Half way down the steps into Vauxhall tube station, returning from our industry’s annual conference, billed as “The Great Debate”, I think I had an insight.
It seemed a good conference although there wasn’t actually much debate (always a struggle, that), but there were lots of clients, lots of sponsors and for the first time, interactive voting gizmos. And nice coffee.
Perhaps it helped that clients went for half price (“The Great Rebate”) and that the new chair is a client, who works for the Post Office who coincidentally sponsored the event and provided some of the speakers.
For all these improvements, though, the conference on Day One quickly became “The Great Complaint” as a succession of clients and ex-clients ganged up on research and researchers. Here we go again. Take that, you dull, repetitive, unworldly person! Why don’t you know all about our business, from the inside? Why can’t you be more concise, INSIGHTFUL and action-oriented? Why can’t you BE MORE LIKE US?
One session featured a technique called Death By Vox Pop. Two presenters stood up and said, watch this video, then sat down again. What followed was an interminable, random succession of clients (one of whom, I swear, was sitting up in bed) going on and on and on AND ON about how verbose researchers are. If the chair had not intervened, it would still be running now. (A question for the conference organisers, how can A VIDEO over-run its slot?). Apparently Vanella Should-Know-Better Jackson used the same technique on Day Two.
This same session challenged us to “drive business transformation through systemic insight generation”. The following session was about “the rigorous application of research tools and insights being treated as an integral part of any broader marketing activity”. WHAT?!
We were suffering from a bad case of business-speak. As if we were attempting to be more like our clients by sounding more like them. To be fair it was a client (the impressive Greg Nugent of Eurostar) who pointed this out. I don’t understand the Brief, he said, so I’m going to talk about something else! He wanted researchers to be as bold as this.
So in the spirit of boldness, I’ll assert that you cannot manufacture Insight. You don’t get it by talking about ‘ideating’ and ‘innovising’ either. Clarity is the first casualty of marketing. It’s not clear what we even mean by insight any more, despite the fact that research departments are now insight departments. Insight may be the new currency, but it has a highly volatile exchange rate. (All metaphors courtesy of Mike Imms Metaphors Inc)
So this occurred to me on the steps into the Tube. When is an idea an insight? When is information insightful? When it is of value to the client and is not something that they would otherwise have seen. So are insights best derived from the inside (of companies), or do you need some distance, some independence from the organisation, to bring an understanding of the real world and real people to bear on business issues?
I'd argue the latter - and I'd agree with Nick Bonney and Jonathon Fletcher that by working better and more collaboratively with clients, we are all better off. But this is easier said than done.
The thing is, research cannot change business. Only business can change business. As Stephen King said (as quoted in the invaluable 'Master Class in Brand Planning - The Timeless Works of Stephen King')...
"the researcher must be seen as an expert on what is, not on what to do about it ... we should insist that his real role is to interpret and bring to life what goes on in the world”
