When we first got married, my wife and I were doing the washing up.
She was doing it very fast.
But I didn’t think we were doing it as well as we could.
So I stopped, and I said, “Cath, there’s not enough room on the draining board for all the wet crockery. But if we wash the small things first, we can stack the big bowls on top of them, and we’ll have more room.”
But Cathy wasn’t listening.
By the time I’d finished explaining my thinking, Cathy had finished the washing up and was doing something else.
See Cathy is Chinese.
So she’s more geared toward action rather than talk.
Results rather than reasons.
Cathy’s mum once said to me, “In the west you love to talk and talk, and think things over. But we Chinese prefer to just get it done. “
When I first went to the Far East I was amazed at the amount of superstition.
Every building had to have Feng Shui performed on it.
Every building had a little Taoist shrine in front of it.
I used to think, these people are very superstitious.
Not like us in The West, we’re logical.
Then one day it occurred to me.
They’re not actually anymore superstitious than us.
We’ve just got different superstitions that’s all.
Logic is our superstition.
We believe in logic above all else.
If logic says it will work, that’s enough.
Faith will over ride the evidence of results.
That’s just like any religion or superstition.
In primitive tribes the medicine man is the person who cures people.
It’s that simple.
If he can cure you, he’s the medicine man.
Whether he’s been trained or not.
We regard this as primitive because, in The West, it’s the other way round.
In The West, the medicine man is the person who’s had the training.
The person who’s got the piece of paper on the wall, saying he’s the medicine man.
Whether he can actually cure you or not is irrelevant.
He’s the man who’s has been qualified as the medicine man.
Whether it works or not.
The logic of why it should work is important.
The results are secondary.
It’s the same with scientists, lawyers, accountants, engineers.
The person who must be good at the job is the person who’s had the training.
The person who’s got the diploma, the degree, the piece of paper.
It’s the same with advertising.
We depend on what should work, not what does work.
If an ad campaign is researched enough, it should work.
That’s that.
Of course we can point to ad campaigns that worked without being researched.
But we see that as a bit amateur.
Lucky, a one off.
It doesn’t fit with our superstition.
Akio Morita, the founder of Sony, said “The greatest assistance I had in building my company was the total failure of nerve on the part of Western businessmen to move without research.”
Richard Branson has a similar attitude.
He says at Virgin they try lots of different things.
If something excites them they go ahead and try it.
Lots of these are failures.
But about one out of five is a massive success.
And, before they did it, they couldn’t identify which one that was going to be.
So they try them all.
Because if they tried to avoid having the failures, they wouldn’t have the successes.
Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, has a similar view.
He doesn’t believe in research.
He said, “It’s not the public’s job to know what they’re going to want. It’s my job to know what they’re going to want.”
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
It must be great being a computer engineer or a lawyer. Even if your solutions don’t work, you still get paid. Whereas for advertising people, our ideas have to work. Not that I’m unhappy being a writer.Just tired of being lumped with software that don’t work.
Absolutely Dave. Our industry (well the side I work in - television) is being killed by research. Creativity is dying as a result, and the general standard has been dipping for a long time now.
But what client wants to be responsible for one of the 4 routes that doesn’t work? From their perspective, better to be safe, middle of the road than failure.
Success is the willingness to accept failure as part of the journey.
Once you know what research is, don’t you think that not doing it is the most logical thing to do?
It’s also logical that people who push for research are those who are more interested in keeping their jobs than in increasing sales. Logical because they work for corporations who despise risk taking and love the status quo.
I think in all walks of life I could point to many more examples of where superstition had failed than logic had failed
Did Cathy ask you to dry up Dave?
Paul K,
Religion is a superstition (faith without evidence).
Logic is the western (civilised) superstition.
Ergo logic is a religion.
On that basis aetheism is also a religion.
A belief, just like logic.
All I’m saying is let’s be agnostic.
Not beiievers or aetheists.
Hey Dave. One of the Watford lot here. One of the things you told us when we came to see you is do LOADS of research. In fact I wrote what you said in my Winnie The Pooh notebook - “Research…and turn a little nugget into a watertight argument”.
I think the distinction here is research on your product is good, research on what works in advertising is less so, because it hinders creativity.
I’ve been told I research too much. I need to stop researching and start thinking.
P.s. I’m an agnostic. When I get to the Pearly gates I’m going to claim ignorance and hope St. Peter got out of bed the right side that day.
How do I say, I think saying the West believes in logic is flawed without upsetting you Dave?
