Reviews: The Current State of Advertising Research Seminar
Error Crosbie reviews the Advertising Research Seminar.
The occasion: AQR's Advertising Research Seminar, convened by Peter Dann.
Rushed slightly late into room of 50 people. Why was everyone 20 years younger, wearing cords/slacks off with suit jacket, stuffed tie in 'holder' anyone got a spare toupee?
Then followed a positive, polished and worthwhile day. My pharmaceutically orientated brain slowly tuned in: 'ads' in AQR-speak refer to TV and a 'script' is not a prescription. It was packed with discussion, and some of the ideas are sketched below:
- Planner turned researcher likened transformation as moving from creator to bomber command (rich analogies).
- We shouldn't be judgmental work with the planners (can we remain objective?).
- Brief market research on creative's intentions so that comment and creativity can move forward (ditto objectivity?).
- Negative likeability is the one 'likeability' left to break through ad clutter (logical, but is it right?)
- Consumers don't know what they think so can't help us (shall we all retire?).
- Advertising-aware consumer is now hostile and disdainful of the process (but our immigration policy is designed to provide more virgin consumers?).
- We can't control consumer interpretation (referee!! we try to increase chance of desired communication).
- Provide two simultaneous moderators per group for a richer group (Yup!)..
- Headlights® new method involving post-group Web use (different is nice).
- The marketing revolution is over. Big (global) branding is dying (application to pharmaceuticals?).
- Expect rejection of strong ideas so measure energy (and rewrite all my discussion guides!!!).
- Counter cultural problems by running Asian groups with Asians in Asia (I'll attend).
- We don't need new research methods just do what we do better (ethnography hum).
- Semiotics enriches qual.
List not complete but have doubled word limit of review. Want more ideas? Go next time. AQR nice lead into sleeves-rolled-up day title: 'Does research stifle creativity or does 80% of creativity miss the mark?'
This article was first published in InBrief magazine, July 2001
Copyright © Association for Qualitative Research, 2001