Indifference is the real enemy

In research, older Marmite users dislike the advert. The couple kisses; he tastes Marmite and retches. Some participants call it alienating.

The advert runs.

Popularity changes the context. What looked objectionable as an isolated test item becomes part of a public joke, and some earlier critics revise their view.

That sequence exposes a weakness in pre-testing: participants give the work attention it will never receive in ordinary life. They study possible offence, explain discomfort and forecast what others may think. Real viewers can ignore the whole thing in two seconds.

Indifference produces poor research drama. Nobody passionately objects to an advert they cannot remember. No stakeholder represents the millions who saw nothing distinctive enough to process. Bland work therefore appears low-risk because its failure is silent.

None of this grants permission for cruelty, stereotypes or deception. Harm differs from dislike. A deliberate point of view differs from offence added for attention. The people exposed to a real risk deserve more weight than colleagues inventing one during review.

The campaign team watches the early results. Popularity supplies the context the test room lacked, and older users revise their view. The pre-test found genuine dislike; it failed to forecast what would happen after other people visibly enjoyed the work.

Behavioural principles

Behavioural ideas at play in this post

Short, plain-English explanations of the principles behind this post, with links to related books and examples in the archive.