It almost always seemed to me a considerable exaggeration to expect that advertising campaigns should make people fall in love with brands, products or services.
Even when it comes to admired and inspiring companies like Apple, Coca Cola, Google or Microsoft or products like Nespresso, i-phone, it may be a little too much to talk about the consumer’s ‘love’ for brands or products.
In my opinion, an advertisement reaching the goal of making a person ‘like’ a brand, product or service is already a considerable challenge, even more thinking about items such as: toilet paper, toothpaste, banks, insurance, telephony cellphone etc.
In this way, the evaluation of ‘like & dislike’ – ‘likability’ – consists of something more realistic, more plausible and more logical, if we think in terms of conquering the target audience through advertising.
There are different studies on the market in the market, some including those from the ARF – Advertising Research Foundation, highlighting the predictive potential of ‘likability’, while others are already less emphatic and even skeptical.
The way in which ‘like & dislike’ has been measured in conventional research is mostly based on two classic formulations: ‘Did you like the advertising you watched?’ And ‘Would you like to watch it again?’
It is important to note that both the usual findings of this ‘likability’ are based on the declaratory and rationale of people, regardless of whether they are qualitative or quantitative approaches.
Far from stating that the results obtained in these formats are invalid, the point that deserves to be discussed is the extent to which such an evaluation would be sufficiently correct or adequate for an evaluation of advertisements.
A point to be considered in this ‘traditional’ criterion is the risk that respondents ‘(or participants’) responses will be contaminated by ‘politically correct’.
The format also does not allow for a more refined metric in terms of precision, tending to polarize between the two extremes (‘liking’ and ‘not liking’) which, in a way, makes it difficult to identify the necessary adjustments or even comparisons with the competitors.
On the other hand, when we evaluate the existing possibilities of measuring the same ‘like & dislike’ of advertisements with the resources of neuromarketing, the options present themselves with much more abundance.
Initially, it would be worth highlighting the multiplicity of measurement techniques available and capable of fully meeting such expectations, certainly with better results.
The techniques range from the assessment of the participants’ facial expressions, through the skin current, pupil dilation, EEG (electroencephalography), among others.
Each of the techniques offering more precise results, and especially much more sensitive to the reactions of the participants, in scales and frequencies that allow a more accurate understanding of the impacts.
Unlike conventional research, the collection pattern with these techniques allows an evaluation of advertising, according to the second, which facilitates the identification of interventions and corrections in a more precise way.
In addition, the analysis of the results also with eye tracking makes it evident to what extent all elements of the commercial were (or were not) perceived by the participants.
This is an important finding as it makes it possible to know which elements are influencing ‘likability’ and those that still need to be highlighted, whether for the message, for the brand itself or for the context.
The main point to be praised would be the great reliability of the results obtained by the simple fact that they are totally spontaneous biometric measurements, not subject to interpretations or rationalizations.
The numerical format of the results of these techniques constitutes another relevant differential as they are accessible and understood by everyone, regardless of technical knowledge.
Unlike conventional research, where the diagnosis of ‘likability’ could be interpreted as an ‘approval’ or a ‘death sentence’, with neuromarketing it is possible to improve and build a solution.
Having overcome the expected initial fears about the novelty of the approach, and overcoming the barrier of mistrust between the agency (creation) and research (analyst), it is to be expected that a new working relationship can be built.
This relationship of partnership, with a much more intensive use of these research techniques, not only with the campaign concluded, but since its creation, so that the steps can be tested already in the hatcher.
It is important to note that such a cooperation process between the advertising agency and the research company would in no way imply any interference in the creation process itself.
Even because, it is clear that this expertise is lacking for research specialists, but it is likely that working together and with greater proximity between the parties will certainly result in more effective campaigns.
Faris Yakob, Being well liked