This week, the Advertising Research Foundation held it's annual conference and this seemed to be one of the big topics. In fact, it's also one of the major initiatives coming out of the recent reports on how people are receiving advertising.
The research will be done in three phases, but it is the 3rd phase that caught my eye! It's very exciting to see major industry associations start to back the conversation that we've been having for several years. And for those of us in what used to be called the themed entertainment industry, we've known for many years that it's all about using great stories and narratives to create an emotional bond.
In what is believed to be the first initiative of its kind and scale, the ad industry Tuesday unveiled plans to measure the role emotions play in the effectiveness of advertising campaigns. The effort is premised on new learning from the field of neuroscience that has revolutionized how researchers think about the way people process thoughts and synthesize information, including advertising. The approach suggests that consumers are no longer passive receivers of ad messages, but are active collaborators in the process and actually bring new meaning to ad campaigns, as well as the brands they are intended to instill.
The third phase will focus on the "co-creation of stories," which researchers believe will be the future of ad communication. During the co-creation process, consumers receive an ad message, incorporate it with their "existing thought structure, and "create new meaning," said Zaltman, who gave a rousing presentation during the ARF conference that seemed to inspire a good amount of thinking among the ARF attendees.
Of course, not everyone in the ad industry is as open to the idea of bring neuro-research into the advertising industry, especially as it relates to the creative process.
In a follow-up presentation, Keith Reinhard, chairman of DDB Worldwide, and a chief guardian of Madison Avenue's creative process, bristled at the notion that neuro researchers might create a "new set of rules" for ad agencies to create ads around. While he said he welcomed "new learning," he argued the creative process should be left to the creatives. "Artists have always intuitively known this. That's why they are artists," Reinhard countered, referring to Madison Avenue's implicit understanding of the role between emotions and advertising.
He suggested that the best measurement of whether that is working or not is the one that "happens at the cash register."
Once again taking a leadership position in the industry, P&G seems to be taking a very proactive role in understanding not just the delivery of the message, but the actual experience that one has with the advertising message.
Later, Leanne Hensley, senior manager-advertising research, at Procter & Gamble, acknowledged that P&G was moving in this "direction," noting that the marketer has recently grown concerned about its focus on "ROI" (return on investment) measures that are focused primarily on sales, and less so on the consumer experience with advertising messages.
"We feared we may lose this component as we go along," she said advocating a new description of ROI that has also become popular in some media agency circles: "Return on involvement."
Do you agree/disagree? Is this the ad industry giving good lip service to a new concept or do you think that they're really ready to embrace a new world of advertising? Is advertising simply about moving product or should there be greater emphasis on "Return on Involvement."
We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts and we'll be putting together a report on these iniatives in a future issue of Belwether.