Creativity Can Be Science
And your testing tactics need to reflect that
Alex Bogusky has started talking recently about the difference — or in his mind, the lack therefore — between creativity and science. They are the same, he says, in that you start with a hypothesis — an idea, an insight, a prediction — and test it rigorously to see if you’re right. Therefore creativity is in actuality a kind of science. This is a brilliant concept: as essential as ‘gut feelings’ are, there’s really no justification today for not making sure they’re correct with real data. Of course there are limits, things we can’t test and certainties which will always be elusive. But when we’re talking about targeting consumers and CRO, this is exactly the model we need.
“The creative part of this science is often lost. And that means that the very considerable potential gains of imaginative ideas for content and strategy are lost too.”
However, it’s important to note that this works both ways: science is also a form of creativity. And this is perhaps something we too easily forget when we are doing MVTs and all the rest: that the better, more insightful and more creative the content we test — and the ways we test — the better the results will be. This is often why CRO results are limited: we have a finite amount of resources and time, and testing gobbles both up very quickly. And that means we end up testing, more often than now, conservative ideas which we know will at least work a bit in order not to be seen to be wasteful.
But that means that the creative part of this science is often lost. And that means that the potential gains — the very considerable — gains of imaginative or out-of-the-box ideas for content and strategy are lost too. Which is really not ideal. In an ideal scenario, we would need to be able to test lots of hypotheses rigorously over a short period of time; that would mean we could test more — and more lateral-minded -hypotheses about potential way the Boostify Behaviour Formula lines up within our customer base without taking great risks of using up excessive recourses.
But how would we even generate such hypotheses?
Intuition and imagination
If one thing has become apparent during our journey through personality psychology and goal-orientation theory and all the rest, it is that our intuitions about human behaviour are to be trusted far more than any popular marketing theory. Lots of things we’ve discussed go against accepted practise, and yet a) line up with the relevant research, and b) are entirely obvious, based on our actual experience, once we think about them. And following in this vein, the most important part of truly effective testing is to take seriously our intuitions.
“If designed right, you can be using a single A/B test to see which of a number of insights or ideas are most effective. And then design a further test to verify the apparent results of the first.”
But let’s be clear: our intuitions can be based on data. For example, we might take information about previous website visitors, use Machine learning to find hidden patterns within it, and then use our intuition and creativity to think up novel and interesting ways to use the insights generated to target effective CRO content. And then think up smart ways to pair hypotheses so that you maximise what your tests are actually testing.
A single A/B might straightforwardly just be testing two different bits of creative against each other, but in reality, if designed right, you can be using that single test to see which of a number of insights or ideas are most effective. And then design a further test to verify the apparent results of the first.
Rather than simply applying some ‘best practise’ idea of what will work, we need to bring our creativity to bear on the matter. Because the fact is, ‘best practise’ is never going to give us the kinds of gains we want. It’s important to know, don’t get us wrong, but it’s a bit like learning scales: once you can do it and you understand, the real art — and therefore the real gains — are in how you subvert or reimagine them using your own intuition.
Some marketers might find this nerve-inducing — the concept that intuition would be trusted over established practises or science. But, as we explore in another article, making sure your people are literate in the latest research in the cognitive and behavioural sciences will equip them with intuition which are themselves products of rigorous and powerfully effective science. What we want, ideally, is the imaginative implementation of hardcore research.
A recap
So what have we learned? First, that personality and context are inextricably linked, and to effectively deal with one we need to deal with the other. That relevance to an individual’s goals is vital to making content connect and leading to actual sales. And that creativity and science are necessary for properly effective testing.
But how does that all come together?
As a process, really rather well. We can move smoothly through the CRO process by making sense of the customers we have and the context we find them in; using these things to infer their goals; and then testing our hypotheses about how to activate these goals via speedy, rigorous and imaginative MV testing. But in practise, this is harder than it sounds.
It requires agile technology which can collect robust data; deploy customised content and specific times to specific consumers; and run multiple MVTs at extraordinary speeds.
All of which — we hate to say it — sounds rather a lot like Boostify.
if you’re interested in finding out more, hit us up here.
