Jacques Séguéla’s famous line — « less testing, more guts » — still resonates throughout the marketing world. Behind the provocation lies a deeper question: by seeking to reduce risk and secure decisions, does marketing research end up limiting brand creativity?
The question is especially relevant in the world of packaging. It is both a powerful lever for differentiation and innovation, and a domain where mistakes can prove costly. Is research condemned to play a controlling — even restraining — role? Or can it, on the contrary, help stronger, more relevant ideas emerge?
Damien Arrouas, SVP Europe at Behaviorally, shares his view on these issues here. He discusses, in particular, the conditions that he believes allow research to fuel creativity while also informing decisions.
MRNews: Jacques Séguéla’s line, « less testing, more guts, » has certainly left its mark. What does the « tester » in you make of it? Do you think there’s a grain of truth in it?
Damien Arrouas (Behaviorally): The idea that research can stifle creativity does indeed exist among some marketers and creatives. And it would be an overstatement to say it’s baseless. Research is also meant to limit the risks associated with ideas that may look appealing on paper but fail to connect with their audience.
These stakes shouldn’t be underestimated. When a major brand launches a new range, the industrial, commercial, and marketing investments involved can be considerable. In that context, understanding consumers in depth isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity.
That said, reducing research to this risk-mitigation function alone would be a mistake. Research also produces what fuels creativity: insights. These are what allow us to better understand consumers’ expectations, frustrations, and behaviors. In that sense, research isn’t only there to reduce risk; it also helps bring forth ideas that are more relevant — and often more creative.
Reducing research to this risk-mitigation function alone would be a mistake. Research also produces what fuels creativity: insights. These are what allow us to better understand consumers’ expectations, frustrations, and behaviors. In that sense, research isn’t only there to reduce risk; it also helps bring forth ideas that are more relevant — and often more creative.
Could you share an example of an insight that particularly struck you for its ability to fuel marketing creativity?
There are many. The first one that comes to mind is the insight that inspired Dove’s « Real Beauty Sketches » campaign, back when I was working at Unilever. The insight was simple: only 2% of women consider themselves beautiful. Behind that statistic lay a very powerful human truth, which the brand managed to turn into a now-iconic campaign. This example illustrates well how an insight can spark a powerful creative idea when it touches on something profoundly true.
There are also very interesting examples in the world of packaging. Danone’s teams had observed that many consumers who claimed to eat their yogurt in moderation nonetheless systematically scraped the bottom of the pot. This observation led to a redesign of Activia’s packaging, rounding out the bottom of the container. Sales grew after the launch. It’s an interesting example of an improvement that responds to a real behavior while also creating visible differentiation.
Is it really that simple, in the world of packaging, to have research play both roles at once: fueling creativity and securing decisions?
No, it’s far from straightforward. There’s even a kind of tension between these two objectives. On one hand, you need to explore, imagine, and open up the field of possibilities. On the other, you need to make decisions and limit risk.
This is precisely the issue that led us to develop Studio B™, an approach designed to bring these two dimensions closer together. The idea is to give marketing teams the benefit of both insights that can feed creativity and more predictive elements that can inform decisions.
Artificial intelligence plays an important role in this approach, notably because it helps accelerate certain steps that previously required more resources.
What are the main stages involved?
We work around three main phases.
The first is about understanding shoppers’ deep motivations, whether functional or emotional. We rely in particular on AI-assisted immersive qualitative interviews. This is generally the stage where the richest insights emerge. The goal, above all, is to better understand human behavior.
Next comes the design phase. Generative AI makes it possible to quickly explore different creative directions and refine packaging concepts. This opens up possibilities for iteration and exploration that were much harder to achieve before.
Finally, the third phase consists of assessing the potential performance of the selected concepts, in order to identify their key success drivers and any points of concern before they go to market.
You mention a framework built around « the 4S. » What does that involve?
Over time, we’ve observed that effective packaging needs to accomplish several successive missions.
The first is to be seen. In a highly competitive environment, packaging needs to stand out visually and be immediately associated with the brand.
The second is to facilitate purchase. Consumers need to quickly find what they’re looking for, identify the product without difficulty, and navigate the range with ease.
The third dimension is seduction. The packaging must evoke an emotion, convey a promise, or create a kind of visceral pull.
Finally, it must help trigger the purchase itself, by minimizing potential friction as much as possible and earning the consumer’s trust.
This is the sequence of steps we sum up through four dimensions, the 4S: Be Seen, Be Shoppable, Be Seductive, and Be Selected.
What impact does this approach have on development timelines?
Every Studio B™ project has its own specifics, so it’s hard to give a general rule. What we do observe, however, is a significant reduction in the time between identifying an insight and translating it into concrete creative directions. Historically, there was often a lot of loss between these different stages.
One of the major benefits of these new approaches is precisely that they bring marketing, research, and design teams closer together around a shared working process.
You emphasize the role of AI. What place does human support still hold?
Human support remains central. We have teams specialized in qualitative research across Europe, the United States, and Asia. AI helps speed up certain tasks, but it replaces neither methodological expertise nor the interpretation of results. The role of experts remains essential to understand shoppers’ deep motivations, make sense of the findings gathered, and support clients’ decisions.
AI helps speed up certain tasks, but it replaces neither methodological expertise nor the interpretation of results. The role of experts remains essential to understand shoppers’ deep motivations, make sense of the findings gathered, and support clients’ decisions.
Ultimately, AI is above all an additional tool. The value created still depends on the quality of the analysis, the experience built up over time, and the ability to turn findings into recommendations that are genuinely useful for brands.
What advice would you give to brands looking to combine creativity, commercial effectiveness, and risk management?
First, I’d tell them not to set creativity and research against each other. Insights remain the primary fuel for creativity. Without them, brands risk relying solely on intuition. Yet consumer behavior is often more complex than it appears. So the real challenge isn’t testing more or less — it’s testing more intelligently. When used well, research doesn’t limit creative boldness; it gives that boldness a better chance of succeeding.
The most effective creativity isn’t necessarily the kind that surprises the most. It’s often the kind that manages to create the right surprise, at the right moment, grounded in a genuine understanding of consumers.
The most effective creativity isn’t necessarily the kind that surprises the most. It’s often the kind that manages to create the right surprise, at the right moment, grounded in a genuine understanding of consumers.
That’s why I believe research isn’t an obstacle to creativity. On the contrary, it’s what nourishes it best and gives it the best chance of succeeding.
POUR ACTION
• Interacting with interviewees : @ Damien Arrouas
