When the U.S. Coast Guard and Boat US contacted my company, Allegiance Research, to determine if boaters are more likely to wear inflatable life jackets as compared to the bulkier traditional life jackets, I knew that pictures or pictographs would have to be used to identify the different types of life jackets on the market.
For example there are off-shore, near-shore, flotation aids, special use, and the newer inflatable jackets. These different types would have to be “pictured” in the survey so respondents would know exactly which types they were evaluating. The pictographs were incorporated into a standard mail survey. This cleared up a lot of potential confusion and much useful information was developed
In follow-up interviews we used pictographs that showed people wearing the various life jackets and then respondents started telling stories. These stories provided a wealth of information beyond the mail survey and uncovered candid and detailed information. For example, how a person feels when confronted with a potentially-dangerous situation and will they be able to pull the cord for an inflatable jacket.
There are pros and cons for inflatable and traditional life jackets. Inflatables are more attractive and do not get in the way, but they are more expensive and you have to be able to inflate it to use it (which you cannot do if knocked unconscious). Traditionals are less attractive and bulky, but they are cheaper and you do not have to inflate it to use it. The challenge was to get into the minds of the users and let them talk without asking leading questions.
For more details, email AllegianceResearch@gmail.com
Friday, July 17, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Critiquing Brain Scans and the Assumption That Purchasing is a Matter of Status and Self-Definition
John Tierney writes an article in his blog that is entitled, “Could it be that humans are not quite as gullible as advertised?”
He takes social psychologists to task when he says, “For a couple of decades now, social psychologists and behavioral economists have been amusing themselves manipulating consumers into doing odd things. They’ve delighted in debunking the notion of homo economicus, that theoretical creature who rationally seeks maximum economic utility.”
John doesn’t seem to be too fond of brain scans either. He says, “But suppose, instead of scanning people’s brains as they’re sipping wine in a laboratory, you tested them in a more realistic situation.” The results turn out to be quite different. “After three months of testing various combinations of prices, the researchers found they couldn’t sway the customers. Putting a higher price on the shrimp or any other entree didn’t make people more likely to order it.”
John critiques both MRI brain scans, which are all the rage at the moment, and the assumption that purchasing is a matter of status and self-definition. I think that John Tierney is on to something. Therefore, I replied in a comment,
Hi John,
You note that Geoffrey Miller, in his new book “Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior,” argues that “humans often waste money because of the unconscious- and mistaken- belief that our costly stuff will signal our intelligence and sterling personality traits to potential mates and allies.”
You then point out that in hypothetical situations manipulation seems to work, but in the real world people choose what they like on the basis of the product not the price. Finally, you note that in terms of really large purchases, people tend to be fairly happy with their purchases.
What is going on here? I suggest that consumer researchers are missing “context.” For example, as you note, in a restaurant where they’re spending their own money consumers were not easily manipulated.
I designed context-driven qualitative research and I “duplicate” the buying scenario. As a researcher I am frequently surprised by the results. Consumers invariably make sense, but only in terms of their own perspective. The lesson here is that we need to be non-directive and to provide some sort of context. For more details e-mail me at allegianceresearch@gmail.com.
He takes social psychologists to task when he says, “For a couple of decades now, social psychologists and behavioral economists have been amusing themselves manipulating consumers into doing odd things. They’ve delighted in debunking the notion of homo economicus, that theoretical creature who rationally seeks maximum economic utility.”
John doesn’t seem to be too fond of brain scans either. He says, “But suppose, instead of scanning people’s brains as they’re sipping wine in a laboratory, you tested them in a more realistic situation.” The results turn out to be quite different. “After three months of testing various combinations of prices, the researchers found they couldn’t sway the customers. Putting a higher price on the shrimp or any other entree didn’t make people more likely to order it.”
John critiques both MRI brain scans, which are all the rage at the moment, and the assumption that purchasing is a matter of status and self-definition. I think that John Tierney is on to something. Therefore, I replied in a comment,
Hi John,
You note that Geoffrey Miller, in his new book “Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior,” argues that “humans often waste money because of the unconscious- and mistaken- belief that our costly stuff will signal our intelligence and sterling personality traits to potential mates and allies.”
You then point out that in hypothetical situations manipulation seems to work, but in the real world people choose what they like on the basis of the product not the price. Finally, you note that in terms of really large purchases, people tend to be fairly happy with their purchases.
What is going on here? I suggest that consumer researchers are missing “context.” For example, as you note, in a restaurant where they’re spending their own money consumers were not easily manipulated.
I designed context-driven qualitative research and I “duplicate” the buying scenario. As a researcher I am frequently surprised by the results. Consumers invariably make sense, but only in terms of their own perspective. The lesson here is that we need to be non-directive and to provide some sort of context. For more details e-mail me at allegianceresearch@gmail.com.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Technology of Context-Driven Qualitative Research
Someone asked me recently about the “technology” of Context-Driven Qualitative Research (CDQR), previously called “Cartoon Sequence Research.” Some of my previous blogs describe how a research project is conducted with this methodology. I use pictographs to depict a purchasing scenario. Why pictographs and not pictures?
