Morons And Their Money

As we reported earlier this week, after conducting a 16 month study the geniuses at Comcast and Starcom MediaVest have concluded that people are more likely to watch commercials about products they're interested in. Astounding!

In keeping with this insightful finding, I would like to propose the following research studies to Comcast and StarCom Mediavest:

• A 5-year study to confirm that sweaty feet don't smell so good.
  
• A 29-month study to show that people prefer putting their toothpaste on the "furry" end of the toothbrush.
• A 3-year study to determine whether love grows where my Rosemary goes..
  
• A 9-month study to determine if the average cheerleader thinks dead rats are gross.
  
• An ongoing tracking study to learn whether anyone at Comcast or Starcom MediaVest has properly functioning brain cells.

QUESTION:
What is a MediaVest?

ANSWER:
Part of a 3-piece MediaSuit.

JUST ASKING:
If Comcast merged with Starcom, would they call it Comcom?

Imagine What They Could Have Found If They Had 17 Months

Listen up people. Here is some astounding news from the frontiers of marketing science.

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that after a 16 month study Comcast and Starcom MediaVest have concluded that people are more likely to watch commercials about products they're interested in.

Now you may be asking yourself -- 'what kind of frickin' idiots need a 16-month research study to figure that one out?'

There can only be one answer, my friend -- big, dumb advertising idiots.

The Consumer Knows Nothing

There was a time when advertisers weren't afraid to make decisions. They would trust their judgment. They wouldn't be too timid to have an opinion.

Unfortunately, those days are gone. Now, every creative decision is made by "the consumer"-- i.e., research.

This would be fine if there was a reliable research methodology to determine advertising effectiveness. But there isn't. I've been involved in about a million creative decisions made by "the consumer" and you might as well have had my cat make the decision.

I've never worked on the Apple account, but I'll bet you Steve Jobs doesn't let "the consumer" make advertising decisions for him.

As a former science teacher, I have a healthy regard for the difference between facts and bullshit. Consumer research has its value for certain kinds of marketing and strategic issues. When it comes to creative decisions, however, the consumer knows nothing.

Don't Ya Love Research?

On the same day last week I read the following two research findings:

1. A poll by We Media/Zogby Interactive showed... "Nearly half of the 1,979 people who responded to the survey said their primary source of news and information is the Internet, up from 40 percent just a year ago. Less than one third use television to get their news..."

2. "According to the survey, which Hearst-Argyle president and CEO David Barrett discussed at the conference, 55% of respondents cited TV as their primary source of news information, ahead of the Web (26%) ..."

Don't ya love research?

Lame Excuses

I love to pick on the research industry. They're so full of shit. They make proclamations with such certainty. And then backtrack so timidly.

The researchers who were all so wrong in New Hampshire, wrong in California, wrong everywhere else this primary season are looking for reasons why they were so wrong. (Remember just a few months ago when Hillary and Rudy were locks to be the candidates? When McCain was dead?)

The excuse I like best is that people changed their minds and didn't do what they said they'd do.

The question I have is this: How can you be a researcher and not know that people don't do what they say they're going to do? How clueless do you have to be not to know this? How can you be a professional researcher and still take what people say at face value?

And how can we in business possibly be expected to take what you say seriously about consumer motivation -- which requires subtle analysis and interpretation -- when you can't even count correctly?

(For more on this, see Research Knuckleheads)

2012 Came Early This year

On October 23, 2007, TAC wrote an entry called "Baloney Sandwich." It said:

...Second was this piece of baloney from CNET:

"A report by U.K.-based Datamonitor, titled 'The Future of Social Networking: Understanding Market Strategic and Technological Developments' predicts that growth in the number of people signing up to be a part of the cultural phenomenon, which has put the likes of Facebook on the map, will peak by 2009 and plateau by 2012."

Really? Wanna bet? These guys know as much about what's going to happen to Facebook in five years as...about what stocks we're going to buy tomorrow.

Well, I love to be the one to say I told you so, so here's a little excerpt from this week's Business Week. It's from a piece called "Generation MySpace Is Getting Fed Up"

Uh-oh. Social networking was supposed to be the Next Big Thing on the Internet. MySpace, Facebook, and other sites have been attracting millions of new users, building sprawling sites that companies are banking on to trigger an online advertising boom. Trouble is, the boom isn't booming anymore...many people are spending less time on social networking sites or signing off altogether.

The MySpace generation may be getting annoyed with ads and a bit bored with profile pages. The average amount of time each user spends on social networking sites has fallen by 14% over the last four months, according to market researcher ComScore..."What you have with social networks is the most overhyped scenario in online advertising," says Tim Vanderhook, CEO of Specific Media...

