My son Jeff performed his earliest recorded scientific experiment at age five.

After hearing about a friend’s punishment, Jeff wondered if washing one’s mouth with soap really did make it impossible to swear. So he walked into our main bathroom, treated his mouth to a generous helping of Dove, and, to his amazement, found he could still say “damn.” A myth was busted, and a healthy skeptic was born.

Marketers could learn a thing or two from Jeff. Next time you hear someone say “no one reads copy any more” or “upscale people don’t respond to obnoxious late-night TV spots,” or “if your advertising is truly creative it will sell,” don’t just buy it. Check it out. Test it. You may find that “what you’ve always heard” ain’t, in the immortal words of Porgy, necessarily so.

Who knows. Upon completing your experiment, you may, like Jeff, shake your head in wonder and say, “damn.”

According to a new Adweek survey, 50% of respondents say that advertising "rarely" motivates them to switch brands, 11% say that advertising "never" influences their brand choices, and people 18-34 say they are most likely to be "swayed by ads." 

I suspect there may be some truth in Adweek's conclusions. But, if so, their methodology doesn't establish it.  

The worst way to learn what influences people is to ask them. People don't know what they do, why they do it, or what makes them do it. But they sure think they know! So, when you ask, they'll give you an answer, and most likely they will mean what they say. Trouble is, they are often mistaken. 

For a valid, reliable way to learn what influences people, put them in a real situation. Do not let them know that a test is afoot or that anyone is watching. Then note what they do. 

Our firm recently conducted such a test for the parent company of two national brands that you have heard of. They wanted to know which of the two brands was stronger. We divided their market into three segments. All three received identical offers; the only difference was whether the offers came from National Brand A, National Brand B, or Unknown Brand C. Then, we counted orders. All segments bought at the same rate. We repeated the test and obtained the same results. Post analysis showed that the brand made no difference; only the offer did.  

I might add that no one in the parent company was pleased. Some had championed one brand, some the other. The finding that neither brand had power offended both camps. Getting to the truth doesn't always make an agency popular. 

I should also add that this test in no way proved that brands are powerless in general. This was but one case. But it certainly suggests that you should challenge whether your brand has as much power as you'd like to believe.

Back to the research. Since I suspect Adweek was on to something, you might ask, why quibble over the methodology? The reason is that I can't be sure of a conclusion, even one that sounds reasonable, that is attained by faulty methodology. When I was in grade school, I heard that mixing yellow and blue paint makes green paint. I verified it by stealing my older brother's water color set (don't tell him—he still doesn't know) and mixing up some green for myself. I could have flipped a coin. Heads, yellow and blue make green; tails, they don't. I might have gotten the correct answer. But there would have been a 50% chance of getting the wrong one. 

I deal with the science behind fallacious versus reliable research in chapters 8 and 9 of my book Prove It Before You Promote It, so I'll stop here in deference to those who have read the book, and to try and influence those who haven't to buy copies for themselves and all of their friends. Right now, if you please.

Steve Cuno

A popular marketing blog recently listed 100 ways to measure social media. But before you get excited, I should warn you. The author seems to be liberal in his use of the word “measure.”

A sampling of his “measures,” drawn at random, includes: “volume of consumer-created buzz for a brand based on number of posts,” “shift in buzz over time,” “sentiment by volume of posts,” “number of chat room participants,” and “Wiki contributors.”

Help me out here. Exactly where on the P&L statement should the accounting firm list buzz, sentiment, chat participants and Wiki contributors?

Call me a stickler, but nowhere on the list did I find “units sold.” This strikes me as a major oversight. Rave about buzz all you like, but buzz ain’t sales.

I associate “measure” with empirical stuff. “The board is 10 feet long.” That’s empirical. But by the blogger’s standard, I suppose I could infer that the board must be the right length based on how many people talked about seeing it leaning against the shed.

To be fair, there have been documented cases of cold, hard sales attributable to social media campaigns. Moreover, I’m sure that direct marketers (alas, not branders) will unlock secrets for making the social media pay on a reliable, measurable, consistent basis.

But so far, most of the buzz about buzz is nothing but buzz.

Getting worked up over non-measures isn’t new. Ad agencies have been doing it for decades by ballyhooing recall and awareness scores. The ad industry loves to argue that when awareness or buzz is up, sales follow. Which is fine, unless you care about things like facts. Think back to the biggest nerd in your high school. He had high awareness and generated lots of buzz. Yet no one asked him to the Sadie Hawkins Dance.

Steve Cuno

Ever since 1957, when James Vicary lied about splicing subliminal messages into a movie to incease Coke and popcorn sales, it has been fashionable—and handy—to accuse advertising of having powers it doesn't possess, and of causing society's ills. 

Enough. We don't know how to manipulate you or your kids against your will. And though I know of no advertisers who use subliminal practices, if there are cranks who attempt it, don't let them scare you. Scientifically valid testing has shown that subliminal advertising has no effect. At all. (Yes, I am aware of so-called tests that allegedly say otherwise. The tests are based on flawed methodology and are invalid.) (Speaking of matters sublimimal, those tapes that play while you’re asleep? Pure flimflam.)

As I write, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is pushing legislation to “eliminate the tax deductibility of fast food and junk food advertising directed at children.”

Advertising is a business expense. What is legal to sell should be legal to advertise. If you object to a product, seek to have it banned, not to make it harder to sell.

Meanwhile, try personal responsibility as a parent for a change. Yes, shocking as it may sound, I am suggesting teaching values in your home. You can use those dreaded media messages as launch points for great, values-centered conversations.

Do not blame your and your kids' bad habits on the media. No one is obese because the media made them that way. People get fat when they eat more than they burn. Kids get fat when parents don't ensure they get a balanced diet. Certainly the why behind a compulsive overeating problem is a more involved question, but ads are not part of the answer.

Ads suggest. You still get to decide what to do with the suggestion. And you remain accountable for the decision, no matter whom you try to blame.

Some related thoughts:
 
• Ever notice the double standards used by ad-blamers? Most will tell you that they are not controlled by ads; it's everyone else they're worried about. 
 
• People claim that fast food ads cause obesity. Yet people also claim that skinny models in ads cause anorexia and bulimia. Come on, folks. Pick one.

• Programming is far less regulated than advertising. You will see actors drink booze in movies and TV shows, but never in a TV commercial. It's illegal, even in a booze ad. Remember the old Playtex commercials that showed bras on mannequins but not on real women? That was because, until a couple of decades ago, you could show a lingerie-clad woman in programming—even naked, in a movie—but not in a commercial.

• If you want to save lives, I suggest raising your voice against Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccination crusade. Kids may be getting plump at McDonald’s, but McCarthy's actions are killing tens of thousands of children right now, with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands or more in the near future. And, sadly, someday putting them on a diet won’t save these kids.

Steve Cuno

If skepticism means "naysaying," we're already in trouble, since that's not how I use the word. 

For clarity's sake, then, I'll use the term "evidence-based thinking." EBT for short.

EBT is a marketer's silver bullet. It lets you rise above emotion and speculation as you evaluate a marketing effort from a scientific standpoint. Rather than rate a campaign by how well-liked it is by you, your focus groups, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Director's spouses, you can rate it in terms of (1) if it's making or costing money; (2) how it compares against other strategies; (3) how it performs down to cost-per-sale; (4) how to make it perform even better; and (5) reliable, projected future performance...