Pictographs seek to understand consumer behavior by providing visual stimuli that is sufficiently contextual yet open to subjective interpretation. Our research shows that respondents tend not to identify with pictures that are too detailed, and cartoon-like pictographs tend to work better.
Respondents really open up when they are shown the pictographs and this appears to solve the post-rationalization problem that exists when you ask the respondent to recall their experience. The immediacy of the process also seems to capture emotions. This became evident in several instances. For example, pictographs showing the difficulty of finding a parking space revealed the same emotions as the real thing.
Originally, cartoonists were employed to translate pictures into cartoon-like pictographs. Since several sets were required to match the sets to respondents, this was very time- consuming. Now there are several good picture-to-cartoon software programs available, and artists are only used for “touch-ups” which this saves considerable time.
When CDQR was first developed, laminated pictographs and a tape recorder were utilized, now it is possible to perform the same task with a tablet PC. This also makes it easier when working in a focus group situation because the same pictographs can be projected to a screen.
Technology doesn’t seem to change things from the respondent’s perspective but it makes it easier to do the research. Also, on occasion, I still use laminated pictographs. If you’d like to take a whirl at this type of research, e-mail me at AllegianceResearch@gmail.com
Pictographs seek to understand consumer behavior by providing visual stimuli that is sufficiently contextual yet open to subjective interpretation. Our research shows that respondents tend not to identify with pictures that are too detailed, and cartoon-like pictographs tend to work better.
Respondents really open up when they are shown the pictographs and this appears to solve the post-rationalization problem that exists when you ask the respondent to recall their experience. The immediacy of the process also seems to capture emotions. This became evident in several instances. For example, pictographs showing the difficulty of finding a parking space revealed the same emotions as the real thing.
Originally, cartoonists were employed to translate pictures into cartoon-like pictographs. Since several sets were required to match the sets to respondents, this was very time- consuming. Now there are several good picture-to-cartoon software programs available, and artists are only used for “touch-ups” which this saves considerable time.
When CDQR was first developed, laminated pictographs and a tape recorder were utilized, now it is possible to perform the same task with a tablet PC. This also makes it easier when working in a focus group situation because the same pictographs can be projected to a screen.
Technology doesn’t seem to change things from the respondent’s perspective but it makes it easier to do the research. Also, on occasion, I still use laminated pictographs. If you’d like to take a whirl at this type of research, e-mail me at AllegianceResearch@gmail.com
Monday, June 22, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
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
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
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Why Use Cartoon-Pictographs in Depicting a Buying Scenario?
Good question. In terms of theory, Context-Driven Qualitative Research or Cartoon Sequence Research (CSR) is an extension of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a projective methodology that uses pictures which can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It is most often used to assess personality in the psychoanalytic tradition.
Pictographs seek to understand consumer behavior by providing visual stimuli that is sufficiently contextual yet open to subjective interpretation. Our research shows that respondents tend not to identify with pictures that are too detailed, and cartoon-like pictographs tend to work better.
In practice, twenty to thirty cartoon pictographs are constructed to make a set that shows a buying scenario. For example, one set was developed that showed a couple purchasing an automobile. In this instance, early scenes depicted situations where one would first consider buying a new car. Others showed people looking at car ads in the newspaper, and another showed people driving past a billboard with a dealership ad. Later in the set the remainder of the purchasing process was depicted.
Without going into great detail, it should be noted that there are three types of pictographs that are a part of this process: situational; interactive; and reflective. Situational provide context, such as driving into the dealership or standing in line to purchase something. Interactive show the consumer relating to a salesperson or the product. Reflective show an individual discussing their reaction to a situation.
It is desirable for the respondent to identify with the pictographs, and usually five or six sets are developed. This allows the researcher to match the different sets to the respondents. These include singles, couples, and different age groups.
It is a bit of a challenge to determine the “buying scenario” and to construct the various sets of cartoon pictographs, but the findings are so comprehensive and insightful that the process is well worth it. For more information, e-mail allegianceresearch@gmail.com
Pictographs seek to understand consumer behavior by providing visual stimuli that is sufficiently contextual yet open to subjective interpretation. Our research shows that respondents tend not to identify with pictures that are too detailed, and cartoon-like pictographs tend to work better.
In practice, twenty to thirty cartoon pictographs are constructed to make a set that shows a buying scenario. For example, one set was developed that showed a couple purchasing an automobile. In this instance, early scenes depicted situations where one would first consider buying a new car. Others showed people looking at car ads in the newspaper, and another showed people driving past a billboard with a dealership ad. Later in the set the remainder of the purchasing process was depicted.
Without going into great detail, it should be noted that there are three types of pictographs that are a part of this process: situational; interactive; and reflective. Situational provide context, such as driving into the dealership or standing in line to purchase something. Interactive show the consumer relating to a salesperson or the product. Reflective show an individual discussing their reaction to a situation.
It is desirable for the respondent to identify with the pictographs, and usually five or six sets are developed. This allows the researcher to match the different sets to the respondents. These include singles, couples, and different age groups.
It is a bit of a challenge to determine the “buying scenario” and to construct the various sets of cartoon pictographs, but the findings are so comprehensive and insightful that the process is well worth it. For more information, e-mail allegianceresearch@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
