The effect of creativity in advertising cannot be researched in a scientifically correct wayBy Wolfgang KoschnickAward-winning advertising is often creative advertising. And it generally increases the sales opportunities of the advertised products. This is the conclusion reached by various studies on the effect of creativity on purchasing decisions. However, studies conducted for this purpose are not always beyond doubt because they often have a self-referential character.
When attempting to answer the central question of the advertising impact of creativity in a scientifically incontestable way, advertising research reaches its limits. Of course, one would have to design an experimental set-up in which creativity could be tested intersubjectively. In other words, it would be necessary to formulate criteria that would allow completely different people to arrive at the same result for a variety of advertising media: Yes, this advertising is creative - and this other advertising is not.
Whether this can work at all is highly doubtful. But of course a method could be found. For example, by asking proven experts which commercials, advertisements or posters they find particularly creative. And if more than 80 percent of all experts find something creative, it can be assumed that the experts are already able to judge it correctly.
But creativity sui generis defies quantification and categorization. And that is why science has hardly developed any methods that deserve to be praised.
Does advertising at intervals bring more sales growth?
The positions are clear: creative people say that creative advertising sells. With boring run-of-the-mill advertising, you can only promote yourself with a gigantic effort. That costs money. Inspired advertising, on the other hand, achieves great impact at low cost due to its high level of creativity.
Corporate advertisers, on the other hand, see things very differently: creative advertising is little more than pure ego gratification. Advertisers would judge a campaign as creative that is in reality totally over-candid. For them, it is more important to win laurels in Cannes and other competitions than to sell prosaic products in a hostile business environment.
The German Association of Advertising Agencies (GWA) of all people experienced the manifold dilemmas of creativity research first-hand when it unleashed an intensive discussion of the newer approaches in Anglo-Saxon advertising research a few years ago. At that time, the association invited Professor John Philip Jones from Syracuse University in New York to Germany and had him retest a formula that had already been empirically tested in the USA.
Reduced to a very simplified formula, the newer American approaches assume that a broad distribution of contacts in advertising and media planning is more promising than massive advertising pressure. John Philip Jones' insight is that a continuously distributed campaign brings significantly more sales growth than advertising at intervals.
The argument of John Philip Jones and even more so of his colleague Erwin Ephron ultimately boils down to the fact that well thought-out contact dosage is the secret of success. In a sense, media planning is the driving force behind all success in advertising. If contacts are scattered in a measured way, advertising works like clockwork.
Now, the German Association of Advertising Agencies is the association of all major advertising agencies and not just the association of media planners. And the creatives felt disregarded by Jones and the GWA investigation. Protest arose in the ranks of the agency association. With the counter-argument that it was impossible to declare the contribution of creatives to advertising success a quantité négligeable, they put pressure on their association superiors.
Sales promotion versus advertising
The association's leadership felt compelled to commission a new study from the Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung (GfK) in Nuremberg. It was to investigate the role of creativity in advertising. The Nuremberg-based company conducted thorough research.
The most astonishing result of the study was "the proof of the strong effect of advertising quality on market share", said Siegfried Högl, Managing Director of GfK Market Research. Advertisers, on the other hand, could often only expect "minor market share effects" if they doubled the advertising pressure. A price reduction of 7.5 percent, for example, would promise an increase in market share of 14.2 percent. However, in addition to falling profits, price campaigns could also damage brand value in the long term.
- Advertising pressure and advertising quality achieve the greatest increase in market share. They increase the market share in twelve months to an index value of around 122, while a doubling of promotion intensity only leads to an index value of 117.5.
- Even a doubling of promotion intensity and advertising pressure achieves a slightly lower value (121) than an increase in advertising pressure and advertising quality.
- Among the three factors of advertising pressure, campaign awareness and communication of brand preferences, brand preference achieved by far the best result (index 116).
While a doubling of advertising pressure alone can only be expected to have a minor effect on market share, an additional increase in market share can be expected by combining this with a 20 percent increase in attention intensity and a doubling of the communication of brand preference, which goes beyond the effect of a doubling of promotion intensity.
