Editor's note: Thomas D. Dupont is president of D2 Research, Mountain Lakes, N.J. He is a past chairman of the board of the Council of American Survey Research Organizations.

Does the following scenario sound familiar? Whiskaway is an automatic swimming pool cleaner tablet which, when dropped into the pool, kills bacteria and algae. The brand was introduced using TV advertising with a "convenience" strategy. Sales growth has been substantial, though lately it has started to slow down. The V.P.-marketing has decided that a new strategy is needed, and favors focusing on the core benefit of cleaning. In response, the agency has just finished a creative exploratory and has presented three storyboards, each with a different copy promise. Among them are:

"Kills 99 percent of the bacteria in the pool."

"The #1 choice of professional pool technicians."

At the end of the meeting, after everyone has expressed their opinions, heads turn to the research department representative, who is asked, "So, when can we schedule tests of these commercials?"
Based on 25 years of participation in such meetings, let me suggest some ways the proactive researcher can intervene and make a valuable contribution to the team effort.

1. Systematically question the assumptions underlying the ad. Every ad rests on a set of assumptions about the target market - who they are, what they know or believe, what is important to them and what they are able to understand. In many cases there may be a strategy statement that specifies who the target is and what's important to them (i.e., what benefits should be stressed). Sometimes this is based on research, sometimes not. Rarely (even among the most sophisticated advertisers) is there an explicit statement of what the target knows or can understand. Consequently, the researcher needs to determine what, if any, assumptions the ad makes about the target market.

Will consumers understand the claims being made? Consumers do not hang on every word in a commercial, nor do they always watch carefully what is going on. Advertisers are frequently surprised at the degree to which simple (to them) commercials are misunderstood by consumers. The following questions will help you assess the commercial's potential for confusion.

  • Do the pictures tell one story and the words another? A recent Alamo rental car commercial set very clearly in the future (with flying cars and people in futuristic garb) also included the statement "Alamo is now worldwide." Despite the obvious future setting, some consumers nevertheless interpreted the claim to mean that Alamo cars are now widely available overseas.
  • Does the commercial make a claim that is later qualified, either by voice or in print? Since we know consumers don't necessarily listen to or watch the entire commercial, the qualification may be lost and an incorrect message thereby communicated.
  • When parody is being used, will the audience get it? Several years ago Isuzu ran commercials featuring schlocky car salesman Joe Isuzu making outlandish claims about the automobile - so outlandish no one would believe them. But, did everyone know Joe was intended as parody, or did many take him semi-seriously and translate his sleaziness to a negative image of the car?
  • Does the audience share the experiences that are necessary to make the ad work? Have consumers actually experienced situations like those depicted in the advertisement, and do references to "common cultural experiences" have meaning? Several recent commercials require, as a basis for understanding, that the viewer know who Michael Jordan is and that he recently "un-retired." Doubtless, those ignorant of "Mike" are rare; it is equally true, though, that for this subset of the universe the commercials are meaningless.
  • If celebrities are used, will the audience know who they are? If there is supposed to be a relationship between the celebrity and the brand, will the audience know it? Does the celebrity fit the brand, thus providing synergy, or is the celebrity an add-on? One of the most successful examples of celebrity synergy is Polident denture cleanser's use of Martha Raye as spokesperson during the 1980s. Not only did she show that energetic, glamorous people use denture cleansers, but she had a special synergy with the brand, due to warm feelings about her among the target audience and her nickname "Big Mouth."

Asking these questions and challenging these assumptions can be the researcher's most valuable contribution. It won't win popularity contests, but it will -- when the process produces better advertising - earn respect.

2. Question whether a new strategy is really required. Returning to the original scenario, new strategies are being pursued because someone in power has decided they should be. But, is there a sound basis for the decision? In my experience, advertisers and their agencies often tire of an execution or campaign long before it has outlived its utility. Even when the campaign is truly worn out, a new strategy may not be necessary, just some fresh executions.

The decision to scrap an existing strategy should be based on research showing that something else is better or at least as good. Only then should new executions be pursued.

A few years ago an important client of mine, faced with a brand whose impressive sales growth had flattened, challenged his agency to develop "more intrusive" advertising copy. "Intrusive" was defined as copy that would get high day-after recall scores. The agency labored, producing numerous rough-live TV executions which, when recall tested, produced unsatisfactory results. Finally, though, they were successful, producing one which set a new high score for the brand. The commercial ran for several flights; sales went down. It was pulled off the air and replaced with the old copy; sales recovered.

What happened? To find out, we conducted diagnostic copy research to learn what the commercial was communicating to viewers (yes, we should have done this before it ever went on-air, but in the worlds of advertising and market research, the right thing is not always done). The research results were clear -- the new commercial communicated quite different things about the brand than did the old commercial. It did a very good job of communicating these new things and did so in an ingratiating way (hence its high recall score). Unfortunately, the things it communicated so well had very little motivating power.

The moral to this little story is twofold: vigilance is required to make sure a brand does not drift off strategy; and, changes in strategy should be deliberate and preceded by testing to make sure they are necessary.

3. Determine what needs to be substantiated. Many times, new advertising will contain claims that must be proven. It is the researcher's job to be alert to the need for such testing and to recommend ways to accomplish it. This is not always easy.

It is not always immediately obvious that a particular claim needs to be substantiated. Everyone knows a "we are better than they are" claim needs proof. But what about more subtle claims? Would Clairol's historic "Only her hairdresser knows for sure" copy line require a test conducted among hairdressers? Maybe, maybe not.

It is well beyond the scope of this article to discuss the necessary occasions for and methods of claim substantiation, but within its scope is a fourth admonition to researchers, to wit:

4. Determine when to conduct the substantiation. The copy development and approval process can get hopelessly bogged down in considerations of how to substantiate a particular claim. Moreover, claim substantiation research can be very costly because of the extensive experimental and quality controls required. The problem is magnified when several different claims are being considered.

A very useful procedure, before any commercial is produced or any substantiation is conducted, is to first test the competing claims for motivating power. Importantly, this would include testing alternate versions of a particular claim, such as:

"The #1 choice of professional pool technicians" vs. "Recommended by professional pool technicians."
The requirements in terms of survey method and sample size (to say nothing of likelihood of success) to support the latter claim are far less onerous than those required to support the former. If the two are no different in motivating power, it pays to use the one less demanding of substantiation.

Such simple persuasion testing of claims can be an important shortcut in the development process, resulting in fewer advertisements being produced and tested, and substantiation of only those claims most likely to be used.

These simple examples show how the researcher, acting proactively, can be an important partner in the advertising development process - suggesting procedures to enhance the effectiveness of the advertising and making the entire process more efficient.

Â