Why overthinking often leads to underwhelming
In 2024, 1.64 million great creative ideas died at the hands of everyday consumers. Now, I may have made that up, but considering how many great ideas our creative teams churn out, it doesn’t seem far-fetched.
Over 80% of marketers believe creative effectiveness is key to a successful campaign. That’s why many brands use concept testing to gauge effectiveness before committing media dollars. But here’s the rub: Have we become too reliant on testing? Are we giving too much weight to what people say before it’s fully ready? And are we letting logic squeeze out the magic?
Research says emotional ads are 4x more likely to drive long-term brand equity in market, yet tend to underperform in testing. Traditional testing favors rational, message-heavy ads that are easier for consumers to understand and respond to logically in that environment, while attention and emotion are the number one factors for in-market effectiveness. If your brand needs a more innovative campaign, something more emotionally driven, there’s a higher likelihood it won’t perform as well in pre-testing. Testing ideas that stretch beyond the logical, functional aspects of your brand essentially asks consumers to think beyond their current understanding or experience. We’re asking for feedback on something new and potentially elusive to them. As Henry Ford once said, “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.”
This is where the reliance on that data could get us into trouble. If we take their reactions and words at face value, it can really dull the edges or, worse, kill ideas. Relying on questions like, “Do you like this?” or “Which is better?” to dictate our decisions makes consumers the judge and jury. Just because they “don’t like it” doesn’t mean it’s wrong. A strong emotional reaction could be an insight into the power of the idea.
To quote Les Binet and Sarah Carter, "...when researching anything new, a polarised strong response is often a more reliable predictor of success than a uniformly mild liking."
We want our audience to feel something, contribute their unique understanding, and collaborate.
Treat concept testing like a coach and collaborator
Concept testing should make a good ad better. We are masters of our crafts, we know when an idea has something. We know its potential. Time to sharpen it.
So, what value can testing provide?
Basic comprehension: Do they understand our message? Do they know what the main takeaway is? Do they get it? Essentially, are we delivering on our communications objectives? If not, we tweak. We make them more explicit, clearer, simpler, etc.
Is it innovative? Did they learn something new, were they surprised, did it make them pay attention? Do we stand out? If not, we tweak. We add faster music, we swap out scenes, we get reaallll detailed with casting, etc.
Do they have a reaction? Instead of “like or dislike,” how did it make them feel? Again, polarizing isn’t bad; apathy is. But if the reactions are a bit too emotionally charged, we tweak.
The whole point is to optimize and improve what already exists while ensuring the edges are still pointy. That’s where the art of advertising can harness the data that comes from testing.
But there is no silver bullet predictor or sole metric that will show you that this ad is going to be the most effective ad to date. Instead, evaluate responses based on the problems it was meant to solve in the first place, then use your years of experience, creative gut, and wealth of knowledge to proceed. And if that still feels too risky, consider testing it in social with real assets in the wild. The spend is less, and the reactions are instant.
Catch more of our POV on this strategy in a future piece. 😉
