Ad copy testing—how strategies are evolving for today’s politically charged climate

In recent weeks, high-profile marketers such as Apple and Bumble have pulled ad campaigns that sparked public outcry and rampant criticism. Another brand, delivery service Gopuff, landed in hot water for a cheeky promotional campaign. Desperate for attention, brands are taking more creative risks than ever as they try to break through a cluttered advertising landscape. Yet experts say such efforts need to arrive backed by appropriate ad copy testing and research, particularly as the prospect of backlash becomes worse in an election year. “It’s going to get very polarized with lots of political ads from both sides—that’s going to be a very toxic environment for brands to operate in,” Pedr Howard, executive VP and service line leader of U.S. creative excellence at market research firm Ipsos, said about the next five months leading up to November. “Understanding how your ad resonates with Democrats and Republicans and looking at that as a standard divide to how people respond to your messaging is going to become more and more important.” 40 under 40 entries are open The final deadline for nominations is Aug. 2 Enter here In order to get the most value out of their campaigns, brands are adopting different strategies ahead of time with copy testing. Unlike a decade ago, when results would take weeks to obtain, marketers can now receive test results from a large group of customers within hours, eliminating the need to use timing as an excuse not to test. Marketers are also testing in different ways, relying on human emotion and feelings, for example, versus a focus group tester’s own ad analysis. For instance, tech advances continue to propel so-called facial coding, which uses algorithms to measure and analyze the moment-to-moment facial expressions of people watching videos. In addition, AI is entering the testing process to a greater degree—Ipsos is unveiling its own AI product this summer—though experts agree that challenges remain. “Over the last 10, five years especially, there’s been this explosion of advancement in the technology of testing,” said Shelley Brown, chief strategy officer at FCB Canada. “We now have the ability to evaluate an idea before we take it to market based on how people will really respond to it and we can get much better results and do it quickly.” More: Fox’s ad chief on the presidential election ad marketplace And advertisers are facing pressure to get it right from a variety of places. Along with the looming election that will surely exacerbate the political divide, marketers are also facing budget cuts, which has led to fewer big campaigns. Whereas some brands had been putting out several large-scale campaigns a year, now they may be only to afford just two for the next 24 months, according to Peter Daboll, CEO at Ace Metrix, the advertising analytics company. That puts greater emphasis on testing to ensure longevity and avoid cancelation. “It’s more important not just is an ad going to be successful, but can I run this longer,” he said. “A lot of brands are like, ‘We do not want some disaster on our hands and pull an ad and not have a second, we’d better make sure this works.’” Check out the latest Ad Age events and award programs Need for speed A decade ago, testing would entail a weekslong process of populating a survey, recruiting people for a focus group, bringing them into a room to see an ad and asking them to analyze their reactions. Not only did such a procedure take a long time, but it led to inaccuracies because testers were asked to use their own limited expertise to evaluate ads in an analytical way. Today, with the use of digital dashboards, most major research companies can perform testing with hundreds of people in under 24 hours, though a test might take 48 hours if brands are looking at a certain target. Ace Metrix is working to get its results delivered in six hours, Daboll said. One growing trend at Ipsos involves more upfront creative development research. Instead of testing ads after they’ve been created, Ipsos is helping brands test ads earlier at the conception phase when two or three ideas are pitched by an agency to the client. The feedback from those tests is incorporated into what eventually goes to market. “Put some of that raw pitch idea stuff in front of consumers and factor consumer reaction into the decision of which campaign idea you go down,” said Howard. “Before you start developing final ads and creative, understand if a creative idea and territory will work— you’re on solid footing from the start.” Companies are also testing different criteria now, which is helping to alleviate tensions with creative executives who may have previously been averse to testing because it challenged the creative process, Brown said. Some brands are investing in neuromarketing, which uses EEG testing to measure brainwaves and tracks the brain’s response to ads. However, neuromarketing, though very in-depth, remains costly and time-consuming, which is leading most brands to rely on facial coding instead. Experts say facial coding, which can be done overnight and via a smartphone reading facial expressions and emotions at different points in the ad, is a speedy, cost-effective way to get accurate results. “I love facial coding and there are so many different companies using different techniques that use it now,” said Brown. “You’re measuring response in real-time as opposed to someone’s assessment of how they responded in the past, and that is critically important if you’re thinking about video assets,” said Brown. “It’s incredibly powerful to understand where everyone is confused and dropping off.” See Ad Age’s Tech Power List honoring marketing leaders AI’s growing role Every testing company is exploring AI as a way to increase speed and improve results. Ipsos is in the process of running trials with clients on its new product, which is scheduled to go live in late June or early July. The tool will use analytical AI to search images and sounds and generative AI to decode themes and messages in the ad, then use those findings as a model against past performance of what is known to be effective advertising in Ipsos’ database and doles out predictions. However, Howard cautioned that AI is not yet advanced enough to flag cultural hot points that might elicit backlash to an ad. In addition, most of AI’s use is around testing an existing database, so using artificial intelligence on a truly new creative idea becomes more difficult. “As a flesh and blood human, I worry about a model trained on past behavior—how well can it truly evaluate the truly new idea?” said Brown. Larger marketers such as Procter & Gamble Co. are utilizing artificial intelligence internally to test ads. Chief Brand Officer Marc Pritchard spoke about P&G’s AI Studios proprietary testing network last year at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual media conference, noting that it is quicker and cheaper, which has been successful for Pampers, for example. Daboll said he expects other large marketers to use AI to test different brand ads against other brand ads in their stable. “More brands are using first party data of their own to create interactive predictive analytics,” he said. “What we’ll see is even more testing as programmatic starts to take off and we see these decisions have to happen before a campaign runs.” Thinking long-term However, no matter what testing a brand does, leaders first need to think a campaign through and understand how it relates to a long-term marketing strategy. Bud Light notoriously ran into trouble last year with its Dylan Mulvaney campaign because the partnership was not part of a larger plan for the brand, Howard said, noting that the beer maker never intended to be a voice for the trans community, for example. In contrast, Nike’s Colin Kaepernick campaign from 2018 appeared to be planned in advance as a long-term marketing play around standing for a cause. Though that “Dream Crazy” work received some backlash, it ultimately benefitted the sportswear giant. “When you see these backlashes and people reverse their decisions, it’s often because they haven’t really thought it through,” said Howard. “If your decision making can be swayed by a few people shouting on social media then you probably didn’t have the right strategic vision for what this ad and strategy will do for you.”

Ad copy testing—how strategies are evolving for today’s politically charged climate

Featured Stories