Let me say first that I am a big believer in, and user of, research. It is essential in marketing. Tell me something I didn’t know, right? Well,  research can be a disaster, too. Especially if it is used indiscriminately, and not balanced with the human judgment and instincts that marketers bring to the process.

Case in point: The recent New Hampshire primary. You’d have to be living under a rock on a deserted island to not know about the massive black eye that polling research sustained in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Prior to last Tuesday’s primary, the polls were almost unanimous in calling for a 10+ point blow out win by Sen. Obama. Even Sen. Clinton’s internal polling apparently predicted a big win by Obama. Of course, it didn’t exactly turn out that way. Clinton beat Obama by a not insignificant two+ percentage points (about 7,500 votes), and the political world was left speechless at how this "comeback" could happen when every poll predicted the opposite result.

Leaving aside what really happened in New Hampshire (and the speculation by egg-on-you-face journalists like Chris Matthews is as silly as it is wild and reckless), the research was dead wrong. But, everyone — the professional politicians, the journalists and pundits — followed those inaccurate polls right over the cliff. They will all think twice about doing so in the future.

As well they should. Relying just on research without checks and balances frequently leads to skewed results, at best, and, at worst, disasters like the New Hampshire primary (except for Hillary and Bill Clinton who got a new lease on life as the Comeback Kids Part Deux). Marketers need to take heed of this. It is not only the political realm that is at risk of  succumbing to faulty research. Marketers fall into this trap every day. They rely too slavishly on research, thinking it must be the Holy Grail because…well, because it’s scientific research. The unfortunate result is frequently ineffective campaigns, product misfires, promotions that don’t deliver, etc.

Most of those truly awful ad campaigns that you know did nothing to drive sales or build brands, were developed based on research and ultimately copy tested. Probably the most famous (infamous) example of the over-reliance on research was the New Coke debacle, now a part of marketing history. According to the much dissected New Coke launch lore, the new product was tested rigorously with consumers, who said they preferred its taste over the original Coca Cola. Of course, those consumers were never asked an important little question, which was: Would you still prefer and purchase New Coke if we got rid of the old version? You know the rest of the story, because it has gone on to represent one of the great marketing cautionary tales. The primary lesson from the New Coke disaster is, in my view, the following: Don’t only rely only, or too heavily, on research. You have to balance it with numerous other check in points and your own taste and instinct to come up with a strategy that has a chance of succeeding in an increasingly unpredictable and fickle consumer marketplace.

Just like warfare, marketing is a combination of art and science (or the emotional and the rational). It’s that emotional dimension which makes research so suspect, so often. Human beings, after all, are emotional beings. They do things and make decisions that are frequently (mostly) based on emotions, not practical, rational considerations. Which is why you cannot trust what they tell you half the time in research. And, why you need to use your own good judgment to balance the research results with what you can see with your own eyes and intuit with your own gut.

One word of caution here. The reverse of my thesis is equally true. if you rely exclusively on your gut, or anecdotal evidence with no research to back it up, you are also likely to make a lot of marketing mistakes. The key is attaining the right blend of the science and the instinct. To be sure, that is easier said than done, but critically important nonetheless. The best marketers — and the most successful politicians — have a knack for doing  just that.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS