Part II: How Ad Copy Testing is Client Armor

Why Clients (understandably) love measuring creativity

In Part I of this “Ad Copy Testing” series, I introduced the ubiquity of copy testing and its controversial impact on modern advertising. How some of the most successful ads in history may never had seen the light of day had it solely been up to copy testing. How much the success and failure of brands and careers seem to depend on it. And ultimately, how it’s not going away.

In Part II, I will examine this topic specifically (and empathically) from a marketing Client’s perspective. I will explore some reasons why and how copy testing incentivizes Clients to use it like protective armor.

Let’s start from the top: In any copy testing situation, there are two key stakeholders— the Client who commissioned the ad and the creative agency who dreamt up the ad. The Client-Agency is naturally fraught with healthy tension but that is often at no greater height than during the copy testing process. Because copy testing is when the magic of creativity slams head first into the frigidity of risk management.

Not surprisingly, the Agency resents the labor of their love being evaluated by a group of consumers being compensated to watch it. Creative work, from an Agency’s perspective, should inspire and surprise consumers— not be slaves to their fickle whims (more on the Agency’s POV in Part III). The truth is, most Clients agree with this sentiment.

If.

If it were not for the fact that their neck is on the line.

The days of big marketing budgets are over. Clients are asked to do more with less. To do fewer, bigger things. And with less cushioning, even small failures can have major implications. Today, one terrible piece of communications can literally sink a brand.

At the same time, true creativity, by its very definition, requires doing something that has never been done before to achieved a business objective. It breaks established convention to meet a commercial need. Its novelty is what gives it its power. Its originality is what commands attention. Therefore, true creativity is unprecedented. And unprecedented is by its very definition, extremely risky. It flops just as much as it succeeds. Both Clients and Agencies intuitively understand this.

But while Agencies relish the potential to do something truly new, Clients typically doesn’t like that kind of risk. Not because they are inherently short-sighted— but because they is largely compensated on how well they mitigates business risk. Advertising is a business tool, not an art project. And when it comes to business, new is unproven, new is uncertain and new is risky.

Keep in mind that nowadays, Clients are in a specific role for only two to three years before they are rotated to another brand or function. Given this short time frame, it is much more valuable to not screw up, than it is to attempt something ground-breaking. Not screw up and be seen as a capable, responsible manager. Try something ground-breaking and risk being blamed for a spectacular mess.

Given those circumstances, it’s safe to say, most Clients prefer incremental, predictable results to highly variable success or failure. Copy test gives them predictability. Or at least it tries to. A copy test spits back numbers that reveal— with mathematical certainty— how one ad compared to all the ads tested before it. Its diagnostics will report if consumers were engaged or confused, excited or bored, motivated or unmoved. All before the big money is spent to produce the ad. Copy testing is a useful bellwether.

First (and arguably), the copy test actually helps improve the creative effectiveness of the ad. If the test is saying most consumers are confused after the first five seconds, it may be a good idea to simplify how the ad starts. If the test is saying they can’t remember the brand, it may be a good idea to make the role of the brand clearer in the narrative.

Second (and definitely), the copy test is a great armor. Remember, Clients have bosses, too. Consider all the possible scenarios:

If the copy test score is good and has positive in-market impact, the Client can claim his prowess in employing creativity to drive business results.

If the copy test score is good, but the eventual ad has no positive in-market impact (which happens quite frequently)— the Client can always point to the good score and deflect fault, “The copy test said this ad scored in the top 25% of all ads.”

If the copy test is mediocre, is produced anyway and the eventual ad has no positive in-market impact— the Client can now tell his boss (and the Agency), “I told you so.”

If the copy-test is mediocre, but the eventual ad does have positive in-market impact— the Client can take credit for “fixing” the ad before it was produced.

In almost all possible cases, Client are in a better position having done a copy test than they is without. Said another way, the absence of copy test leaves them exposed to the one thing is they are paid to manage— risk. Business risk, compensation risk, career risk.

For Clients, copy testing keeps a creative agency accountable to its creative output. Clients know that while there are many, many things that impact brand performance that an agency cannot affect— price, distribution, product innovation — there still needs to be a standard to objectively measure creative effectiveness. Today, fair or not, that’s largely copy testing.

In the same situation, with the same set of incentives, with the big “if” looming— a creative agency person would likely have the same relationship with copy testing. I should know, I was a Client once and, knowingly or not, I used copy test results to my advantage and protection. It was incredibly powerful to point a numbers and tell my Agency, “the data says to change it.” Subjective creativity often withers at the feet of definitive math. And I knew that.

If there is one outtake from Part II, it is this: From the Client’s point of view, creativity is an inherently risky business and copy-testing is a tool to mitigate that risk. Furthermore, Clients should not be vilified for their devotion to copy test. They are acting rationally given their business, financial and personal incentives. And creative agencies who fail to appreciate this reality will never learn to use copy-testing to their advantage.

+++