Wild Onion Musings

Wild Onion Musings

The Scientific Method for Marketing … and Neutrinos

I woke up this morning to hear that a neutrino had been caught for speeding.  Specifically, it allegedly exceeded the speed of light, although attorneys for the neutrino deny the charge.  Now I do not claim quantum physics expertise, but I gather this is big news.  As in, upending Einstein’s special theory of relativity news.  Granted, it will not impact the way we go about our lives like a surge in oil prices, drop in tax rates, or invasion of Cuba might.  No one apart from a few geeks at MIT or Uof C will lose much sleep over this one. 

But what is interesting is what the scientists in Europe did once they discovered this phenomenon:  they expressed disbelieve in their own findings, and opened up the research methodology and results to the wider scientific community for evaluate.  In effect, they exposed themselves to disrobing on an international scale and having their three years of work torn apart by other scientists.

Within the scientific community, this is not uncommon.  Some scientists during Newton’s time often jealously guarded their mathematical and scientific discoveries, for fear of having a pretender stake a claim on their findings.  Today, the notion of sharing and questioning across the community is well established and part of the linear scientific method:

1. Define a question
2. Observe
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Test
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret and draw conclusions
7. Publish the results
8. Retest, usually by others outside the initial researchers.

The community seeks to validate or refute the assertion, as it no doubt will in scrutinizing the little neutrino’s behavior.

 

Putting a marketing hat on, does the scientific method apply to the development of brands, campaigns, programs?  For the most part, it does, but often in a flawed fashion.

1. Define a question – this happens a lot, such as ‘who are our best customers’, ‘why are sales declining’, ‘which subject line pulls best response and conversion rates’, or myriads of other questions which marketers and their agencies/consultants seek to resolve.
2. Observe – sometimes this step is what leads to the question in the first place.  Declines in sales, response rates, conversion percentages, or whatever other metric is used typically lead to the questions, rather than the other way around. 
3. Form a hypothesis – here is where it sometimes goes astray in marketing, and where subjective beliefs in what should be the reason are often fed into the mix, and further steps in the method aligned to prove the erroneous hypothesis.  This is usually self-preservation (or job protection, more accurately).  For example, a decline is sales is best viewed as a sales force problem than a failure of marketing to effectively manage their brand’s perceptions or provide timely leads or give good customer service.
4. Test – with many companies, the notion of testing and refining is well established.  Perhaps the foremost experts are financial services marketers like American Express, who over the years honed the ‘test, learn, refine’ method for direct marketing and applied it to their digital and social marketing efforts.  But for many companies, ‘test’ is a dirty word which is translated as ‘we don’t know what will work, can’t make a decision, and will have delayed impact on our overall results’.  Companies often don’t think medium term, especially when the CEO is demanding results NOW.  Testing just doesn’t fit within that mindset.
5. Analyze – if you’re looking for a career in marketing, brush up on your mathematical/statistical skills.  Analysis and interpretation of data is a vital component of any campaign.  As long as it is done correctly, that is!
6. Interpret and draw conclusions – here is where shrewd marketers can warp or skew the analysis to suit their hypothesis.  A client I know once had incontrovertible proof from customer research that their loyalty scheme was ineffectual.  Yet the millions invested in developing, launching, and promoting the scheme was far too much (aka heads would have rolled) to allow this facet of the analysis to come to the surface.  The interpretation was skewed, other results highlighted, and the loyalty scheme continued.
7. Publish the results – typically publishing is internally, and within marketing it falls into one of two categories:  a.  “yay, we’re great”; or b. move on to the next campaign.  Unless the campaign serves the career purposes of the marketing team and is successful, the final results are often either ignored or explained away.  Yet my experience is that clever marketing people can take a ‘bad’ campaign and through judicious spin make it sound like a success for the company.  Occasionally the publishing of findings is external at a conference or seminar.  But when was the last time you saw a ‘failure’ campaign as a case study, unless it was swiftly offset by a success in the presentation? Practically, opening up hypothesis and results to the wider marketing community is not practical unless well after the event in question, lest competitors and critics have a field day.
8. Retest – sometimes, retesting is done.  Not by the same marketing team, unless they’re opting for the ‘control’ and ‘best performing pack/email’ methodology of refinement.  ‘Retest’ in marketing circles is typically done by a new CMO or Marketing leader, usually under the guise of claiming the previous person screwed it up but ‘I’ll get it right this time’.

Yet what would be refreshing would be a marketing team who are NEVER satisfied with the status quo.  Who look for new ideas constantly, no matter the source.    That failing but learning on a program or campaign is sometimes as important as success.  And that refining, testing, retesting should be a way of life – not an anathema. 

