{"id":18742,"date":"2015-12-14T00:01:32","date_gmt":"2015-12-14T08:01:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/danoday.com\/blog\/?p=18742"},"modified":"2015-12-14T00:01:32","modified_gmt":"2015-12-14T08:01:32","slug":"pre-test-radio-commercials","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danoday.com\/blog\/2015\/12\/pre-test-radio-commercials\/","title":{"rendered":"How Not to Pre-Test a Radio Commercial"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rishika Vazirani<\/strong><\/span> asked this question about radio commercials on my Facebook page<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

“Was wondering if you know any agency who ‘pre-tests’ radio creatives?”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Off-hand, no. But I’ll be glad to give you my opinion on the way some people misapply “scientific measurement” to pre-test radio campaigns.<\/span><\/p>\n

Seven years ago I was contacted by a smart, successful radio owner who is well-known as a pioneering maverick. (Let’s call him Pioneer.)<\/span><\/p>\n

His overall goal: “Change the radio industry to produce better {commercial} copy.”<\/span><\/p>\n

His strategy: “Train copywriters at big agencies.”<\/span><\/p>\n

His tactic: Have an “expert” train 3 people to apply the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to <\/span>review potential commercials and, applying what the guy taught them, determine whether a spot is “engaging.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The Theory: The more “engaged” listeners are, the more likely they are to buy the product or service being advertised.<\/span><\/p>\n

I originally understood the proposal to be to test the commercials on volunteer listeners and use FACS to measure subjects’ autonomic facial reactions to determine their level of “engagement” with the commercials.<\/span><\/p>\n

Instead, those 3 newly minted mini-experts simply review commercials and assign them FACS ratings.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Expert, I was told, was not claiming to be an authority on creating successful radio commercials. He had a Ph.D. in something or other. As far as I know he’d never created a successful radio spot (or even an unsuccessful one).<\/span><\/p>\n

Still, he had developed a list of principles for creating “engaging” ads.<\/span><\/p>\n

One was:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0“If the commercial consists of a dialogue, engagement tends to increase.”<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

In reality, it all depends upon the situation, the type of dialogue, and the copywriter’s ability to create compelling, relevant dialogue.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Expert undoubtedly was referring specifically to “dialogue spots” \u2014 two people, inside the commercial, talking to each other.<\/span><\/p>\n

That’s one type of dialogue spot, but it’s not the only kind. The Expert didn’t understand that.<\/span><\/p>\n

A second kind of dialogue spot is one person talking directly to the listener. Not shouting or proclaiming; talking. Done well, the listener’s internal response constitutes the other end of the dialogue.<\/span><\/p>\n

And there’s a third type of dialogue commercial: The monologue spot that is an inner<\/em> monologue, spoken aloud. The listener hears a representation of what the character is thinking and mentally or emotionally responds to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

When done well, the “two person dialogue spot” certainly works. Dick Orkin<\/a> has built his advertising career on doing that very well.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

But there are some limitations to that model:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>For most people, writing dialogue that is believable, relatable and compelling is difficult. Even for professional dramatists. <\/span><\/p>\n

In the world of theater, if you say “someone who writes great dialogue,” the unanimous, reflexive response is, “David Mamet.”<\/span><\/p>\n

That illustrates two things:<\/span><\/p>\n