Time for a new narrative in advertising research

Life used to be so much simpler.

You work on Madison Avenue, smoke and drink all the time and treat clients and women with equal contempt.

At least on Mad Men.

The reality of life in adland nowadays is much tougher: more media, more brands, more advertising, more cynical consumers.

It is hard to create truly original, impactful advertising ideas. And just as hard to research them.

All you can do is try to work closely with the team in the best interests of the brand.

 

So it’s galling when divisive old stereotypes from bygone eras are trotted out, usually along the lines of ‘Shortsighted Research bludgeons Genius Creative Idea’. And the example almost always chosen is the Myth of Those Great Heineken Ads.

Persuasive people have dined out on the story so often that it has stuck. It goes like this: agency creates brilliant and original advertising idea (‘Refreshes the Parts’), research says ‘don’t do it’, but brave client sticks by agency and campaign goes on to be massively successful for the brand.

This story is gleefully used as a stick to beat research with, so a while ago we decided to investigate.

Here’s a write-up and some charts. (Warning, contains research which threatens your creativity).

In summary:

• the first piece of (now infamous) research did call it wrong, but more research a few months later found the ads clever, amusing and impactful, but questioned longer-term brand equity, rather presciently as it turned out
• sales of all lager brands went up massively over the following two very hot summers but Heineken did not increase its market share
• in fact, the longer the campaign continued, the more negative brand equity was reinforced, until the brand was withdrawn from the market altogether

So research was blamed for trying to kill a campaign (except it didn’t) which became a massive success (except it didn’t). Cold-filtered Heineken joined the ranks of failed beer brands (Hofmeister, Skol) while some of its competitors thrive (Fosters, Carling).

The blame game undermines everyone. Not all creative ideas are genius, not all research is short-sighted, not all clients are timid (another brickbat often lobbed out). These days good communications require more of a team effort.

So it’s refreshing when a Young Turk like Tony Quinn, JWT Planning Director, says that planning needs to  embrace collective skills like curiosity and problem-solving, to be more humble and open to worlds beyond its own boundaries, because sharing is ultimately more rewarding than being right.   

‘ditch the cynicism, the undermining, the poking and the ranting, and  rechannel all that energy into a new attitude of sharing and collective inspiration’

The new generation of planners take a much more collaborative and inclusive approach and draw on sources like observation, immersion, semiotics, ethnography, analytics (research, in other words) because they know that great ideas and good thinking are not incompatible.

So, farewell divisive Heineken advertising myth, hello generous planning 2.0 and more effective communication.

Comments

[Paul Feldwick]

I think this paper is a really useful and important piece of work.
It's a fact that Heineken never in thirty years even entered an IPA Effectiveness Paper and this explains why.
Ithink the question remains open whether the advertising was a complete waste of time, or contributed to the decline of the brand. Although the lager market went through the roof in the mid seventies, it was some sort of an achievement to hold on to share as the market grew.There's a good argument that advertising's effect on brand salience should have impacted sales.
But as you say, not as much an achievement as gaining share would have been.
Over time, the product (UK brewed gnats piss) became increasingly out of touch with a fast changing market and Whitbread were having astonishing results with Stella (see four IPA winning papers). It made strategic sense to let it go.
Having made all those allowances, the Heineken Myth is I think effectively debunked by your story.
Do you plan to publish this or present it at a conference?

[kevin]

hi Paul, many thanks for the comment. I did actually present a paper with Jan Zajac to Adamp (now WARC of course) in 06, I think. Bar charts and everything! Probably a bit too long. Btw did WCRS ever put in for an IPA Effectiveness paper for CBL? Some interesting developments in the argument, I shall send you a note on another frequency...

[Simon]

Really great post Kevin. Good that it reinforces that research, planning and clients are not territories to be guarded, but are open to make 'better' advertising. An advertising problem shared is a problem halved etc etc.