I am in the happy position, as discussant, of disagreeing with everything that the speaker has said. My own view of market research, science and most activities is that they contain "ideas" and "observations". "Techniques" are a bridge between the two. Sometimes one starts from ideas and crosses the bridge to decide what data to collect and what it means. Sometimes one starts from data and uses techniques to generate ideas.
The panel pointed out that there were programs available, at least in England, that produced clusters on a more satisfactory basis. The TYPOL method is an "average linkage" procedure based on an effectively random order of presentation rather than, even, the grouping of those maximum linkages first. Phase 3, however, permitted some tidying up. The main usefulness was seen as a relatively cheap method of producing descriptive clusters.
This paper was presented and seen as two parts: a broad and intriguing first part followed by a highly specific sub-model. The group was not concerned to make spontaneous suggestions as to the treatment of the open ended topics in the first part but devoted its attention to the 'Linear Programming Model of Profit'.
The group discounted to a large extent the theoretical aspects of the paper. The general line and thoroughness of the analysis was endorsed as relevant and practical. Correspondingly the distinction between descriptives versus function status of the model was ignored on the policy of "don't worry about the validity of an 'explanation' until you've got one". Put another way, the group viewed the paper as a psychologically informed way of collecting and reviewing data and not as an explicit psycho-sociological model of behaviour.
The two approaches had been introduced as alternatives. As such, the group agreed with Ehrenberg & Goodhardt's approach. They did, so on purely practical grounds . The crucial drawback seen in Hamre's approach was that the number of constants or coefficients to be fitted from the data kept increasing. The group felt that this would lead to instability under sampling variation.
The paper has been developed as a generalisation of the conditions where certain methods, advice and cautions are in order on the choice and interpretation of research. Two main ideas are brought out: the importance of the product to a person and the previous level of advertising. Before these ideas are developed further it is worthwhile to close up some blind alleys.
The paper deals with two broad areas of bias in the preconceptions of the respondent and the preconceptions of the researcher. In relation to the former the specific areas of bias dealt with are: A. the motivation of the respondent; B. the presentation of product samples; C. the words used to name product qualities. In relation to the latter preconceptions the specific areas of bias dealt with are: A. relationships selected for interpretation by the researcher; B. the questionnaire design. The basic principles in each of these specific areas are discussed and an attempt is made to illustrate how the principles may be translated into operational terms to eliminate these sources of bias, for example: A. Three call method of comparative testing; i. e. placing only one product at a time for a consumer's evaluation; B. Prescriptive scales; i. e. the respondent indicates how he would like the product to be rather than describing the way he thinks it is; C. Hierarchical statistical analyses; i. e. analyses which are structured in a manner corresponding to the hypotheses and questionnaire.
I am concerned here with an attitude to pre-testing as much as a particular technique. Overall measures of advertisements are needed but it is in this area that the arguments arise. Incidentally, I shall be talking purely in terms of television advertising. Such overall measures are useful in the creation of advertising. When a particular advertisement is demonstrated as bad the account and creative groups no longer need spend their energies in arguing why it is a good advertisement. With or without the benefit of diagnostic material, ideas start flowing on how to improve or replace the advertisement. A system of pre-testing should be sensitive. That goes without saying - except that we don't always get it. Theatre gift choice change has proved rather insensitive for instant coffee advertisements in Britain. Sensitivity is essential. In setting up a new system I wanted sensitivity. On the other hand I was willing to "disconsider" validity. I don't want to actually go on record as saying that validity is not important - but too much concern with validity inhibits the development of techniques and their understanding.