The observer effect

In this edition of Top Voices on the AJ Center, we delve into a compelling concept with Monya Morrie, a Cape Town-based marketing consultant whose experience spans global brands like Constant Contact. Our focus? The “observer effect” in marketing—a phenomenon much like in physics, where the act of observing alters the outcome of particle behavior. When campaigns are scrutinized by millions online, public perception often influences their direction, even if the original strategy was meticulously crafted. This observer effect forces brands to question: does the visibility and critique improve campaign effectiveness or detract from authentic messaging?

Consider a notable example: Pepsi's 2017 ad featuring Kendall Jenner, intended to spread a message of unity, quickly became a lightning rod for criticism. Public reactions prompted the company to withdraw and re-evaluate the campaign within 24 hours. The widespread scrutiny did more than just alter the campaign—it reshaped its outcome entirely, as Pepsi recalibrated its approach to avoid offending audiences. In our discussion, Monya Morrie shares insights into balancing the need for transparency with strategic restraint, offering an expert take on when to pivot and when to hold steady in the face of online feedback.

Hi Monya, please tell us a bit about yourself and your professional accomplishments. 

I'm Monya Morrie, a Cape Town-based marketing consultant with a passion for driving innovative and strategic campaigns. I've been in the marketing industry for over a decade, working with both emerging brands and well-established companies, including Constant Contact. My focus is on developing high-impact campaigns that not only reach but resonate with audiences, helping brands strengthen connections and achieve sustainable growth.

Throughout my career, I've enjoyed blending creativity with data-driven insights, leveraging these strengths to craft campaigns that make a difference. Recently, I’ve specialized in consulting with startups and established businesses alike, bringing fresh perspectives to their marketing efforts and ensuring their strategies are aligned with evolving market demands.

Marketing campaigns are increasingly scrutinized in real-time, which can influence consumer behavior. How do you balance the transparency that public scrutiny demands with the need to keep certain strategies under wraps to maintain competitive advantage? Can too much transparency reduce campaign effectiveness, or is it a necessary trade-off in today's market?

Balancing transparency with a competitive edge is essential. Today’s consumers expect honesty, and I aim to meet that expectation by sharing what’s valuable and relevant without revealing every detail. Public scrutiny often pushes us to reveal more about our process and intentions, which fosters trust but also requires a strategic approach. Transparency strengthens connections, but certain aspects, such as proprietary methodologies or specific tactical details, must remain confidential to protect our competitive positioning.

Too much transparency can indeed dilute a campaign’s effectiveness, as competitors can easily replicate strategies, which erodes a campaign’s uniqueness. For instance, when working on a Constant Contact campaign focused on personalized engagement, we shared high-level data while keeping our precise engagement tactics private. This approach allowed us to showcase expertise without giving away competitive advantages. In an evolving marketing landscape, transparency is critical, but so is selective sharing to maintain consumer trust and strategic advantage.

Social media amplifies the observer effect by instantly exposing campaigns to criticism or praise. How do you prepare for the unpredictability of online reactions, and what contingency plans do you put in place when public perception diverges from campaign intent? Is adjusting a campaign mid-flight a sign of adaptability or a reactive weakness that risks losing authenticity?

Social media’s influence on the observer effect is undeniable, and to address this, I employ a strategy that includes real-time monitoring and adaptable contingency planning. I always prepare for various outcomes by analyzing possible reactions to each campaign before launch. I craft adaptable messaging to allow quick responses if sentiment shifts unexpectedly. For instance, during a recent client campaign, we planned ahead by designating response teams to handle both positive and critical feedback swiftly. This preemptive approach kept us in control, letting us adapt without compromising the campaign’s integrity.

Adjusting mid-flight, in my view, is a sign of strength rather than weakness. Responsiveness to audience needs demonstrates commitment, although it’s essential not to stray too far from the original intent, as constant reactive changes can harm authenticity. When making adjustments, I focus on message tone or tactical elements rather than the core message, maintaining consistency while being responsive. This approach strengthens long-term brand loyalty and trust.

The fear of public backlash can lead brands to play it safe, yet bold, risky campaigns often stand out. How do you evaluate the risk of being controversial for the sake of visibility, and where do you draw the line between generating buzz and risking brand trust?

