Communicating research results can be as important as the proper conduct of the project itself. It is critical that the individuals who make the decisions based on the research results fully understand the implications of the findings. Sometimes very fundamental marketing and research concepts are not understood by top executives whose background is void of experience in this area.

One instance where gross misinterpretation of research results occurred, happened a few years ago with one of my clients. At the time I was director of research for both Miller Publishing Co., Minneapolis, and its commercial research division, Miller Research Services.

The client used our commercial research services for both quantitative and qualitative projects and I handled the account. These projects brought me into close contact with the marketing director, advertising manager, along with the account executive at the advertising agency and we had established a very good working relationship. Each was very competent at his job and indications were that the group was highly thought of by top management in the company.

Lacking efficiency

It was the account executive who first called me regarding the problem. The president at the client company had just ordered an entire review of the company's advertising program because he believed the money allocated was not being used efficiently. Specifically, the president was referring to a study he received from the advertising manager which indicated 62% of the readers of a major publication were not noticing the company's advertisements. The president was calling a meeting to discuss this problem and ways to overcome the lack of efficiency in its advertising.

The study cited by the president was a recent readership study conducted by a magazine which was circulated to many of the company's customers and prospects. The advertising manager had sent it to the president because the "noted" score for the company's advertisement had been the highest among all advertisers in the publication. The manager was patting himself on the back by sending the results up the chain of command and assumed those above him would understand the score was a favorable endorsement of the creative efforts of the advertising program. He could not have been more wrong. It was hard to believe that he had placed his job in jeopardy.

The publication sponsoring the readership study was a division of the American Broadcasting Co., headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa. It had a well-respected research director, Dick Pommerahn, who had been conducting these readership studies for a number of years. His training program for interviewers was widely regarded. The account executive had arranged for Pommerahn to attend the meeting also.

Program review

The meeting began with the account executive reviewing the advertising program and the objectives which had been set for it. Specifically, he discussed the market served by the publication involved in the controversy and its importance in the overall scheme of things. At that point he called on Pommerahn for a short presentation regarding the readership studies conducted by the publication.

Pommerahn was well-prepared. He provided some historical background on the development of the readership studies. In addition, he showed a short movie which portrayed the methodology used by his interviewers in conducting the readership studies. This presentation was an excellent way to convince advertisers that Pommerahn's organization was serious in its attempt to be as precise as possible when collecting data. Finally, Pommerahn finished by reviewing the results of past studies which again showed that the advertiser had scored well above average in the readership study.

Further discussion by the advertising manager, marketing director, account executive and Pommerahn ensued. Pommerahn answered questions relating to reliability of the data, history of the studies and other items relevant to the subject.

Up to this point, neither the president nor myself had taken part in the conversation. I was beginning to wonder why I was there. Pommerahn had handled the research portion of the presentation as the professional he was. There seemed to be nothing I could add to what he had already said.

It was at this point that the participants turned to the president. They attempted to find out whether he now understood more about the readership studies, what expectations one should have regarding the effect of advertising, and if he was now more comfortable regarding the execution of the company's advertising program.

Verifying information

Instead of responding directly to these questions, the president turned to me and asked for my thoughts. He, in effect, said that if I would verify what had been said by the rest of the group he would be satisfied. At the time I was unaware that the president had listened to the audio tapes of the many focus group sessions I had conducted for the company and had been present when I had made a presentation at a regional managers' meeting. Because of those experiences he believed I could act as an impartial arbiter.

The situation was embarrassing for me. I knew that Pommerahn's work with readership studies made him one of the top experts in this area of research. I stated that fact as forcefully as possible and then questioned the president regarding his reading habits. He mentioned two of the leading business publications as being the ones he read with most regularity.

Further probing revealed that the president only read the sections of these publications which were pertinent to his business activities. He also admitted it was unlikely for him to notice advertisements which were not germane to his areas of involvement.

Not 100%

It took considerable additional probing and discussion before the president realized that it was completely unrealistic to expect readership scores approaching 100%. He had not been cognizant of the diverse audience reached by magazines nor aware that readers' interests and needs do not stay constant. These items had not come to his attention because his background had been on the financial side and he had had no marketing experience.

The two-hour meeting ended on a happy note. The advertising program had been saved and the advertising manager had not been fired. Each of us who attended that meeting realized that a faulty communication process had almost scuttled a very successful advertising campaign. Too much knowledge on the part of others had been assumed. The individual doing the communicating forgot that others in the organization did not have the depth of knowledge in this area as he did.

The experience described above was very unusual but had a great effect on me regarding reporting of results. Afterwards, I attempted to make certain that even those with minimal exposure to research would understand the implications of the data presented on studies done by me. As a professional, it was my obligation to provide results in a usable and understandable format. Using this concept as a guide, I never again had to sit through another session like this one.