Often, there are companies that have grown so large that advertising is not used to increase sales or raise awareness–rather, their ads are used as PR damage control or to ensure that they don’t sink under the public radar. At some point, you made a choice to drink either Pepsi or Coke–is a great ad going to change your opinion on the matter one way or another? Similarly, you already have an opinion about McDonald’s, and no ad is going to convince you that the company is anything other than what it is.

Which is why their latest ad is so interesting, from both an industry and social standpoint. McDonald’s is very much promoting a message of both tolerance and acceptance for sexual orientations that veer from the hetero-normative standard. And while the ad itself is only running in France, we should note that it was originally released with English subtitles–perhaps so that the commercial could reach out without incurring the firestorm it would produce in the States. But what do they gain from this? Will this increase sales? Help them enter new markets? Help assuage their popular conception as obesity-mongers?

The answer, of course, is no on all accounts. All things considered, this is a rather risky move, where the potential downsides far outweigh any positive outcomes. But the fact that one of the largest companies in the world feels comfortable promoting this message is a useful social barometer. The times, they are a changin’.

As for the ad itself? It’s a beautiful bit of short-form fiction, all show and no tell. It requires the viewer to place the pieces together, with a payoff that somehow manages to not take sides. It tells a simple and rather sweet familial story in under a minute, and is one of my favorite ads of the year thus far. But what do you think? Ballsy, brilliant or stupid? Or is it only what it is, with no overarching implication? Do tell.

The first article was put out by the 4A’s and was a fairly serious bit of research with more than a dozen citation references. The latter was an article that appeared in the Kansas City Star, and was based on a larger article that will appear in the August 2010 edition of Journal of Consumer Research. Interestingly, both validate what every reputable ad-person already knows: that logic will never win someone’s heart. But emotion, used logically, will. This has been the one indelible truth behind effective advertising since advertising became, well, effective so many moons ago.

I’m not slamming research, mind you. I’m all for the power of research and how it can inform the creation of a more effective ad. I’ve been in countless situations where good, actionable research absolutely made the creative effort better. But I’ve also been in countless situations where the research told us exactly what we already knew, and did almost nothing to inform a more compelling creative execution. So where’s the fine line?

There isn’t one. Because in today’s economy, all of our ideas need to be backed up by research – even if that research doesn’t really help the creative process. Why? Because with tighter ad spending, most clients will no longer buy an idea based solely on the perceived strength of an intangible, which an idea is. They need research to validate the idea.

Yet even with research, all purchases remain emotional. Even for things we need rather than want, some kind of emotional trigger invariably makes us choose product A over product B. As George Lois, one of advertising’s giants, correctly stated, “…advertising is an art that springs from intuition, from instinct and above all, from talent.” Emotional attributes that, when used properly, also create emotional responses in consumers.

So if research is required to validate our emotional triggers, bring it on. Because research will help sell and defend the creative better than an opinion will. Which means I’ve answered the question that the title of this missive asks (insert compelling music sting or laugh track here).