The often assumed inferiority of the sales impact of advertising compared to promotions is therefore possibly just a problem of a lack of measurement options. This means new ammunition in the debate of the German Association of Advertising Agencies about the rivalry between advertising and sales promotion.
Creative advertising contributes to sales success
However, a study by Leo Burnett Worldwide in 1995 proved that creative advertising also sells better than average. The people in charge at Leo Burnett did not spend much time on problems of definition and operationalization. They considered advertising to be creative if it was recognized for its creativity. Period.
In his study "Does Award Winning Advertising Sell?", Leo Burnett drew on a selection of campaigns whose international creative reputation is beyond question: The task was to find out which economic successes can be proven for the 200 most internationally award-winning commercials. The study period was 1992 and 1993. The 200 commercials came from 104 agencies from 21 countries and received a total of 1194 awards. The study was based on 38 international competitions, including the German ADC competition, the Berliner Klappe, Cannes Lions, Clio, Cresta, Epica, Eurobest, London Awards, New York Festival and the One Show.
The USA was most strongly represented with 50 campaigns, followed by 41 British award-winning commercials. Australia, Italy, Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain had more award-winning campaigns than agencies from Germany, of which only four spots were shortlisted.
The individual agencies and advertisers were asked for quantifiable success data on the individual commercials and campaigns, such as an increase in sales figures and market share, changes in brand awareness and changes in behavior towards the advertised product.
The results: 86% of the award-winning commercials (172 spots and advertising films) were successful in the market. For more than half (117), the effectiveness of the campaigns could be precisely proven with market data. Only 28 of the 200 commercials reviewed were demonstrably unsuccessful.
The conclusion of Donald Gunn, Director of Creative Resources Worldwide at Leo Burnett, Chicago, was also an appeal to creative colleagues in other agencies: "The next time someone tries to convince you that commercials that win a creative award are not successful in terms of sales, you can tell them politely but firmly: My dear fellow, you are totally wrong."
Of course, there are a whole series of methodological concerns about this approach and also about these findings. The crucial problem is to filter out creativity as the sole contribution to the market success of a brand. The people at Leo Burnett solved this rather crudely. After all, the study was supposed to show what actually came out.
"Neutral" TV commercials become
creative juxtaposition
A recent experiment from Los Angeles shows what a cramp you get when you try to isolate creativity. Last year, Tom Moulson from the advertising research agency Tom Moulson Associates presented the CVA (Creative Value Added) method. In the pre-test, "all other factors are eliminated". This is done using a creativity-neutral commercial for the test brand and two independent test samples.
Creativity-neutral spots are not specifically related to the spots to be tested. They are developed independently of them, in accordance with rigid, predetermined rules of presentation and content definition. Produced according to a fixed formula, the spot is therefore by definition free of creativity. In all cases, the rules specify the same medium, the same length, the same auditorium, the same exposure method as for the test spot. The product and brand must be clearly identified and any benefits of the advertiser can be included, as these are not part of the ad creativity.
In the case of a 30-second commercial for a luxury automobile, creativity-neutral means that a static, "official" view of the car is presented with the brand and model name in capital letters. An emotionless voiceover lists basic factual information: Make, passenger capacity, front or rear wheel drive and safety features. No movement, no music, no simulated interest from people. It is a kind of mini-catalog in TV format, and the test subjects found it correspondingly boring.
The luxury car commercials were shown to a total of 200 luxury car owners and prospective buyers in Los Angeles. One group saw the creativity-neutral commercial and the other the real one. The latter was "creative" because it was not as boring as the neutral one. Both commercials were shown in identical settings before or after a competitor model, the "reference car". Each test subject saw five real or five neutral commercials, but never both versions for the same car; and nobody knew about the existence of the two versions.
The test subjects were then asked a series of questions: Which car would you be more likely to buy? Prefer for a public appearance? Prefer for fun and entertainment? Prefer as a luxury? Prefer this brand in general? Which is the more interesting commercial?
The quality of the commercials was then classified according to the percentages that favored the test car over the reference car in the neutral commercials on the one hand and in the real ones on the other. The neutral scores were then subtracted from the real ones to obtain the Creative Value (CV) score. The most important measure was the purchase intention.
