5 reasons Binet and Field got it wrong on effectiveness

This article was originally published on The Drum

What do Sonic Youth, Carl Jung, and the Bible have in common? They all think you should ‘kill your idols’ – that you shouldn’t be blinded by the shine of fame, that you need to keep your critical faculties intact when listening to ‘celebrities’.

In the world of marketing effectiveness, there are two men idolized above all others – Les Binet and Peter Field.

Rightly so.

Their work stands as steady thinking amidst the storm of marketing commentary, and a corrective force against the autocracy of quarterly targets.

They are, in many ways, my heroes.

So, with a fanfare of distorted guitars, psychotherapy, and spiritualism, here we go…

1. Effectiveness isn’t about measurement, it’s about improvement

First, and perhaps most importantly, the point of looking at effectiveness isn’t to write books and academic papers. It isn’t even just to make the next three years as effective as possible. It’s also to make the campaign you’re working on right now as effective as possible. Test and learn is the order of the day, not set and forget. Practice, not just theory. That’s true at a campaign level, and it’s true for a medium-term plan. BiFi’s famous golden ratios of short- and long-term spending are an impressive-sounding answer to a not-very-useful question: ‘on average, and in general, how have people spent their marketing budget?’ And speaking of averages…

2. The law of averages

Hussain’s law of averages states that, on average, averages don’t actually exist in the real world. Just ask the US Air force. FiBi’s work reduces the complexities of IRL situations to a cornucopia of catchy graphs. These graphs advise the average company how to behave in an average market that’s in an averaged context. Unfortunately, neither that company, nor that market, nor that context has ever existed. Short of an ‘infinite-monkeys-meet-infinite-typewriters’ approach to business (a very long game indeed), this renders the aforementioned graphs less useful than a single monkey using a single typewriter.

3. Small sample + many variables = unreliable results

LesTer, it seems, pick a relatively arbitrary sample from campaigns that have already been sold as ‘very effective’. This is like judging the consistency of milk by sampling cream. More enjoyable, but not accurate. For more on why this is a problem, read this excellent article, in which I found the photo below. In summary, Dorothy is not a representative sample of the human population.

4. There aren’t two types of marketing activity

Good vs Bad. Messi vs Ronaldo. Short vs Long. Sure, dualism is alluring (and is peculiarly enduring), and it can create nice tidy diagrams like the one below, but it leads, once again, to a wildly inaccurate abstraction of reality. There aren’t two buckets for campaigns. There aren’t sales activation campaigns. There aren’t brand campaigns. (At least, not for anyone in the audience.) There are many campaigns, each unique in its approach and ambition. This doesn’t make for tidy data though, so yep – I’m going with Messi being ‘better’ than Ronaldo. (For more on the problems of dualistic thinking, read this analysis from Tom Roach.)

Written by:

Alastair Hussain
Head of Effectiveness

Further reading

B2B marketers: we’re all behavioral scientists now


B2B Effectiveness Barometer 2020



17th September 2020


We’d love to hear
from you
Get in touch


Insights and updates.
Straight to your inbox


All the latest from our offices
around the world
Back to top