Research and creativity go head-to-head

With UK TV ad spend exceeding £5billion for the first time last year, marketers are working harder than ever to maximise the value of their investments. Neuroscience is an increasingly popular methodology for investigating advertising effectiveness, providing insights which help marketers to hone their messaging and justify creative spend.

In a joint research project with Thinkbox, Neuro-Insight recently published some insights into the creative drivers of advertising effectiveness, uncovered by analysing brain responses to around 200 TV ads. The result of this research was the identification of a set of creative factors that most correlate with effective, memorable advertising.

However, the research has caused some controversy in the creative world, with Atomic’s Graham Fowles arguing against what he sees as rules for TV creativity.

So what does neuroscience research mean for creatives? Is advertising now bound by rules and lists, or do these techniques contribute new insight without compromising creativity?

We asked Heather Andrew, UK CEO of Neuro-Insight, and Greg Phitidis, Co-Founder and Chief Creative Officer of Team Darwin Creative, for their thoughts on mixing neuro-research and creativity. Here’s what they had to say:

Should we be applying consumer neuroscience to something as intangible as advertising creativity?

Heather Andrew: We’re looking at tools which help us understand how to make more effective communication. Neuroscience can’t come up with creative ideas, but it can help creatives understand the executional factors that can mean the difference between good and great.

Greg Phitidis: Michelangelo cut up corpses to see how they were put together so he could paint people better. Understanding that didn’t tell him what to paint, but made the end result more powerful, and gave him a competitive advantage. We have access to some incredible insights through neuroscience, and we have to approach those in the same way.

Which particular points stand out to you both from the Thinkbox research findings?

HA: Overall what struck me was that a lot of what we found is what great creatives have been doing for a long time; but we were able to add the evidence for their decisions. A few specific things were surprising, such as how music works in advertising: effectiveness is achieved less through the music itself and more by how it’s used creatively.

GP: Conceptual closure is a biggy, and it’s so simple to get right. When the strands of your story come together the brain packages them up and stores what it has understood. Normally the pack shot and logo come immediately after that. As it turns out, that is exactly the worst place for it to appear because the brain has already lost interest!

Is there a danger that research like this could lead advertisers to believe there is a ‘winning formula’ for ad creative and a corresponding rise of “painting by numbers” in advertising?

HA: I sincerely hope not! There remains no blueprint for a great ad, and there’s always room for disruptive approaches that break rules but work because at their heart there’s a great creative idea. What we do can help understanding but it can never replace creativity.

GP: Creativity by numbers is a flawed proposition; just think of the numerous Hollywood sequels which fell flat by recomposing a great idea. We must embrace the chaos of creativity to achieve true originality, but then craft them with techniques we know work. The best examples of advertising in the future will, as ever, be a cracking story, brilliantly told. It's just that now we've got some information about the how the brain likes them told. That will only aid understanding and brand recall.

How could creatives take these findings on board and use them constructively?

HA: Generally, be open-minded and prepared to make choices. Not all of the findings will apply in all situations, but they should provide some new ideas about tools and approaches. Of course, they can always provide evidence to help sell ideas to clients!

GP: These findings shouldn’t be taken on face value. Instead, speak with an expert to get under the skin of it and work out what it means for your script, or your shoot. They even come in handy for decisions you have to take on the fly. I was recently asked by a producer if I wanted to use the featured celeb to do the final brand VO, or get in another VO. My gut said the latter so as not to break the spell of the celeb’s character, but the research shows that when celebs say the brand name or strapline it strengthens brand recall by 13% - so probably worth the trade-off. And finally, remember, nobody need know you’re turning to science. It can be your and Michelangelo’s dirty little secret.