Uh oh, that guy on the left has an issue with Frame 16
With all that gushy love stuff in my last post, I feel a need to dredge up some painful memories to make up for it. This is what I call “fair and balanced.” So today’s topic will be that longtime nemesis of creativity: testing. We should start by grudgingly accepting that testing is just a fact of life with certain clients. However, one thing we should never accept — grudgingly or otherwise — is the misuse of testing. This not only kills great work and depresses people, it’s a horrific waste of money.
To make your blood run cold, I have a favorite example. (Kindly relive your own nightmares by adding your comments for the amusement of all.) Not sure if it’s still the case, but for a long time Intel had a large in-house group that specialized in this dark business. Their mission was to unrelentingly test around the world to make doubly-triply sure that Intel’s advertising convinced everyone and offended no one. Creative ideas were tested no less than three times: at the concept stage (to determine which ads to run), after production (so we could tweak before going public) and after the ads had already run (so we could tweak again and/or gain “learnings”). If you’re a fan of the Rack or other instruments of torture, you will especially enjoy the way they went at it with a 30-second TV spot. After viewing, individuals would be shown a series of 30 frames — one for each second of the commercial. They were asked if they could recall each frame, and in this way all 30 frames were rated on their effectiveness. Never mind that some of these frames were transitional and not exactly high points of the story. The research group would present a voluminous report, complete with suggested “improvements.” After all, we couldn’t have a spot in which the test audience was under-thrilled by the 4th, 12th and 21st frames. It was at this time that the creative team would jump to its feet to explain what most children pick up after their first viewing of Dumbo: a good movie has peaks and valleys, and the peaks don’t feel very peaky without the valleys. Intel seemed to be of the mind that if they were spending a million bucks, they should really get their money’s worth — out of every frame. Granted, a commercial does need to get noticed, but if I were an advertiser I’d be a little more concerned about what happens after the last frame. Like what kind of impression did the viewer walk away with?
The way different companies use or don’t use testing is a rich, rich topic that will likely come up often here. I’ll bet there are some really uplifting stories out there as well as excruciating ones, because (thankfully) smartness has a way of winning in the end. I’d love to hear which companies are doing it right and wrong.
Tags: focus groups, intel, ken segall
