DISQUS

curiouslypersistent · 2 months ago

As you will no doubt agree, research is a service chosen. So ultimately - unfortunately - people/budgetholders will buy what they want, rather than what they need. It's like a reverse jagger.

charlesfrith · 2 months ago

I've got some radical ideas for improving research Simon. I'm pitching a few companies in the region but I'm expecting resistance to change so I doubt any will move the business forward. And as you know I think Asia made mistakes by lifting, wholesale Western research methodologies so they're not going to adopt new stuff if the West hasn't done it yet. But in any case. If there's no biting here I'd like to talk you through my radical idea for a less iterative and more fruitful research process. You up for it? It's dangerous but exciting too.

Subbu · 2 months ago

No researcher or client or planner has been able to convince me that researching creatives is possible. Creative is a non-linear process while research is linear. Research to evolve positioning, strategy etc are okay. As regards creative, I have seen far too many good ideas being trashed in research to have any sort of respect for it. The 'strike-rate' of research-winning creatives doing well in the market place is abysmally low. This is a fact research agencies fail to disclose even though it is very obvious. This post in Fast Company generated an interesting conversation that might resonate with your post http://bit.ly/tlAsW

charlesfrith · 2 months ago

Hi Subbu. Great comment and link. I've acutely aware that my thought processes are unfinished because I need to research my hypothesis but something tells me I'm right anyway. How about this as a starter. Why don't we stop research to discover something we need to know? Why don't we research to discover what we can then conclusively say 'we don't know'. That's a great starting point for creativity. People are rubbish at saying why something is better but very good at knowing that something is better. I've listened to people from all walks of life talk about why a wine, movie or book is fantastic and yet when I ask them to break it down (these are ad hoc situations, not forced depth interviews or focus groups) they tend to provide rational explanations that are invariably extremely thin. If we changed the process to filter out what we can identify as true ie. We know X% prefer route A, but we know that Y Variable contributes towards that but how we don't know then it's a great place to kick off creative processes again. Any thoughts? It probably doesn't make much sense here but there's something powerful in using a methodology that is all about proving where we're wrong and not right. Counterintuitive but intuitively I think it's a great place to be. Context is everything so I'd probably need to provide an example for it all to hang together coherently in peoples minds. Maybe I need to think that through on a better example.

curiouslypersistent · 2 months ago

Absolutely. You have my email, so any time...

Subbu · 2 months ago

'What we don't know' is a great starting point. However, hasn't that always been the unstated objective of research? More importantly, the holy grail - insight - is supposed to be derived from it giving us all our eureka moment! This does not happen as we continue to research what we know. The reason 'what we dont know' does not happen is because of faulty technique. There is a need to explore different research styles for different categories. For example, a focus group for liquor brands might seem like an AA meeting and will completely put-off the respondents. This is what happened in the case of an important brand I was handling. I pointed this to the research agency and client, which pissed them off even more!

I am fundamentally questioning whether research of creative(s) or idea is possible? Please check the following links wherein Scott Bedbury expresses lucidly what we have been discussing. http://bit.ly/4aEugm & http://bit.ly/2BrkFA

charlesfrith · 2 months ago

OK I haven't articulated myself quite well. That plus I don't want to give everything away as I'm talking to a few people about better research methodology. But here's a crucial point. When I say research what we don't know I mean that current research is to discover something that isn't known and then becomes known. But if the research were structured to leave that unknown...unknown (sorry for sounding like Rumsfeld at this point) then creatively it opens up expansive creative elbow room. Rather that have the research become a didactic weapon for knocking all the interesting bits off we should be saying research proves that this is the area where we need to be in order to be intersting. But we can't articulate it. Only creative can bring it to life. Picasso talked like this with sculpture (I think it was Picasso) He said anything that doesn't look like the a lion I chip away at until I have a sculpture of a lion. This is a crude way to say that I think research should be defining what isn't the answer but leaving the answer in the hands of the creatives. I'll check out those links now. Thanks for that Subbu.

Subbu · 2 months ago

I get the drift. I love the fact that it is about giving creative the much needed elbow room.It sounds interesting and more importantly promising. It will definitely be a leap from what we have today. I am looking forward to the final articulation of the idea.