QRCA Views

46 QRCA VIEWS SPRING 2 0 15 www.qrca.org interest in adopting an older child out of foster care, a really heartbreaking issue. The campaign took an original approach that was driven by some provocative research and recommendations. We've helped spur more than 19,000 adoptions. Judy: What kind of qualitative research did you use for that campaign? Tony: An almost counter-intuitive insight we uncovered through qualitative drove the campaign's creative, which in turn drove enormous success on a very difficult social issue. There are more than 100,000 chil- dren in foster care. They're not cute and cuddly babies, mostly older kids ready for adoption. The outcomes for those kids if they don't get placed in a permanent home are often troubling. Can you imagine any sort of marketing campaign with a call to action more daunting than, "Take a child into your home permanently"? We did a lot of research, looked at a lot of different cam- paigns, and decided we wanted to do some- thing different. The campaign was mostly based on con- versations our agency team at KBS arranged between prospects who had thought about adopting from foster care, and those who'd been through the adoption process. The dis- cussions were lightly moderated because we were mostly interested in hearing the con- versations they had with each other. Prospects were fearful they would fail kids that had already been failed. That insight drove the creative strategy: "You don't have to be perfect to be a perfect parent." Judy: In general, how do you decide which qualitative methodology to use? Tony: I like in-home qualitative and eth- nographies. As an example, we did research with our agency, Grey, on chil- dren's oral health. The real eye-opener was just to hang out with parents in their homes across the country, observing their evening routine with their kids. A lot of battling goes on before kids go to bed, including around toothbrushing, which parents might downplay in a more typical research setting. Judy: What was the strategy that came out of that research? Tony: Take a little time to make sure that [kids] brush their teeth for two minutes twice a day and it will prevent them from having long-term problems later on. Judy: How do you decide whether to use individual or group methodology? Tony: If something's highly sensitive or a personal topic, we try to do one-on-one interviews or have family members or buddies talk about it. A great example [of a group setting] is safe gun storage. The Ad Council doesn't take a position on gun legislation, but we do take the position that if you're a gun owner you should make sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands and you should store it safely. We conducted in-home interviews of friends who were all gun owners, who hunted or went shooting together. The group setting was terrific in this case because it allowed for more candor among friends. Judy: What are the major similarities and differences between the Ad Council's research and what commercial marketers do? Tony: We're not touchy-feely do-gooders but act as hard-nosed marketers. It's not unlike working with a P&G or a Nike in the rigor with which we approach our campaigns. We work with a lot of people in sciences, with environmental, and with education advocates who live and breathe their issues every day; they're eager to get more people aware and engaged with their cause. The need for advertising to be single-minded is probably most difficult to convey to our cli- ents – they often want to say everything in a single piece of messaging. They're not unlike many commercial clients in that respect. Judy: How has the type of qualitative you use changed? Tony: There are more and more opportuni- ties and methodologies on the qualitative side of things. Our options on the quantita- tive side in survey quality and what's being offered are, in some ways, shrinking. In qualitative, I was at first highly resistant to doing online bulletin boards, journaling, anything that relied on typing rather than in-person talking. That's changed. Particularly when we want to get geograph- ic dispersion, we definitely consider online qual now. When social listening platforms first came out, I was a bit skeptical because the samples in online social media space were not representative of anybody but those who had strong feelings on a topic one way or another. But I find that tapping into these conversations has been enor- mously helpful in understanding who really can help your cause and what they think. There are times when I insist the research has to happen in person, preferably in somebody's home in a comfortable environ- ment. You can feel and listen to some- body's story, have empathy and tap into body language. I used to say that for every campaign in every case, but I'm far from saying that now. Judy: Any thoughts on the future of qualitative? Tony: I think that qualitative's future is quite bright. The multiplicity of meth- ods to choose from is heartening and I think it's going to continue. There's more and more hunger from the corpo- rate side as well as from the non-profit side for new consumer insights, particu- larly in the media-fragmented world. I think qualitative in some ways can fuel better creative ideas than just a quick quantitative study. It used to be that you would have to do a representative survey with weighted data that was telling you what the different segments are thinking or feeling about a particular message framing. Companies and organizations are more open now to a variety of differ- ent qualitative methodologies as a way not just to fill in just the information gap but also the inspiration gap. We should be methodology-agnostic. When I'm talking to folks who are offering up a variety of methodologies and path- ways to get to the information and the insights we need, that's always a plus. I'm not against a traditional focus group facili- ty, but I'm much more interested in getting outside of that in other settings and other methodologies than I had been. LUMINARIES: Tony Foleno C O N T I N U E D Continued from Page 44

• Cover