This paper suggests that there is a genuine difference between people's "private opinions" and their "public opinions"; but the requirements of media contests will force research methods to concentrate almost entirely on "public opinion". The danger is that one set of misleading findings will be publicly opposed by another set, and as a result seriously damage the reputation of market research in general. One important challenge of the eighties will be to identify these risks and to agree on a realistic code of practice to deal with them.
The opportunities for research in the 1980s will be much affected by changes in society. In particular, by a clash between two powerful forces: the producer bureaucracy and the new individualism. It will be a clash of values and opinions and research will be needed to measure them. However, I believe there are dangers in the way that opinion research will be used, and especially in the way that it will be publicised. The protagonists in the arguments on many social issues are likely to make increasing use of published "research events" that is, over-simplified and superficial figures on public opinion, designed mainly to appeal to the media's need for simple and dramatic news, and thence to affect public policies. I think, in fact, that the evidence is very strong that there is a genuine difference between people's private opinions and their public opinions. But the requirements of media contests will tend to force research methods to concentrate heavily on public opinions. The danger is not so much that this would distort social policies (though it might) as that it could damage the reputation of market research in general, especially if, as is likely, the findings of one group's "research events appeared to be directly opposed to those of another's. One important challenge of the 1980s will be to identify these risks and do something to guard against them. As a start to the discussion, I have suggested five simple guidelines which I hope can contribute to a joint campaign to educate ourselves, our clients and the media in the proper use and presentation of opinion research.
Arguments about proposition testing tend to generate much warmth but relatively little light. The situation remains confused. Among advertisers there is a whole spectrum of views, ranging from firm belief to total disillusionment. Most agency and research men tend to be opposed, sometimes in a rather negative way; but some are using great ingenuity in devising more and more complex forms of proposition testing, and from time to time articles appear in the trade press suggesting improvements. What is not in doubt is the importance of setting the right advertising objectives for a brand and of using research to help in doing so. This is far too crucial an area for us to accept confusion. This article aims to examine proposition testing to see just how useful a method it really is for setting advertising strategy.
This paper aims to examine in rather more detail the reasons for some of the unhappy relationships, and suggests five specific approaches which could make progress in eliminating the underlying causes. There seem to be three main areas of troubles : 1. Objectives; 2. Theories about how advertising works; 3. Language and communication.