Likability in advertising

I have always found it a bit of a stretch to expect ad campaigns to make people fall in love with brands, products or services.

Even with admired, inspiring companies like Apple, Coca-Cola, Google or Microsoft, or products like Nespresso or the iPhone, talking about consumers “loving” a brand or product may be going a little too far.

In my view, getting an ad to make someone simply “like” a brand, product or service is already quite a challenge, especially for things like toilet paper, toothpaste, banks, insurance or mobile phone plans.

That’s why measuring “like and dislike,” or likability, is a more realistic, plausible and logical goal if we’re talking about winning over a target audience through advertising.

There are a number of studies on the subject, some by the ARF (Advertising Research Foundation), praising the predictive power of likability, while others are less enthusiastic or even skeptical.

In conventional research, likability is usually measured with two classic questions: “Did you like the ad you just saw?” and “Would you like to see it again?”

It’s worth noting that both of these standard measures of likability rely on what people say and on their rational side, whether the approach is qualitative or quantitative.

I’m not saying results from these formats are invalid. The question is whether this kind of assessment is accurate enough, or appropriate, for evaluating ads.

One risk with this “traditional” approach is that respondents’ (or participants’) answers may be skewed by what feels socially acceptable to say.

The format also doesn’t allow for very precise measurement. Answers tend to polarize at the two extremes (“like” and “dislike”), which makes it harder to pinpoint what needs to change or to compare against competitors.

On the other hand, when we look at how neuromarketing can measure that same likability, the options are far richer.

First, there are many measurement techniques available that can fully meet these needs, and almost certainly do it better.

They range from analyzing participants’ facial expressions to measuring skin conductance, pupil dilation and EEG (electroencephalography), among others.

Each technique delivers more precise results that are, above all, far more sensitive to participants’ reactions, at a scale and frequency that give a much finer understanding of an ad’s impact.

Unlike conventional research, these techniques collect data that lets you evaluate an ad second by second, which makes it much easier to pinpoint exactly what to fix or change

Adding eye tracking to the analysis also shows clearly whether participants noticed every element of the commercial.

That matters, because it reveals which elements are driving likability and which still need more emphasis, whether that’s the message, the brand itself or the context.

The biggest advantage is how reliable the results are, simply because these are fully spontaneous biometric measurements that can’t be reinterpreted or rationalized.

Another important advantage is that the results come as numbers, which anyone can access and understand, regardless of technical expertise.

In conventional research, a likability verdict can feel like either a stamp of approval or a death sentence. With neuromarketing, you can refine the ad and build a solution.

Once the natural early concerns about a new approach are overcome, and the mistrust between the agency (creative) and the researcher (analyst) is broken down, a new working relationship can take shape.

A true partnership, using these research techniques much more intensively, not only once the campaign is finished but from the very start, so that each step can be tested as it’s created.

It’s important to stress that this kind of collaboration between ad agency and research firm would in no way interfere with the creative process itself.

Research specialists obviously don’t have creative expertise, but working together more closely will very likely produce more effective campaigns.