Mark Ritson says marketers are right to question Les Binet and Peter Field’s methodologies, but argues that in a world of imperfect science, they are closer to the truth than most (Marketing Week)

Key points

• As awareness of Binet and Field and their work has grown, so too has the sniping and counter-argument
• This centres around bias, as their work is often funded by the TV lobby; Sample bias, as their effectiveness studies based on IPA Awards data only pick from ‘winners’, or big UK campaigns that have already won awards and; Self reporting; that their work relies on those submitting awards entries to essentially mark their own homework
• Ritson dismisses the first aspect, pointing out that Binet and Field’s research is also often funded by digital platforms; Accepts focusing on big campaigns is a limiting factor; Accepts self-reporting is imperfect, but points to correlations with externally reported data where available
• “Even with these sizeable caveats the work transcends these limitations, from my perspective.”
• “In truth, much of this debate centres on the imperfection of all data in proving marketing theory. We do not study rocks or gravity or the rotation of the earth.”
• “This big messy world of advertising, with all its varied and contradictory inputs, does not easily correlate with the equally untidy world of corporate performance and marketing effectiveness.”