the art of conversation

Insight Show 2010

 
We've been busy preparing for the Insight Show at the Grand Hall, Olympia, 29th and Wednesday 30th June, where we have a stand (D410, in fact). 

Here we are hard at work, setting up yesterday morning.

 

We're presenting two case studies under the title of 'Seeing is Believing, Latest Developments in Ethnographic Research', on Wednesday at noon in the Henley Suite.

The first study was with Virgin Trains who reveal the strategy behind their new ‘modal shift’ campaign. We demonstrate how filmed ‘co-discovery’ interviews deliver unique insight into the Virgin Trains passenger experience.

The second talk focuses on a new, ethnographic app Siamack has frequently blogged about. 

The edl APP is a brand new mobile phone application (iPhone and Blackberry), an innovative capture tool and a means of editing and collating real life events via video, pictures, audio and text. We discuss how it works in practice and why Coca-Cola are rolling it out globally as an in-house tool.

Both talks will be put on the Insight Show website some time soon, we shall link to this as and when.

In the meantime, if you can, do drop by stand D410 to say 'hello' and see what insights (and some surprises) we have on show.

Simon

Exclusive! World Cup Ad Shoot Out

The World Cup kicks off today (in case you hadn’t noticed). The advertising stakes are high, with Nestle courting controversy with Mars. 

How did the sportswear brands do? Adidas bagged the official sponsorship, Nike is the outsider (again). So, who won the advertising penalty shoot-out?

First up is Nike: 

The creative idea of sportsmen taking (or not taking) their chances may not be original (think Guinness, Believe) but that is a minor gripe. This 3-minute extravaganza took up the whole ad break and is breathless and highly re-watchable. It must have cost as much as its heroes' combined monthly salaries. So confident, such swagger, an amazing piece of film.

A shame that ITV managed to cut the ending the first time it aired. What a Nikemare. 

Our verdict: spectacular goal. Back of the onion bag. 

Then there's Adidas' effort:

It is contemporary, eye-grabbing, in a Sin City style. But as Rooney Carruthers writes in Campaign: "I've watched this ten times now and I still don't get it. Zinedine Zidane bombs about in a retro car. Lionel Messi and David Villa do some great foot tricks and that is it" 

Verdict: Fluffed it. Stuttering run-up, tried to be too clever then bobbled it straight at the keeper. 

So Nike is the clear winner and deserves to be - hang on a minute, a fan in an England shirt has just run on to the pitch and is about to take their own penalty...

It is not competing with Nike and Adidas in budget but we suspect it has every bit as much impact. As Jon Howard says, there's not an overpaid football star in sight. It's about us, not them. It uses the national anthem but it is not portentous or grandstanding. (It's possibly not as re-watchable, either.) It's a penalty taken in slow motion. We watch, spellbound. The ball trickles over the line.

Verdict: an ad for the Age of Austerity. The excessive creative brilliance and money-no-object arrogance of Nike is going the way of Britpop or Lehman Brothers. The trouble with creative excess is for every Nike hit there are seven adidas flops. Or worse still, you get something like those Olympic mascots. 

This is toned down, scaled back, ever so Umbro.

And it gets our vote (some of us at least). 

So What?

‘So what?’ is the question that researchers are increasingly encouraged to ask of every chart in a presentation.

It’s a way of forcing your mind to go beyond reportage, ie not just to report what people say but what it means for the business. It’s a way of isolating findings which may be interesting but have no application, finding the most relevant points which really make a difference.

‘So what’ thinking used to be incorporated into research presentation charts as an output. The research findings would typically be in the top part of the chart, then the ‘so what’ or the implications or conclusion would run along the bottom, as the ‘bottom line’.

The latest extension of ‘So what?’ thinking is to put the conclusion in the headline. So a busy executive looking through the presentation on a screen can just read the headlines, the bottom line - now at the top.

Can you spot the flaw in this process?

The problem is that the researcher might leave out the more interesting implications. We may sacrifice quality and texture in the drive for answers and simplicity.

The researcher is now serving up 'convenience food'  instead of a gourmet meal where you can taste the individual ingredients.

The risk is that the client pays lip service to ‘consulting the consumer’ instead of actually listening and taking the feedback into account.

‘So what?’ is also the name of one of the most famous jazz tracks ever recorded on the ‘Kind of Blue’ album by Miles Davis. It’s brilliant, atmospheric, and highly emotional. It has no bottom line.

I know what you’re thinking: ‘So What?’

Dominic