Evaluating the risk of bold campaigns requires a balance between visibility and alignment with brand values. Bold campaigns drive engagement, but they must be executed thoughtfully to avoid alienating the audience. In assessing risks, I consider brand alignment, potential long-term effects, and audience expectations. If a campaign aligns with values and objectives, I may proceed despite potential controversy, but I avoid campaigns that rely solely on shock value.

I draw the line at risking trust. One calculated risk I took was during a campaign that challenged traditional email marketing approaches, leading to some pushback. However, it resonated with brands looking to innovate and sparked valuable dialogue without jeopardizing credibility. Brand trust is paramount; if a campaign might jeopardize that, I refine or rethink it entirely.

Public scrutiny often shifts marketing focus from creativity to compliance and risk management. How do you ensure your campaigns remain creative and engaging without being overly cautious or bland due to fear of negative attention? Does the observer effect make it harder to innovate, or does it provide a critical audience that helps refine the message?

The observer effect can challenge creativity, but it doesn’t need to stifle it. I prioritize compliance and risk management in the early planning stages, which allows my creative teams to focus on bold ideas within a safe framework. Compliance guides boundaries, but creativity drives the content. For example, during a recent project with a SaaS company, we combined innovative visuals and forward-thinking content to push boundaries while maintaining ethical standards and alignment with brand values.

The observer effect can actually enhance campaigns by providing instant feedback that helps us refine our approach. While scrutiny does add pressure, it also gives insight into what resonates or misses the mark with the audience. This feedback loop enables us to maintain compliance and creativity, delivering campaigns that are both responsible and engaging.

Public opinion can act as a barometer for campaign success, but is it always accurate? How do you distinguish between a vocal minority’s critique and genuine market feedback that warrants a pivot? What metrics do you rely on to avoid overreacting to short-term public scrutiny, and how do you handle the pressure to change course quickly?

Public opinion is a valuable indicator, but it doesn’t always represent the wider audience. I use various metrics to gauge impact, with social media engagement and sentiment analysis for immediate reactions, and conversion rates and ROI for long-term effectiveness. If vocal feedback surfaces, I analyze its relevance before making changes.

Distinguishing between a vocal minority and genuine feedback requires data analysis and patience. If feedback recurs across segments, I take it more seriously, but I avoid knee-jerk reactions to isolated complaints. This approach keeps us agile without compromising strategy.

Monitoring audience feedback in real-time provides valuable insights, but it can also lead to a ‘paralysis by analysis’ effect. How do you filter out noise and focus on what really matters when public scrutiny provides conflicting signals? Is there a point where too much data becomes a hindrance to effective decision-making?

Real-time feedback is a double-edged sword, and while it enables quick responses, it can lead to “paralysis by analysis.” To address this, I prioritize metrics that align directly with campaign goals. Feedback impacting KPIs, such as engagement rates or conversions, takes precedence over less significant or conflicting opinions. I hold regular check-ins with cross-functional teams to focus on high-impact data, ensuring campaign decisions are data-driven and efficient.

Excessive data can indeed hinder decision-making if it overwhelms with conflicting insights. To prevent this, I categorize feedback by relevance and impact, quickly identifying actionable insights. This method allows focus on essential data, keeping campaigns efficient and on track.

The observer effect can pressure brands to prioritize short-term wins over long-term goals due to constant public evaluation. How do you balance the pressure to produce instant results under scrutiny with the need to stay true to long-term brand vision and strategy? Are there compromises that you’ve had to make, and what were the consequences?

Balancing short-term wins with long-term goals is essential amid constant evaluation. I stay aligned with long-term vision by anchoring campaigns to strategic objectives that reflect brand values. While some adjustments drive immediate engagement, they do not conflict with our brand’s mission. For instance, in one client’s brand refresh, we shifted focus to increase short-term visibility without compromising their broader objectives.

Sometimes, compromises are necessary. For example, I reallocated resources to amplify a launch on social media, delaying other projects. This pivot enhanced visibility for the launch but required us to quickly redirect focus post-launch. Ultimately, balancing short-term needs with a long-term perspective ensures sustainable growth without compromising strategy.

Monya Morrie is a dynamic marketing consultant based in Cape Town, South Africa, with over ten years of experience in driving successful marketing strategies for various organizations, including Constant Contact. She is passionate about helping businesses enhance their brand visibility through innovative, data-driven campaigns that effectively engage their target audiences. Monya excels in developing tailored marketing solutions that align with client goals and respond to market trends.

linkedin.com/in/monya-morrie-b7147a4b