication(thebody-languageortoneandexecution).Andyet,themeta-communication is the most important bit. We will happily spend thousands of dollars researching propositions or messages out of any context, but then balk at paying for an original sound track or a more evocative location. We believe it makes no difference to research an animatic (essentiallyanadwithallthemeta-communicationstrippedout)vs.afinishedfilm.Ioftenwonder-ifthiswerereally true – why clients don’t justsavethemselvesalotof“unnecessary” production moniesandjustruntheanimatic....

Clearly there’s some considerable room for improvement in how we use research in the future to more helpfully reflect how we humans really think, feel and behave.

Research World vs. Real World The Yellow Paper Series

Sowhatsortofprinciplesshouldwebeadoptinginresearch?Thenwe’lllookatsomeexamplesoftheseinaction.

• QuestionnairesandverbalquestionsandanswersarefineforanydecisionsandthinkingwhichtakesplaceataSystem2(rationalbrain)level.Andsomedecisionsdotakeplaceatthislevele.g.thelatterstagesofcarbuying.ButweshouldbeverywaryofusingthemforSystem1(emotionalbrain)thinkingandweshouldcertainlynottakeresponsesjustatfacevalue.

• WhereSystem1(emotionalbrain)thinkingisprevalent(andthisisusuallythecaseaswe’veseen),weneedtobemuchlessdependentonselfreportingandwords,andinsteadfindotherwaysofrevealingwhat’s going on “ under the bonnet”

• Thismeansfindingmorewaysofusingandpromptingvisualratherthanverbalresponses(visualresponsesaremorelinkedtoSystem1,whereasverbalismorelinkedtosystem2).

• Morefocusonfeelingsratherthanwords

• Moreobservationandlessself-reporting–so,forexample,thinkaboutusingethnographicresearchratherthanjustfocusgroups.Goandseewhatpeoplereallydowithyourproductsratherthanaskingthem to tell you what they do with your products.

• Morecreativewaysofgettingundertheradarordisarmingthepost-rationalisationofSystem2.

o Thiscouldinvolveusingspeedofresponseasameasure(seeImplicitAttitudeTestinglater)ormoregenerallygettingquickgutreactions(clickingfastonavisualiconratherthanexplaininginwords)orfindingwaystodistracttherationalbitofthebrain,sowecanaccesstheintuitivebit(seelaterforanexample).

o Orarenewedfocusoninterpretationinfocusgroups(bodylanguage,posture,facialexpressionsetc)vs.takingatfacevaluethewordsuttered.Itisworthnotingthattheorigins of focus groups lay in motivational research doctrines where Freud et al stressed the importance of what lay beneath the surface of the easily expressed. Although not perfect,qualitativeresearch(whenit’spracticedbysomeonewhoknowshowtouseprojectivetechniquesandunderstandstheimportanceofINTERPRETATIONratherthanjustreportingwhatpeoplesay)stillgetsuscloserthanmostcurrentresearchtoSystem1(emotionalbrain)thinking.Unfortunatelyitisnotalwayspracticedwiththislevelofskill,andthe pressures for instant debriefs can work against us using it to get underneath the rational responses.

06Research World vs. Real World The Yellow Paper Series

• Whenitcometopre-testing,thetaskisn’teasy.Butwedoneedto appreciate much more the importance of execution in how something communicates.

ForanadworkingmoreonaSystem2(rationalbrain)verbal/rational level, this may be a bit less important. But in many ads it is aninconvenienttruththattheapparentlyinsignificantdetails,whichareonlythereinafinishedpieceofcommunicationmaybemoreimportantthananythingelse.Sorry-butthiscanonlymeanthatmuchpre-testingislimitedinitsusefulnessandpredictiveability.