Unfortunately, with the CEO/CFO demanding speed of light results, it’s pretty unlikely.

A trip back to 1965

If you’re in the marketing business (or the business of marketing), you ought to occasionally look at the past to see a reflection of the future.  I happen to own a copy of Life magazine, May 28 1965.  Can’t remember why I got it – I would have been a toddler at the time it was originally printed.  I suspect it was acquired from one of those funny little shops you find in most towns that stock old books, vintage magazines, and old Coca Cola bottles on the shelves, complete with a layer of dust and a smell of Grandma’s sitting room.

As you leaf through the pages, you pass stories of the newly dedicated JFK memorial at Runnymeade in England, John Lindsay running for Mayor of NYC, and a photo of Ringo Starr on the set of Help!.  Given the advertising: editorial ratio (about 3:1), you invariably are drawn to the various ads and promotions.  Kellogg’s cereals offering the princely sum of 25 cents back as a mail in for two proofs of purchase.  If ever there was a demonstration of the impact of inflation, that shows it!  There’s also double page spreads for Kodak film, the cost of which then would probably equate to today’s global sales of all non-digital cameras and films.  Chrysler offering the unheard of “5-year, 50,000 miles warranty on engines and drive trains”.  And Parker pens with a new product designed for “girl-size hands” which “writes as long as our man-size Jotter”.  Gloria Steinem would have had a field day with that one, except she was still trying to get work following her ‘journalist posing as a Playboy bunny’ days.

Yet what is particularly interesting when you look at old magazines are the brands that survived … and those that didn’t.  From this issue, our survivor list includes Hanes, Contac cold relief, Clairol, Mobil (albeit now Exxon Mobil), Prudential, Carnation instant breakfast (did we, and do we, still buy the notion that one glass equates to two eggs, two strips of bacon, two slices toast and fresh orange juice?), and Canada Dry Ginger Ale.  Many brands featured - Libbie’s sloppy joe sauce, Heublein cocktails, Champale ale - were over time swallowed up by other companies.  And many have disappeared from the US, only to reappear today, like Fiat … albeit at a bit more than $1262 list price for the 600D. 

What separates those that are still with us and afforded national marketing support, and those which fell down and fell prey to acquisition, merger, second tier brand status, and/or discontinuation?  Each brand has a story to tell, a history rich with triumphs and failures, which no doubt someone somewhere may still know.  For example, what befell the Gibson refrigerator company?  In Life,  Gibson had a tip in promotion called the “Frost Clear Sweepstakes” offering 5000 prizes valued at over $1,000,000.  Nice job of working a product benefit into a theme, by the way.  It’s now owned by Electrolux, and doesn’t seem to have much marketing support despite a heritage dating back to 1877.  Did some distributor pull the plug, leading to the Electrolux acquisition?  Did a brand manager push a product innovation which failed?  Did the Marketing Director stick with the turd brown color when lime green became the rage?  Or did one of the winners of 100 VIP jet vacations on Pan Am to Puerto Rico get sunburn and sue the company who had failed to take out insurance against such promotional mishaps?

Yet what is also fascinating about this edition is an ad for Encyclopedia Americana.  This brand is still with us today, owned by Scholastic and moved more on-line for its sales rather than strictly print.  What caught my eye was the body copy in the ad for their encyclopedias, which is about as future proof as you can get:

“The question is, how to make those facts interesting and meaningful and memorable – and worth staying awake for.  We do it by hiring a whole faculty of writer-teachers who are not only experts on their subjects but who know how to tell a good story, too.” 

Remember, this is 1965 we’re talking about here.  Yet in that simple line of copy we see what today many 1000’s of digital agencies, content producers, social media experts, and brands are all saying over and over again, as if it were something innovative.  Americana understood then that to sell an encyclopedia, people had a desire to further their knowledge (or their kids knowledge), but wanted to be engaged while doing so.  Facts by themselves are in the short term interesting, but quickly lose their saliency unless weaved into a broader story.

Like I said, you can learn a lot by looking backwards to look forwards. 

 

Almost makes me want to buy the Marlin by Rambler (part of AMC), with it’s 327 cu.-in. V-8, power disc brakes, and, hold onto your hats, adjustable reclining front seats as standard.  This was the car from his youth which Mitt Romney bemoaned during his gubernatorial campaign in 2002 as being “kinda awful” and his wife described as “goofy looking”.  Interesting that Romney didn’t mention his father’s occupation at the time he had the Marlin:  Chairman and CEO of AMC.