–
If people believed in logic, why would the world of advertising in the West focus on emotions?
–
Often you will find that people believe that they are acting logically or rationally where in fact we make decisions emotionally.
–
You will probably hate this one Dave. The child (emotional) in us makes the purchase (I want it or I agree with that), the parent gives permission to buy (or agree with the statement) and then the adult rationalises it - Now who could have taught me that? All emotional decisions get rationalised eventually so it appears logical / rational. What car do you drive? Logical / rational or emotional?
–
“It’s not what you belive that harms you it’s what you believe that is just not so” - Mark Twain
Ever rationalised an emotional purchase - I’ll wear it more than one - but it is a safe car too, it has a good re-sell value - etc
Hi Jim,
I don’t disagree with the content of what you say, just the interpretation.
Agreed: everything in life works: desire-permission.
Agreed: desire is right brain, permission is left.
(As Hume said, “Reason is the slave of the passions.”)
So reason, or the appearance of it, can be just another emotion.
But most advertising people can’t see that.
So they kneejerk into emotion message = emotion appeal.
Whereas Bernbach understood a logical message can be a very powerful emotional appeal.
Agreed - why can’t most advertising people see then? I work in sales and not marketing so I have too.
–
What fasciantes me is that knowing that emotions are important why do advertising agencies then try to sell their own services logically - have you noticed that or is it just me? We are this we are that we…
–
great post btw as usual. Doing the washing up? - eeekkk
Surely the biggest contradiction is the lack of advertising by ad agencies. When was the last time we saw a 1/2 decent ad by an ad agency for itself? If we want clients to believe more in advertising, shouldn’t ad agencies themselves take the lead? “The greatest advertising we can do for ourselves is by producing great work for our clients” - comments on that, please.
This is fiddling while Rome burns.
Creative advertising is not being killed by reserarch. It’s dying because it hasn’t adapted to the emergence of measurable media, the decline of mass audiences and shared culture, the shorter role tenure of clients, and the stronger competition that now comes from PR, technology-facilitated word-of-mouth and co-created content.
It’s easy to claim that “success is the willingness to accept failure as part of the journey” when it’s not your money. The average marketing manager spends under three years in a role - they don’t have time for failure to be part of the journey. Or their CV.
Let’s look at Apple, since so many creative professionals lionise them. Apple has a great product in the iPhone, but mundane advertising. It’s all product demonstration and borrowed interest. PR and word-of-mouth have grown the brand, while not-very-creative advertising has reassured late adopters that the iPhone is a bandwagon worth joining. Apple is not the example I’d use to demonstrate a healthy advertising industry. Quite the opposite.
We can laugh when a designer quits Google in protest at having to market test 200 shades of blue. But Google works. It’s the world’s number one brand, and it got there faster than any other brand in history. There’s ‘what works’. And it’s based on consumers and research.
So here’s your choice: Have your ideas rejected by Google, because they didn’t test well. Or have them rejected by Apple because you couldn’t read Steve Jobs’ mind. You can blame the client or you can blame research. I think you should be blaming the failure of advertising - as a discipline - to prove its value and relevance in the marketing mix.
Clients used to trust their agencies above their own judgement and research results. Today, they trust PR agencies and what their consumers are tweeting.
So I don’t disagree with your post at all, Dave. Clients are more cautious. They want to test ideas more. They’re taking fewer risks. My question is: why has advertising lost the trust of clients when other marketing disciplines, in my view, have not?
Creative advertising should be fighting for its place in the marketing mix. Instead, we complain about focus groups.
Perhaps if - as an industry - we could regain the trust of clients, they wouldn’t insist on so much market testing. Or they might be prepared to ignore the focus groups and take more of risk now and then?
Research BEFORE the creative execution, not after it. We all know focus groups don’t work.But would I like to know if a certain color in my ad was alienating my target audience? Absolutely. Which leads me to my dilemma. Throughout my 20+ years in this business, I have always used attractive, fit people in my ads and spots. When I was promoting a college, I would round up the best looking students for the film/photo shoot. Or bring in ringers. No uglies. No fatties. My rationale was that people want to be with attractive people. Guys want to go where there are cute girls, and girls want to go where there are cute guys. And I’ve always followed the advice of an ad sage whose name I cannot recall: Never put a person in your ad that you wouldn’t sit down and have a beer with. But recently I was doing a billboard for a college client. They wanted to use a photo of an obese girl. I cringed. But with 80% of the people in my state now officially overweight, I wonder if I am alienating a large percent of my target by showing normal weight, attractive people? Any thoughts? Help?
Hi Rob,
By all means use fat people as long as they’re attractive.
The rule about people you’d want to go for a drink with, or date, is a good one.
A lot of perfect, skinny, models posing I wouldn’t want to go for a drink with.
But as long as everyone looks like they’re having a good time (not just posing) bring it on.
BTW, I think overweight, esp for a girl, is a better look than obese.
Fantastic post. Mucho gusto.
Norman Berry had a famous quote he used to say to his creatives ‘I give you permission to fail’. Today, creative work seems to have gotten worse, yet it is researched to death.
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2010/05/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-134-135.html
Rick,
first. on Apple. iPod ads were great. “Think different” campaign is a classic. First Mac ads were brilliant. so saying that Apple ads are “mundane” is oversimplified. maybe this goes for latest work, but they have 20 years of extremely good stuff.
second. do you know how much is/was Sex in the city tested? I don’t have a clue. but it would be good to know. it was probably one the best marketing projects in the last decade.
third. on TAC’s blog was a good insight on research (and I quote Howie): “People lie on surveys. Especially if its a subject they feel embarrasingly gluttonous about OR inadequate about. Overstate our income. Understate our weight.” this doesn’t mean you should discard research. but it also doesn’t mean you can take it literally. the only wise use of research is as a starting point. not as a criteria, not as dogma, not as an “order”. it’s guideline. nothing more. that’s what Jobs is doing.
fourth. IMHO creative advertising lost the trust cause it became arrogant. awards played a huge role. we simply traded trust for awards, glitter and spotlight. ans nobody likes that. especially if client is sweating over sales numbers while you’re getting your Lion. big mistake.
Hi Cal,
Norman Berry’s giving people permission to fail is great because
It’s actually giving people permission to succeed unimpeded by themselves.
It’s good to jump in at the deep end sometimes just to see if you can still swim.
Fear stops people from enjoying the fullness of life, especially the unexpected.
I had a full hot cup of tea thrown over me the other day at 6am in the morning.
It came totally out of the blue. That was a new experience I can tell you!
His logic was: I’ve thrown tea over the telly and the hoover for a laugh,
so now I’ll throw it over my carer and see what happens.
My logic initially told me: Because the chap drinks his tea every day, it’s safe.
Superstition now tells me: Give him his tea and retire to a safe distance.
You’re right about learning, Kevin.
Every time I take a chance it works out: two steps forward and one step back.
But I have to remember: I’m still one step ahead of where I started.
If I’d tried to avoid the one step back, I never have taken the two steps forward.
And I’d still be back where I started.
Two steps forward and one step back. Is that the foxtrott?
There’s nothing wrong with either logic or research. The problems occur when we put too much faith in them.
People are not logic machines. Believing in the power of logic to predict human behavior is naive and unrealistic. Anyone who’s been to a football game and still believes people behave logically is clearly delusional.
The problem with ad research is that we are usually not measuring what we think we are measuring.
Most of the research conducted on ads is about as effective at predicting success as consulting my cat, and would be laughed out of any legitimate scientific lab.
Nonetheless, if there were an advertising research methodology that was shown to be effective at predicting sales success I would gladly employ it. It would make my life so much easier.
I think it’s a classic case of deliberate procrastination to get out of washing up. Nice one.
Cathy should have twigged. New book title. Logic is my washpot.
As one has come to expect, Bob Hoffman is right
on the money.
Ciaran
Dave, I cannot tell you how indebted I am to you for this brilliant insight. The implications for advertising are obvious. So I won’t dwell on them. But it’s only when you start examining prevalent worldviews in the light of this insight that its true significance kicks in. Take evolutionary science, for example. Nobody questions it because it is ‘science’. So it’s gotta’ be right, right? I mean, ‘scientists’ say so, right? Forget the fact that none of it has been observed. Forget the fact that none of it has been recreated. As long as it seems logical, it must be right. Right? And then of course, there’s climate change and the massive shifts in policy it has caused. We’ve been conned into buying it because ‘science’ says so. And so does Al Gore. Never mind that stacks of scientists are crying themselves blind at this abuse in the name of science. As long as the logic seems right, that’s what we’ll embrace. Don’t get me wrong. I’m the biggest fan of science there is. I love it. Which is why I can’t bring myself to accept “something out of nothing” no matter how ‘logical’ it may seem.
We love logic because it gives us the feeling of infallibility. Logic panders to our ego. No wonder we’re so bound by it. Who gives a rat’s about reality anyway?
I owe you, Dave!