Research isn’t the problem.

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgement; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than for illumination.” David Ogilvy

If David Ogilvy were alive today, no doubt he’d have a field day with modern marketing dashboards.

Heatmaps glowing. Social listening, sentiment curves, MMM models, MQLs, SQLs, OKRs, KPIs to name a few of the basics. 

And yet...

Campaigns feel safer, more dull and actually more homogenous than ever (AI to be included here too).

Ogilvy’s complaint, made decades before real-time analytics, feels uncomfortably current because we increasingly use data as emotional reinforcement, not intellectual challenge.

Research hasn’t necessarily replaced judgement, but it seems to be replacing responsibility.

Is research now a comfort blanket, we use it as insurance against blame…? Decisions backed by “the data” feel defensible even when they’re uninspired, if a campaign fails, no one gets fired for following the figures. Or at least it’s less likely…

But some of the most successful communications strategies we see are initially uncomfortable precisely because they challenge shared assumptions and question the data.

If we’re being really honest, usually the idea comes first and then we look for research to validate it, given all the data we have, there are still large gaps and it doesn’t “Explain” everything.

The irony is that we see recognisable brand assets driving growth more reliably than over-optimised messaging variants, emotionally led campaigns deliver stronger long-term returns than purely rational/product-based ones and over optimisation can result in more boring content. Leaving us with the magical human gifts of judgement, taste, and courage.

We’re definitely in an era that is losing its editorial confidence, unless you’re an AI tool in which case you have it in abundance. Senior communicators are increasingly fluent in interpreting data and research, but less willing to contradict it based on a feeling.

Pre 2019 there was a feeling of “the audience doesn’t know what it wants and therefore, we’re going to do this for them” that has turned on its head slightly where the talk of the town is based on customer-led content, and personalisation, based on the customer knowing what they need and want.

We’ve lost our good judgement somewhat, leaning toward the data when weighing the evidence, probably because it feels solid and more accurate than your intuitive vibe. Ogilvy understood something we’ve half-forgotten: research can tell you where the lamp post is. It cannot tell you where to walk.

What does a healthier relationship with research look like?

Ask “What do people notice, remember, and talk about?”

Research should inform thinking, not green-light ideas. If you need permission from the data to proceed, you’re in trouble already.

Say out loud why your judgement overrides data, explain that it’s not recklessness.

Develop the ability to synthesise evidence with cultural understanding, narrative instinct, and a strategic overview. Basically, understand the data within a wider context and try not to rely just on the data to make decisions for you, use your human judgement instead.

In this delightful era of AI-generated insights, predictive modelling, and when everyone has access to the same data, the advantage goes to us.