Testing Brand Extensions Pictographically

M&M backpacks and camping gear might not work but M&M lunch boxes make sense. Hershey tennis shoes are a stretch but a Hershey hot drink holder may fly.

Certainly M&Ms and Hershey have extended their reach in a variety of areas, but when is it too much?

Derrick Daye and Brad VanAuken in their excellent blog Branding Strategy Insider at http://brandingstrategyinsider.com/ point out that a brand is damaged when there is not a good match or when the brand is extended too far. Their Packard car example is almost folk wisdom. By offering a cheaper model, this damaged the demand for the most expensive and prestigious model and it fell out of favor. Apparently, Packard executives forgot to “Ask the man who owns one.”

I suggest that pictographic research may be an excellent way to test brand extensions. Simply picture the purchasing situation, place the brand on the proposed extension, and listen to potential consumers. You won’t have to ask leading questions and you will get some very unexpected, but relevant, information. For more info e-mail AllegianceResearch@gmail.com

GM is in Dire Need of Good Qualitative Research

I recently read an article in the “Washington Post,” July 8, 2009 that says the quality of the Chevrolet Malibu is on par with, or better than, the Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. It reported that GM Chief Executive Henderson said, “The single most important thing that we can do is get the product right.” Mr. Henderson, you are only half right. Even if you get the product right, your potential customers must believe that you got the product right.

The article goes on to sight some very interesting focus group research. When shown the car without the Chevrolet logo and told it was rated North American car of the year by auto journalists and recommended by “Consumer Reports,” the respondents loved the car. Then they were told it is the new Chevrolet Malibu and they fell out of love. In other words, the people in the focus groups did not have faith in the Chevrolet brand.

Troy Clarke, President of GM North America, said “Attitudes about GM have hardened into something akin to religious faith, so changing minds won’t be easy.” He goes on, “I wish it were as simple as people are poorly informed and we just need to do a better job of informing them. I believe many people buy cars as a function of their belief system and not as an act of problem-solving. This is the problem that we face. It’s not a problem of giving you more data; it’s a matter of combating beliefs.”

Let’s see if I’ve got this: good car; bad beliefs; keep building good cars and this will eliminate bad beliefs. Of course, it’s necessary to build good products but you need to understand the potential customer and if I ‘m reading the situation correctly you are missing an important step.

GM executives understand that car purchasing is not particularly rational, and that more data, even favorable data, won’t work. Finally, emotion and beliefs are a large part of the equation.

GM, my area of expertise is context-driven qualitative research and here is what I would do. The goal is to understand the values related to purchasing an automobile. First it is necessary that respondents are appropriately selected. Next, pictographs are developed to understand what goes through the potential purchaser’s mind when considering purchasing a car. Competitive cars are evaluated as is GM corporate image and cars.

The goal is to allow respondents to discuss a variety of automobile related topics without asking specific questions. We are looking for beliefs, values, and vocabulary. Remember, consumers do not necessarily make sense to the researcher, but they make sense to themselves.

It is the respondents’ perspectives that will lay the basis for effective communication. There are positive beliefs and values to be found, and there are resonant statements to be developed, but they will remain undiscovered without using context-driven qualitative research.

For more information, e-mail AllegianceResearch@gmail.com.

An Offer You Can Refuse - - But Probably Shouldn’t

Hey Chief Marketing Officer what do you really want to know? My methodology called “Context-Driven Qualitative Research” gets into the mind of the consumer during the numerous steps of the purchasing process. It’s a little like the Vulcan Mind-Probe.

The methodology discovers resonant statements, unstated values, and unexpected misunderstandings related to products, services and brands. Wouldn’t you like to know these things?

There has been a radical change in consumer attitudes. People have less trust in banks, insurance companies, financial advisors, and government. I am reminded of the joke “I don’t have a 401K, I have a 201K.” Yep, and your brand is floating out there in a sea of change.

Now, for the offer! Tell me what you really want to know about your consumers and I will provide you with a description of the “pictographic” scenario that I would use to answer your question. No charge, no obligation. Just e-mail me at AllegianceResearch@gmail.com.

For example, you may ask “How have attitudes toward large banks fundamentally changed?” or “Does a particular brand extension make sense?” or “What are the triggers that get someone to consider taking a cruise?” Basically, if you can frame the question, I can probably translate the question into pictographic format. After that, it is possible to find the answers from the profiled consumer.

If yours is an interesting challenge, I would like to work with you. We’re a minimalist consultancy that can easily be ignored, but we can pick and choose whom we want to work with. Here is what you won’t get: Seville-Row suited consultants, an impressive board room, and a Madison Avenue address. You’ll have to settle for a breakthrough methodology and innovative thinking.

Our office is on a boat and if you ignore us, the breeze will still blow and the sunsets will still be beautiful but you will miss a real opportunity. Again, that e-mail is AllegianceResearch@gmail.com.

MRI Imaging Solves the Mystery of Consumer Behavior - - Not!

Martin Lindstrom’s recent book is titled “Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy” and he explains the use of the MRI in neuro-marketing. In a review by Michael S. Rosenwald in the “Washington Post,” it is suggested that Buyology “gets to the bottom of our buying habits, particularly our obsession with certain brands.”

I suggest that neuro-marketing has some of the answers but it is not “the answer.” In fact, I believe that many of the conclusions drawn are not necessarily related to the MRI results.

Mr. Lindstrom rightly points out that perceived scarcity is a strong motivator. To illustrate, he notes that if one is given the opportunity to take as much candy as they want, consumers will take three from a box of six, and one from a box of thirty. But social scientists have known about this and about “loss aversion” for a very long time.

In another interesting finding he states that, “Bottom line, there was no discernable difference between the way the subjects’ brains reacted to powerful brands and the way they reacted to religious icons and figures.” Lindstrom goes on to explain that “when people line up outside Apple stores for the latest iPhone, they are not hankering to get the latest gadget - - they are pretty much having a religious experience, too.”

This seems to say more about early adopters than mainstream shoppers and I am not sure what you do with this type of information if you are selling less exotic products such as hammers.

Next, Lindstrom talks about the difference between the brain scans while showing Coke versus Pepsi. With Pepsi, only the ventral region of the brain, an area associated with taste, was activated. With Coke the ventral and the medial cortex were activated. Lindstrom says the difference is explained because Coke “has for years inundated the world with advertising associating the beverage with warm memories of childhood, etc.” Now this may be true, but it isn’t as if Pepsi hasn’t advertised in a similar way and for a very long time.

MRI consumer scanning can teach us a lot, but it shouldn’t take too much credit. After all, we already know that: scarcity motivates; increased fear requires a solution to be effective; sexual appeals can be so strong that the viewer forgets about the product being advertised; some stimuli appeals to the reptilian portion of our brains; and we tend to react first and rationalize later.

Still, I think context needs to be a part of the mix. Otherwise it is difficult to be product or service specific. For more information about context-driven qualitative research contact me at AllegianceResearch@gmail.com