Why Client Research Can Miss the Mark

But where agencies are seeing new demands for research is once they have put their ideas to the client, half-way through the process. “Some of our bigger clients make it a regular occurrence now,” says Roger Marriott, managing director of Dynamo Marketing. “We are experiencing it on alcohol brands, food brands, FMCG and retailers.”

Such studies are indicative of the changing way clients are using sales promotion. The trend over recent years has been for fewer, but bigger campaigns. Rather than simple on-pack promotions, the big SP players are building campaigns that stretch online and involve above-the-line promotion. That means a great deal more money is being spent around promotions – and clients want to see that it is well spent. “Rather than research a promotional concept, they are researching an entire theme through the line,” adds Marriott. “And then they’ll research the promotional mechanics.”

This research is designed to strip the element of risk from the promotion. Marketing directors are under pressure both from internal procurement departments and from their boards to justify their expenditure, and researching a promotion before it is launched can provide this justification. The problem, some agencies argue, is that by slavishly following research, clients are unwittingly diluting creativity and robbing promotions of excitement.

Few agencies are willing to go on the record to register their displeasure with their clients. But one agency boss points to a recent pitch for a confectionery brand in which he participated. He saw the creative ideas that won the business for a different agency, but the final campaign – a simple cash prize giveaway - was substantially different. A risk-averse client, he contended, had failed to back the agency’s idea following research. “We saw the ideas going into the pitch – for us the result was very disappointing. It was hardly pushing the envelope.”

The arguments will be familiar to the advertising industry. There too some have complained of risk-averse marketers testing an agency’s ideas to destruction. The result is campaigns that rely on tried-and-tested methods, but are not creative enough to stand out and create a breakthrough for the brand.

Greg Nugent, marketing director of Eurostar, backs up this view. “Agencies are half right and half wrong. Research is not necessarily a bad thing, but done badly it can be. Some clients tend to use research either to kill something or to remove risk.”

Yet not everyone agrees. Ian Millner, chief executive of Iris, describes the idea that research stifles creativity as “ludicrous”. His agency builds consumer panels to shadow the campaign development process. This way there is always a resource ideas can be run past to ensure the promotion is on the right track. Rather than being at odds with the creative process, research feeds it.

“People in agencies tend to be white, middle-class and university educated. They don’t have a clue about the real world,” says Milner. “They need to invite real people into the process, and develop an idea in the context in which it will be received.”

Of course, not all research is the same. There is a difference between a hastily convened focus group and hiring a market research agency to conduct an in-depth survey. If a client wants to research an idea, it is important that samples are robust, results are studied in detail, and time is built into a promotional schedule.

It does not always happen this way. Simon Marjoram, director at Geoff Howe, has seen marketers base their opinions on flimsy studies. “We’ve had some clients who have just shown an idea around their building and take that straw poll as research. If you’re going to do research, do it properly.”

The key to getting the most from research is using it carefully and at the right time. “You should only put stuff into research when you’re happy with the creative,” adds Marjoram. “The ideas should be at a stage where everyone is happy. If the client re-engineers the campaign on the basis of the feedback, that can be wrong.”

This means that both client and agency should agree to the core idea, then use research to guide how that can be implemented. That was the approach used by The Big Kick on its campaign for Branston Beans. Launched in 2005, the brand took a 7 per cent share within three months on the back of an experiential campaign that asked consumers to compare the taste of Branston Beans with Heinz.

According to Debbie Simmons, chairman of The Big Kick, agency and client had decided that the campaign should focus on the taste of Branston Beans. The agency then researched the idea among 250 adults in a pub in Hertfordshire. The team handed out samples of the product and recorded people’s reactions. What they found was that when people tasted the beans in isolation, their feedback was simply that they tasted like beans. They had nothing with which to compare them. As a result, the agency decided that a taste comparison involving Branston and its rival was the best way forward.

“Without that research we may simply have conducted a sampling campaign,” says Simmons. “I’m not sure we would have developed the campaign we did if we hadn’t done it.”

It is a similar case with Eurostar’s tie-in with the Da Vinci Code, handled by Space. According to Nugent, the client and agency worked on the campaign for 18 months without research because they knew the core idea was sound. It was only with three months to go that research was used to tweak the campaign.

“What the research did was tell us what would or would not get people excited – what sort of games, what sort of prizes,” says Nugent. “It took away the risk and gave us confidence that what we were planning would work.”

The concept paid off – more than 150,000 consumers took part in the promotion and advance bookings to London and Paris increased by 20 per cent.

Despite agencies’ fears, research can be a benefit. Indeed, with client marketers under pressure to justify their expenditure, canny agencies recognise that good research presents an opportunity to cement their role as their clients’ strategic partner.

This is crucial as sales promotion shops jostle for position with agencies from other disciplines for the ‘big idea’. Dynamo’s Marriott points to an integrated campaign his agency is handling for Danone. The agency was up against the client’s other shops, but won due to the strength of its research. In situations such as this, he argues, being able to back up your concepts “levels the playing field”.

Clients who depend on research may seem risk-averse, but it is up to agencies to prove that what they are suggesting will work. Ultimately, the agencies that recognise the demands being placed on marketers will be the ones that win their trust.

BOX

Southern Comfort asked Iris to develop a relationship marketing campaign to elongate the relationship that consumers (18-24 yr old men) have with the brand, drive frequency of purchase and ultimately create brand advocates.

Research was used to test different proposals for how the relationship marketing programme should be run. A series of extended group discussions with members of the target market were held to assess attitudes toward Southern Comfort and what sort of campaign would work.

One of the proposals was a Southern Comfort ‘club’. However, the feedback from the research made it clear that the brand did not have equity strong enough for young men to aspire to be members. 

The research showed that young men would prefer to hear from Southern Comfort through offers, access to unique content and competitions. It confirmed that digital communication would be the most appropriate method to do so. Importantly it also showed that they would be happy to ‘hand-over’ their email address to Southern Comfort, if it was clear what was in it for them, and that the email address would not be abused. 

In terms of content, the research proved that sponsored music events, merchandise, tips on product usage (e.g. cocktails), ideas for nights out, competitions for money can’t buy prizes were all things that the audience would be prepared to share their email addresses for.

Because the brand did not have a database, year one has been focused on driving recruitment. A range of different online promotions have been developed to target the audience in relevant off and online media, and drive to promotional microsites created to inform and engage and ultimately to capture data. For example to support an in-bar poker campaign, which ran in 1,600 bars in November 2006, a site was developed containing poker tips and opportunities to win branded poker kits.

Results so far have seen excellent site traffic and opted-in data capture hitting 110% of Year 1 targets by the end of Q3.