B&TB&TB&T
  • Advertising
  • Campaigns
  • Marketing
  • Media
  • Technology
  • Regulars
    • Agency Scorecards
    • Best of the Best
    • Campaigns of the Month
    • CMO Power List
    • CMOs to Watch
    • Culture Bites
    • Fast 10
    • New Business Winners
    • Spotlight on Sponsors
  • Jobs
  • Awards
    • 30 Under 30
    • B&T Awards
    • Cairns Crocodiles
    • Women In Media
    • Women Leading Tech
Search
Trending topics:
  • Cairns Crocodiles
  • Nine
  • Seven
  • Cannes Lions
  • WPP
  • State of Origin
  • NRL
  • B&T Women in Media
  • Thinkerbell
  • imaa
  • Pinterest
  • Agency Scorecards
  • Anthony Albanese
  • AFL
  • The Growth Distillery
  • AI
  • Spotlight on Sponsors
  • TV Ratings
  • Radio Ratings
  • Sports Marketing

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial Guidelines
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Advertise
© 2025 B&T. The Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd.
Reading: In Defence Of The Humble Ad Pre-Test
Share
B&TB&T
Subscribe
Search
  • Advertising
  • Campaigns
  • Marketing
  • Media
  • Technology
  • Regulars
    • Agency Scorecards
    • Best of the Best
    • Campaigns of the Month
    • CMO Power List
    • CMOs to Watch
    • Culture Bites
    • Fast 10
    • New Business Winners
    • Spotlight on Sponsors
  • Jobs
  • Awards
    • 30 Under 30
    • B&T Awards
    • Cairns Crocodiles
    • Women In Media
    • Women Leading Tech
Follow US
  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial Guidelines
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Advertise
© 2025 B&T. The Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd.
B&T > Opinion > In Defence Of The Humble Ad Pre-Test
Opinion

In Defence Of The Humble Ad Pre-Test

Staff Writers
Published on: 11th April 2022 at 9:26 AM
Staff Writers
Share
6 Min Read
SHARE

In this guest post, Visit Victoria’s head of research and insights, Julian Major (main photo), weighs in on the oft-loathed ad pre-test and says the practice doesn’t deserve the negative press it often receives…

Creatives don’t like ad-testing. A big generalisation, I know. But I can empathise. Someone works on a solution to a brief, only to be met with a poor response by consumers in an artificial and contrived environment. Recently, I’ve seen pre-testing described as ‘snake oil’. Is this actually the case?

Many criticisms around ad-testing are valid. The big question of whether performance in ad-testing is predictive of in-market success is incredibly difficult to prove. Many brands will not pre-test at all. Those who do may not launch an ad if it tests poorly, or significantly change it before launch. So, the final sample of ads in-market is biased. And that is before getting to the question of what defines in-market effectiveness. To prove that ad testing works is to prove an ad works in-market and while not impossible, will be difficult for many brands.

Research is an artificial task, and this is often referenced with focus groups. Being in a room with eight people, discussing in depth something you would pay scant attention to real life is unusual. So is answering questions in an online survey on an ad that someone has forced you to watch probably more than once. Some will also strap machines to you to get biometric responses, which is just a tad unusual.

So, I think we are right to be sceptical of any grand claims made by research agencies on the power of ad testing and it is not wrong to reference weaknesses of a methodology.

But does that mean there is no value in pre-testing? I do not think so. After all, we know the alternative is not great. Nicole Hartnett and others from the Ehrenberg Bass Institute found that marketers’ predictions around sales effectiveness of advertisements ‘were correct no more often than random chance’. Marketers are good at what they do but they are not advertising clairvoyants and we should be sceptical around people professing that expertise trumps all else.

Instead, we need to think more humbly about the value pre-testing provides.

While we know there is not a magic formula to create the perfect sales-effective ad, there are some basics that most would agree with. And pre-testing can help with these.

  1. An advertisement can not be effective if we do not know who it is for. Yet correct brand attribution for individual ads can be abysmal. This is easy to measure.
  2. Advertising needs to cut through. There are lots of ways to measure this. Some will espouse biometrics, but it’s also broadly accepted that advertising likeability is a valid measure. Sometimes, likeability will also help brand attribution by drawing more attention to the ad (Though it could have the opposite effect in some cases – all the more reason to test!)

Obviously, the actual measure of success is whether it changes a behaviour, but it is more difficult to understand this from a pre-test. You can ask a brand funnel measure pre and post exposure, or just simply ask directly, but this is where the criticisms around pre-testing become very legitimate. A single ad can not be expected to change brand preference (But rather, nudges propensities), and a persuasion model of advertising is flawed.

But testing can help us understand if the ad is liked, whether it is correctly attributed and if not, why. Testing should not be a pass/fail mechanism but a tool to help us build better ads. Does no one know the ad was for your brand after watching? If so, are there distinctive assets or more direct branding that can be used at key points? If humour is used, is this only funny to the people who wrote the joke? Do people simply not understand the message or attribute you are trying to push?

There is also a time and place, and a right way and a wrong way to do ad-testing. Qualitative and quantitative methods serve different purposes at different times and the answer of  which to use is always ‘it depends’. There is also the reality that financial restraints mean testing will not always be possible. If a test will cost a lot relative to your working media costs, then maybe leave it. But many brands will pump a lot of money into expensive and important ads. They are often part of a broader platform or campaign that adds up over time and a test may be a small cost to help improve something substantial. While the industry has rightly moved away from continual Link tests until a magic number is hit, we need to be wary about moving too far in the opposite direction. We can make research better, but it will never be flawless, and that is ok.

 

 

Join more than 30,000 advertising industry experts
Get all the latest advertising and media news direct to your inbox from B&T.

No related posts.

TAGGED: Julian Major, visit victoria
Share
Staff Writers
By Staff Writers
Follow:
Staff Writers represent B&T's team of award-winning reporters. Here, you'll find articles crafted with industry experience spanning over 50 years. Our team of specialists brings together a wealth of knowledge and a commitment to delivering insightful, topical, and breaking news. With a deep understanding of advertising and media, our Staff Writers are dedicated to providing industry-leading analysis and reporting, both shaping the conversation and setting the benchmark for excellence.

Latest News

Val Morgan Reports Australian Cinemas Biggest Week Of Admissions In Two Years
18/07/2025
Stan Makes History With “Record” Reach & Sales For Gallen Vs SBW Fight
18/07/2025
reddit-hero (1)
WARC Media’s Reddit Platform Insights: 30% Of Users Are Not On Facebook
18/07/2025
IMA nurses campaign
Kids Of Macarthur Health Foundation Launches Campaign To Support Life-Saving Paediatric Program, Via IMAB2B
18/07/2025
//

B&T is Australia’s leading news publication magazine for the advertising, marketing, media and PR industries.

 

B&T is owned by parent company The Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd.

About B&T

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial Guidelines
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Advertise

Top Categories

  • Advertising
  • Campaigns
  • Marketing
  • Media
  • Opinion
  • Technology
  • TV Ratings

Sign Up for Our Newsletter



B&TB&T
Follow US
© 2025 B&T. The Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Register Lost your password?