The ten commercials differed greatly in terms of buying interest, with an average score of plus 15 for creative value (CV). A score of 15 means that the commercial increased viewers' buying interest by 15 percent. The values fluctuated between plus 30 and minus 14.
The CV scores for the ten commercials showed that three of the spots actually did not "work", with two of them performing even worse than the creativity-neutral versions, and one only slightly better.
The results are meaningless - if you compare them to the effort that was put in. The most astonishing result was that the absolute bore spot, devoid of any creativity, was even more "successful" than some of the spots classified as "creative".
Such a realization would have been dramatic if the test facility had been taken even remotely seriously.
But there is always the everyday experience: creative people resort to every conceivable means and create an insane commercial that all their colleagues think is adorable. But consumers think it's stupid, don't get the point and don't buy the product. In other words, there is often a world of difference between what advertisers come up with and what consumers like.
And that is why a group of US advertising researchers investigated how the reactions of creatives to commercials differ from those of the average viewer. They wanted to answer the question of whether advertisers are so caught up in their professional perspective that they create advertising that misses the expectations of viewers.
Not all consumers
react immediately to advertising
To find out, US researchers A.J. Kover, W.L. James and B.S. Sonner compared the reactions of advertisers and consumers to the same TV commercials. The experiment was based on commercials that had won awards either for their creativity or for their effectiveness, but also some ordinary commercials without awards. Twelve TV commercials were selected for the study, including four winners of the One Show award for creativity and four winners of Effies for effectiveness. The third set consisted of four ordinary commercials.
The test subjects were 69 consumers and 103 creatives (from agencies with over 100 employees). After viewing the commercials, the following information was collected: 1. interest in buying the product or service; 2. degree of sympathy or antipathy for the commercial; 3. perceived congruence (the extent to which the commercial meets the expectations of advertising for this type of product); 4. the extent to which the commercial was considered creative - interesting versus bland, new versus old.
The analysis was kept simple: three spot groups were formed for creatives and three for consumers.
Group 1 contained the commercials with particularly positive reactions, group 2 the commercials with medium reactions and group 3 those with weak reactions. In the case of the creatives, the first group, i.e. the films rated positively from their point of view, consisted almost exclusively of award-winning commercials. The other two groups consisted mainly of ordinary commercials. It turned out that creatives are fairly homogeneous in their views on creativity and effectiveness. They spontaneously liked the award-winning spots, which they could not even have known had won an award.
Consumers' attributions, on the other hand, had little to do with whether they were prize winners or just ordinary advertising. They reacted positively to commercials that boosted their self-esteem and gave them the feeling that they were savvy consumers.
The results show that the artistry of the creatives mainly impresses other advertising professionals, but not those to whom they are actually trying to sell something: the consumers. The authors of the study drew the following conclusion: "Advertising that fails to connect with consumers, despite being highly rated by peers, is ultimately 'l'art pour l'art'. Self-referential communities are increasingly common; interest groups are everywhere, supporting each other, quoting and awarding prizes, but they have no practical weight."
So far, research on the subject of creativity has produced hardly any results that are relevant to everyday working life. Of course there is over-candy advertising that is nothing but "l'art pour l'art". Of course there is a pronounced tendency towards navel-gazing among advertisers, just as in all other communication professions. But of course, truly creative advertising is also capable of selling more goods than simple-minded, run-of-the-mill advertising. But do we need scientific research to find out?
Further leading literature
Anyone interested in a bibliography on the subject of creativity and advertising impact can obtain it free of charge from the WerbeWoche editorial team info@werbewoche
.ch). The directory is sent by e-mail.
How advertising really works
With this article by Allensbach journalist Wolfgang J. Koschnick, WerbeWoche continues its series of articles on advertising research. Part five of this series of articles aims to provide answers to current questions about the impact of creative advertising.
This should also be seen as an invitation to the readers of WerbeWoche. If you have any questions on aspects of advertising impact, please send them to us (info@werbe woche.ch). We will answer them to the best of our knowledge.
In selecting the topics for this series, Koschnick can draw on several hundred scientific studies on advertising impact that have been published in Germany and abroad over the past 50 years.