Design Week Article

Here is an article I had published in Design Week. It came about after CPB's PR guy, and myself, wrote a letter about testing pack designs. There was, for Design Week, quite a flood of responses, one of them quite virulent. The initial letter was about bad research on some bread packaging, but the response was about not embracing consumer input! Anyway, I was sufficiently worked up to write a considered response, which was too much for the letters page but became an article instead.

The strange thing was that the sub-editor, or whoever writes the synposis (or 'standfirst' as it is correctly called), wrote a very misrepresentative couple of sentences.

They titled the piece "It's new, it's exciting, but it's not clever" and the standfirst was "crowdsourcing and co-creation are the buzz words of the day but Christian Barnett argues for more traditional methods of idea generation".

Anyway, here is the article:

"In recent weeks there has been the start of a useful discussion about the role of research and other consumer ‘input’ into the design process. Though the subject of research in of itself may be a bit of a hoary old chestnut, the impact of ‘new media’, co-creation, and the ability to crowd-source have meant that consumer input has taken on a much broader meaning over the last few years. As such there may be some value in opening up the debate for 2010.

Of course it is a good idea to have consumers involved in the development of work. The best strategies and creative work have some genuine consumer insight baked in. But the best ‘input’ or research is not generally done to decide between different creative expressions of a strategy.

That is a beauty parade and is riddled with problems.

i. It is not possible to make a realistic test of effectiveness in a ‘laboratory’ situation in advance of real-life exposure. We need to be very wary of how we treat results from this type of ‘input’. This is not to say that ‘pre-testing’ is always a bad thing; it isn’t. But it isn’t always a good thing either, and if done, we ought be careful about how we do it, and what agency and client folk take from it.

ii. We need to remind ourselves that consumers are not party to the brief or what we are trying to achieve with any particular piece of creative work. Consumers may not be using the same criteria to judge creative work as the agency/clients are.

iii. Consumers generally like things they familiar with. They tend to stick with what they know. This is ok for some briefs. But for more innovative, break-through or radical briefs that demand that consumers see a particular brand in a new light, you can see how, very quickly, ’ ‘beauty parade’ ‘input’ can get quite tricky. Consumers readily back away from change.

And we also need to remember that assessing creative work on-line means that we are not capturing a whole stack of data points, and arguably the more emotional ones that are crucial when assessing creative work that is intended to elicit some kind of emotional response. Data such as body language, tone of voice, ‘how’ people speak about the stimulus material are all important when looking at creative work. They provide tell tales clues to how people are feeling about the creative work. On-line research may work terrifically well when all that is required is rational recording of data but it is less reliable when addressing creative work that probably merits a more sensitive form of inquiry, and analysis.

The best research is used to inform the brief, to work out what the task is, and give illumination and clues as to how to move forward. This ‘early’ or exploratory research can give us insight into the market and our brand’s position in it, why people are attracted, or not, to our brand. It takes place at a strategic level, has a greater impact on the creative process than the ‘beauty parade’ research, and often helps with how we set the criteria for success when we are in market. It is the most overlooked type of research, in part because the output is some kind of brief which most people are typically less interested in than the tangible creative deliverable.

‘Testing to Destruction’ by Alan Hedges is the classic text on this subject, and though written 40 years ago and primarily about advertising research its lessons still hold good. It should be read by anyone who has a stake or interest in the subject. It is out of print but an updated version is available on the APG website.

Under the heading of consumer ‘input’ comes research, which I have addressed above, and also ‘co-creation’ or ‘crowd-sourcing’. Although inevitably, there is some overlap between the two, for this letter, ‘research’ is more about understanding our consumer better and getting feedback from them whilst ‘co-creation’ invites the consumer to be an active participant in the generation of creative ideas. With co-creation, we are not looking for ‘consumer truths’ or ‘insight’. We are looking for ideas, solutions. It is a very different type of ‘input’. Our increasing familiarity with social networking and digital media allows this type of idea generation to be done quickly, imaginatively and cheaply. The Moving Brands pitch for the London identity was a great example of co-opting consumers – in this case Londoners – to participate in idea generation.

However, though this type of input is exciting, new, and seductive my suspicion is that the best ideas still consistently come out of the best agencies with the best talent that give most of their waking hours to the generation and execution of ideas. And to my mind it would be a tragedy (not to say a serious indictment of our industry) if it was any other way. "