So what do we do instead?

o Itmaybeinsomecasesthatit’sactuallybettertoresearchamoodfilm,forexample,thanananimatic.Orwemayrecommendpre-testingfinishedfilmswhereweknow it’s a particularly emotive ad.

o Insomecases,itmayevenmeanthatapre-testisnotgoing to be useful.

o Perhaps,‘Do-Test-Learn’isabettermodelthantheold‘Test-Learn-Do’.Sointhosemediawhereproduction costs are low, maybe we need to be much more ballsy and actually produce more work without pre-testingit.Orwhereproductioncostsarehigher,maybe we can exploit free distribution and tap into online communities to get their feedback before paying for media.RememberthatnolessthanthelaudedlastCEOofProcter&Gamble,A.G.LafleysaidhewasunhappyifMOREthan60%ofP&G’snewproductseachyearweresuccessful – since this would mean they were playing it toosafe!


Maybe when it comes to pre-testing we might all benefit from accepting a bit less apparent certainty.

Some Examples of New Thinking in Research

Itisnotpossibleheretogointolotsofdetailofdifferenttechniquesanddifferent companies. But here are a few ideas which are interesting and valid attempts to tackle the woeful current disconnect between what our research dials are telling us and what is really going on in our brains.

• ThinkofwaysyoucandisableSystem2(rational)brainthinking.Thesecan be quite simple e.g. design research, which is more visual and playful.Onlinemakesiteveneasiertomakethisfunforrespondents.They can move icons round, drag and drop visuals into different containers, select different images etc. When it’s fun and visual, you’re morelikelytobesidesteppingSystem2post-rationalising.

• IntheUnitedStates,DDBtookonthetaskoftryingtounderstandperhapsthemostrationalofallsub-speciesofhumans-themaleCEO…Interviewingthemintheiroffices,orinthebackoftheirlimosastheyweredrivenintoNewYorkwashopeless-theywereinfull-onCSuitemode-nochanceofgettingbeyondtherationalbrainbarrier.Butina genius idea, the planner instead came up with the idea of talking to these alpha males at the weekend and, this is the great bit, as they were drivingtheircarsthemselves.Sonownotinworkmode,andwiththeirthinking minds occupied on the roads, we could access a much more intuitiveun-post-rationalisedpartoftheirbrains.


• AnotherwayyoucangetatSystem1(emotionalbrain)thinkingistolookatspeedofresponsenotjusttheresponseitself.Wehavedonethisforyearsinaninformalqualitativeway,byusingquickword associations with a brand for example. But it can also be done more formally via something calledImplicitAttitudeTesting

We mentioned earlier how this technique, which basically measures speed of response, rather than answeringquestionsverbally,helpsgettotheSystem1(emotionalbrain)thinkingunderourrationalorpost-rationalisedresponses.AtDDBLondonweusedthistypeofresearchwhenexploringattitudesamongthepublictowardspeoplewithfacialdisfigurements.Ofcourse,whenasked,peopleallsaidohnotheyweren’tatallprejudicedagainstpeoplewholooked“different”.Theyclaimedthattheywerejustaslikelytogivethesepeopleajobforexampleasanyonewitha“normal”face. And they weren’t lying. They genuinely believed this. But when given visuals of different faces and forced to rapidly click on words which they associated with different faces, the analysis of speed ofresponsefoundthattherewasinfactsometimesquiteprofoundsub-consciousdiscriminationgoing on.


• Thissamesortofideacanbeusedtohelppre-testadstoo.Alwaysthinkofwaysinwhichyoucanuseresearchtogetatthefeelingbitnot(just)thethinkingbitofourbrains4. We need to use more techniques allowingustomeasureboththeconsciousandtheunconscioustake-outfromcommunication-howitmakesusfeel,notjustrationallywhatwerecallanadsaying.Thesesortsoftechniqueshavefoundupto40%morepositiveadeffectsinsomeadsthantheeffectsweseewhenmeasuredinjustmoreconventionalwayswhichtendtooverplaytheexplicitSystem2(rationalbrain)elementsandmissmanyofthemoresubtle,implicit,System1(emotionalbrain)effects.

• Visualratherthanverbalresponsescanbeusedinpre-testingtoo.EGFaceTrace5 is a nice technique whereby people click on different facial expressions in answer to questions like “ which of these faces best expresses how you think people would feel about this idea?”

• Thinkofwaystogetatthe“we” not “me”. Use the wisdom of crowds to predict product or an ad success.Insteadofaskingwhetherindividualswouldbuyaproductaskhowwelltheythinktheproductor ad would perform among other people not themselves as individuals. Think of ways to mirror the onlineYouTubeShareValueeffectsofanad.Whynotencouragepeopletoshareourideaswiththeirfriends and get their responses?

• Trywherepossibletousetechniqueswhichobservepeople“inthewild”ratherthanaskingquestions“incaptivity”.Soinstallcamerasinpeople’shomes,encouragethemtomakefilmsofthemselvesusingthebrand,buyingtoetc,usemobilephonestogetquickgutreactionsatspecificmomentsofencountering a brand, participating in an experience etc.


FinalThoughts

When searching for interesting new research techniques to share with you – it’s clear that as yet, there aren’t many. Despite all the exciting new understanding coming through about us humans, our brains and ourdecision-making-thereseemsabitofawillingconspiracytojustquietlycarryonwiththesameoldresearch. Too many research companies and too many clients have too much business, too many norms, toomanyinternalprocedurestiedupwithdoingthingstheoldway.Iftheychangeatall,it’stodowhatRuss Ackoff6hascalled“doingthewrongthingsrighter”.Andtheproblemwiththisisthemoreefficientyou get at doing the wrong things, the wronger you become.

Soifwewanttodismantlesomeoftheseoldwaysofdoingthings,we’regoingtohavefightforit.ButthereisagreatnewopportunitytostartthisprocessIthink–withsomeofthenewmediaideaswearecomingupwith.It’sjustnotpossibletopre-testideaslikeTelstra’s‘Cabbie-oke’programme(whichinvolveddeckingouttaxiswithkaraokekits),orHasbro’sonlineexperienceforMonopolyCityStreetswithastandardpre-testingmethodology,liketheMillwardBrownLinkTest,forexample.IfwecanstartlookingatsomecreativewaystoresearchthesesortsofideasusingtheprinciplesI’veoutlinedhere,whoknows where it may end.


Sources:

1DanielKahneman.NobelPrizeWinnerinEconomics2002.LeadingthinkeronBehaviouralEconomics.CoinedtermsSystem1andSystem2)

2RussellDaviesBlog2006.We’reasdisappointedasyouare–thoughtsofan account planner

3 MarkEarls;Herd;Howtochangemassbehaviourbyharnessingourtruenature.

4 Seewww.cogresearch.comImplicit/ExplicitAttitudepersuasiontestdemofor an example of this.

5 Seewww.brainjuicer.comlotsofnewresearchtechniquesbasedonlatestthinking about the brain

6RussAckoff(1919-2009)Organisationaltheorist,pioneerinthefieldofoperations research, system thinking and management science. “All of our problemsarisefromdoingthewrongthingrighter.Themoreefficientyouareatdoingthewrongthing,thewrongeryoubecome.It’smuchbettertodotherightthingwrongerthanthewrongthingrighter.Ifyoudotherightthingwrong you can correct it, you get better.”

DDB Worldwide Communications Group Inc (www.ddb.com ) is one of the world’s largest and most influential advertising and marketing services networks. With more than 200 offices in over 90 countries, DDB provides creative business solutions by its proprietary philosophy and process built upon the goal of influence. DDB and its marketing partners create and deliver unique, enduring, and powerful brand experiences for competitive advantage.

DDB is excited by ideas. We invite you to visit our website to share yours and keep abreast of ours. We believe that creativity is the most powerful force in business and that ideas get sharper with more minds rubbing against them.

Download - Research world vs real world

Top Related