art of conversation

SUPERMARKETS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Did you see Horizon last night? Billed as a scientific inquiry into the suspiciously impressive, scientific claims made by marketing, the programme was more spin than substance.

Horizon is the BBC’s “flagship scientific strand” and now uses more slick marketing techniques than the average TV advert. Professor Lesley Regan was dubbed "the prof” and we saw a lot of her (rather trendy) shoes, along with people in a stylised studio with white coats and heavy eye make-up, products being put into a kind of refrigerated, reverse Room 101.

In a very post-modern twist, the prof investigated ‘supposedly scientific’ claims by doing a highly unscientific experiment involving 10 pairs of twins. So it was science, done as entertainment, which told us in effect to keep buying brand name goods but to ignore superfoods and organic produce. Thanks, prof.

Ships Passing in the Night

I wanted to post a mini-observation now six months into my qual life (see first post) which may (or may not) be familiar to you …

It’s late in the evening. The train pulls in to Euston station and I’m standing at the train door waiting to get off. I notice a man to my left holding a ‘Spectrum’ viewing facility bag stuffed with polyboard.

“Market Reseacher?” I ask.

“Yep. Been talking to young men about lads mags in Manchester. How about you?”

“To mechanics in the Midlands about employment,” I answer.

“It’s fun life on the road.”

We smiled at each other and parted.

A little people talk

Doing qualitative research you come across a lot of people. Typically, one group of people ('clients') is trying to understand another group of people ('consumers'). Our job is to facilitate this.

I am just back from a sabbatical, having had a baby. Meet Amelia, six weeks old.

It took me a while to realise this, but babies are people. Little people, but people nonetheless. They communicate their needs and desires to us ('waaaiiigghhrr'!) and our job is to listen and interpret the sounds and read the other signs (the facial expressions, the body language etc).

So why is it that when we interview grown-ups, some clients say, yes but, is that true / why do they keep contradicting themselves / do they really mean that? You don't say to a baby, 'for heaven's sake, can't you be more consistent!'. So why expect people in groups to 'be consistent' or to have answers or deliver insights. Grown-ups need attention and support and encouragement, just like babies do.

Good research comes down to interpretation and in order to get the answers and the insights, like good parenting, you need curiosity, sympathy and patience.

Babies. Something to teach us all.

Getting the Point

As the new girl at Wardle McLean, I am really pleased to be joining a team that places ‘conversation’ at the heart of what we do as qualitative researchers. However, as Kevin has previously discussed, so much of our communication is non verbal and I realised that whilst away on holiday over Christmas, I was totally intrigued by how we interact with each other when there is no common language.

As we tried to get directions, I saw a gesture that usually infuriates me when I’m back in the UK. The gesture is only ever used by Politicians (hence the infuriation!) who, instead of pointing, which is far too aggressive by all accounts, will make a fist and place their thumb on top and use this to gesticulate. However, I found the same gesture is used in Malaysia where it is considered incredibly rude to point.

Whilst I still find politicians rather annoying, I’m intrigued that there can still be such large differences in the meaning of such small gestures. Indeed, in The Times this week, an article pointed to the importance of understanding local customs relating to non-verbal communications for soldiers in Afghanistan.

So even though I’m back home and able to converse with people, I’ll be watching closely to see what they are saying when they are not talking and how they say it!

Katie

TV advertising - Inform or entertain?

I like to think that I watch television to be entertained.

Cadbury’s ‘Guerilla’ made this quite clear for us in 2007. It does show that we love TV ads in the form of an entertaining story or spectacle (Sony ‘Balls’ and Guiness ‘Surfer’ also leap up as my top of mind examples).

Speaking recently with a friend who’s an agency creative, he told me some advice give to him as a creative newbie. His creative peers told him to make sure the creative grabs the viewer first and incorporate the rational elements (product benefits, price etc) secondly.“You need to make them switch on and take notice”, he went on. “A lot of the time, we present work and in the end the safest, most boring one gets chosen”.

I feel the more we see ‘safe’ advertising (facts & figures), the more we’ll switch off (and over). Should a bit more trust be relinquished to the creative agency? Could this produce more entertaining and effective advertising for viewers? Could this mean a few more £ in the coffers of advertisers?

It’s a tough call for advertisers to risk big budgets on more ‘entertaining’ advertising. From the POV of the armchair consumer, I’m sure this will make them sit up more in between Corrie.