And clueless "researchers", as usual, dressing up bullshit to look like facts.

More Research Crap

According to Online Media Daily consumers are 47% more engaged in ads that run in television programs viewed on line than those watched on a TV set. The research was conducted by Simmons, a unit of Experian Research Services.

Bullshit.

If any other industry was as irresponsible with its claims as the research industry, they'd be thrown in jail.

Here's the part I love: "The study defines "engagement" according to six characteristics that respondents identify with media: "inspirational," "trustworthy," "life-enhancing," "social interaction," "personal time-out" and "ad receptivity."

Huh? "Trustworthy" may be a characteristic of media, but "ad receptivity" is a characteristic of a person. And what in the world is "personal time out" a characteristic of? These people are not just irresponsible, they're stupid and would be laughed out of any legitimate scientific laboratory.

Anyway, according to these bozos, all you Super Bowl advertisers better find something a little more "engaging" (the Super Bowl is not "life-enhancing" and "inspirational," you know).

Do these idiots have any idea how advertising works?

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN

Research Knuckleheads

Pollsters were wrong -- some by more than 10% -- in their predictions of the outcome of the Democratic primary in New Hampshire.

You'd think that with all the money these guys make, and the inflated sense of importance they have, at least they could count correctly. Answering the question "how many?" is so much easier than answering the question "why?"

And yet gullible marketers still rely on these "researchers/social scientists" to tell them how to run their businesses. (See Research or Baloney?) These people are unreliable and anyone who listens to them is nuts.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN

Dirty Rotten Liars

A while ago we posted something called "Research or Baloney".

The subject was the unreliability of online research. Since then, the ARF (Advertising Research Foundation) has called for a study of online research.

One of the points we made was that online samples are terribly unreliable because you can never know who is responding. If a sample is unreliable, the results are worthless.

Now Business Week confirms our opinion with an article about rampant lying online by teens.

Yes, online research is cheaper and quicker. But cheap, quick research can turn out to be costly for a long, long time.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN

Baloney Sandwich

I came across two marketing stories today that made me want to scream. Or even worse, update my blog.

First from the Boston Globe. A story about how net research can explain everything in the universe.

"You can use online data to predict what consumers are doing across every facet of their lives," said Stephen DiMarco, chief marketing officer of Compete Inc., a Boston firm that tracks Web traffic. "The Web is so mainstream and so ingrained . . . this is kind of like the dawn of a new age."

Yeah, this is kind of like the dawn of a new age...of total nonsense. So, Steve, if the web can predict "every facet of their lives" please tell us what stocks they'll be buying tomorrow so we can make a little money on this deal.

Second was this piece of baloney from CNET:

"A report by U.K.-based Datamonitor, titled "The future of social networking: Understanding market strategic and technological developments," predicts that growth in the number of people signing up to be a part of the cultural phenomenon, which has put the likes of Facebook on the map, will peak by 2009 and plateau by 2012."

Really? Wanna bet? These guys know as much about what's going to happen to Facebook in five years as the guy from Boston knows about the stocks we're going to buy tomorrow.

TAC predicts: Bullshit press releases from research companies will increase in 2010, come with side curtain airbags in 2016, and be available in both regular and sour cream and onion in the year 2525 (if man is still alive.)

(For more on this, please see Sky Not Falling, Update)

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN

Big News from Brandweek

Stop the presses! Here's some huge news. Consumers favor brands that offer them good quality at a low price! Oh my god!

"The 26,000 men and women polled... showed a strong inclination to brands that either saved them money or were perceived as having good value" is how Brandweek reported it.

A company called Brand Keys did the survey. Apparently, they had to poll 26,000 people to figure this out. Ya think we could have saved these people some money?

But wait. There's more. Just the name of the survey tells you it was run by nitwits: The "2007 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Leaders List" is what it's called.

Congratulations to Brand Keys on squeezing every horrible cliche and buzzword in the marketing lexicon into one survey title. A masterful achievement. And just for the record, what language is that?

Oh, and one more thing -- a warning to anyone who uses the word "engagement." I'm going to come after you. I mean it.

Note to Brand Keys and Brandweek: In case you haven't read "Everything You Need To Know About Branding on One Little Page" on The Ad Contrarian web site (and shame on you if you haven't!) here is an excerpt:

'You want to have a strong brand? Quit “branding”. A strong brand is a byproduct. It comes from doing a lot of other things right. For example:

1. Make sure you’re selling excellent products.

2. Make sure you're taking good care of your customers.

3. Make sure your ads demonstrate how you are different and better than your competitors.'

Didn't need 26,000 people to figure that out.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN