At this years PSFK Conference NYC, I moderated the panel ‘Brand New Rules’, a discussion about whether new rules are needed to govern the behavior of brands in a world increasingly defined by changing social, cultural, technological and economic forces.
Which got me thinking. Hasn’t it always been the role of brands to break rules and create new ones?
And doesn’t that come from brand strategy ideas that create change in culture?
Is ‘new’ just another way of saying ‘good’?
I think we’d all agree that there’s no shortage of good creative thinking in our industry. So why is it often difficult to make good ideas happen?
The role of a brand is to invent new possibilities, so setting rules might seem counter-intuitive, but perhaps there are new practices we need to put in place to put more creativity into ‘creative strategy’.
With our panelists Paul Worthington, (Wolff Ollins), Paul M Taylor (Diageo), Maria Vrachnos (Peep Insights), and Doug Jaeger (thehappycorp/Art Directors Club), we started to debate what these brand new rules might be, and now we’d like to hear what you think.
Everyday this week, for 4 days we’ll be posting a new question for you to debate. Rupert Newton, (the other half of The Joneses) and myself will be weighing in and guiding the discussions, until we have 4 ‘Brand New Rules’.
(Catch up with the conversation around question 1 here.)
Question 2.
In a recent interview David Attenborough, the broadcaster and naturalist, talked about why he gave up on his earlier anthropological work. He said, “…human’s are unique in that when people know they are being observed they change their behavior and if they don’t know you’re spying on them”.
Why do we continue to invest millions of dollars in market research based on claimed behavior and how do we develop deep insights into actual human behavior?
Share your ideas in the comments section below.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
The social media space is teaching us quite a bit about “actual” behavior, especially in terms of human motivators and emotional resonance. The beauty of the social media space is that it is consumer generated (though many brands are weighing in now) it is still an ideal source of real consumer conversations and thoughts. It stresses the importance of Listening, one of my favorite past times) and is an excellent point of entry for researchers. It is also enabling innovative methodologies, for secondary research purposes, qualitative thematic studies, crowd-sourcing recruitment, and beyond.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
But is there a danger that we’ll just end up turning real data into claimed if we try to propagate it to fit what clients accept as paid for research?
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Attenborough makes a key point in his analysis of human behaviour. We do alter depending on who is watching us. I suppose what is key here is for researchers, brand consultants etc to engage participants in ways that avoid those typical reactive behaviours.
We are also at a notable juncture in our history where what is deemed ‘reality’ is being challenged, through a number of different means. Is reality where we tell the truth as we know it, or is reality where we embellish our words to be more popular or to win the bigger prize? I think as practitioners in this field, how we hear what we hear from respondents will change and as a corollary, practise will be impacted by that shift.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Most research is distorted reality. I’d love to hear from a client on this. Any takers?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Perhaps it would be wise not to use the word reality. I think every social research (qualitative or quantitative) is always only a representation of the behaviour observed. Therefore it is always open to interpretation.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Brands typically use market research to justify decisions the marketing team makes to corporate stakeholders (ie. the sales team). Millions of dollars are spent on protecting the brand teams jobs, not on the furthering of insight into human behaviour. Research results based on claimed behaviour are as good as any other in this regard.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Many brands use market research to inform their innovation and product development processes, not simply for downstream purposes. In fact, the majority of anthropological methodologies evolved to better understand how people use particular products or what unmet needs exist in a certain category. This is where the power of observation is truly powerful, since people can not typically tell you that they need something that does not yet exit, but by observing behaviours, at a granular level, industrial designers and manufacturers may find a useful solution to daily dilemmas, for example self cleaning appliances.
I do believe that observational skills are key to immersive research techniques and do not constitute “spying” if properly executed. In fact it is a natural curiosity about people that inspires many researchers, and observing humanity is what inspires us.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I have to agree with Ivan. Shareholders want justification before a decision is made, and this can backfire. Popular cases are unveiling the storyboards to Apple’s 1984 ad and the concept of the ATM. Both would have been killed if researchers took the qual. results to heart. So in addition to putting ‘respondents’ in a controlled environment, how much can we really depend on their answers?
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
at the risk of sounding simplistic — and perhaps heretical given my background as a planner, i think there’s too much emphasis on research and not enough on using our intuition. the best insights come from real world observation and/or conversations. better yet, it’s how we translate those intuitive insights into an idea that mattters. our industry undervalues one of the most powerful assets we have: human intuition combined with smart creativity.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I think a lot of agency people will agree with you Anne. The big question is how do we get more clients to be comfortable with intuition as a ‘benchmark’?
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I think there is much to be said for “intuition” as a benchmark. It’s kind of like trying to define why people “love” a brand. Sure, social media and the web in general can give us a lot of granular information about brand interaction and can be used to test concepts and ideas. But in most cases, successful brands have evolved not from a process of analysis but from trial and error from adjustment, interference and disintermediation. The Apple iPod is a classic case. You don’t need focus group or a benchmark reference group to do this.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
@albert SPOT ON :) “It’s how we translate those intuitive insights into an idea that mattters. Our industry undervalues one of the most powerful assets we have: Human intuition combined with smart creativity.”
By using retrospective metrics you´re doomed to fail. It´s about identifying the right context and how you can empower people. Evolve with people and help them to evolve.
I´ve made a presentation, sorry for my bluntness, that might be interesting for some of you “Power of People: http://www.slideshare.net/joakimnilsen/power-of-people-1490106
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Aaaah, this old chestnut! As a researcher (at Hall & Partners) I am, of course, going to defend my livelihood but when this debate surfaces I have 3 responses
- Schrodinger’s cat should be the patron saint of market researchers. We have to be honest and open with each other and our clients that we aren’t seeking to accurately describe the world as it is and couldn’t if we tried. Sometimes we’re trying to get as close as possible, sometimes we’re trying to add fuel to intuition and creativity.
- The ‘focus groups kill great ideas’ lobby have a point. Bad focus groups poorly interpreted are worse than pointless, they’re misleading and harmful. Great focus groups, creatively moderated and interpreted are hugely helpful. They don’t replace intuition and creativity, they should support and facilitate it
- Qual is my specialty and my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) dinner party explanation of what I do for a living is “I talk to people about how they feel about stuff”. People mislead, misremember, lie and often flat out don’t know why they do things. But by talking to people about stuff I get closer to a truth that’s useful for my clients.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Appreciate that’s an honest response, I remain a skeptic partly because I think on the whole research gets treated like a science, that debriefs get handed around like the gospel and taken at face value rather than as subjective interpretation.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Liam, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how people can determine the difference between good and bad focus groups. How would anyone know if the interpretation is good or bad?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Completely agree. We find that as much a problem in our roles as do the advertising/design/etc. professionals. We are so often with clients who can’t or won’t be intellectually agile enough to engage with and interpret research – both allowing poor researchers to ride roughshod and inhibiting good researchers who are trying to deliver creative insights
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Liam, would be interested to hear how people can distinguish between good and bad groups, good and bad moderation/interpretation.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
If you want to drop me a line we can either have a chat or I can send you one of our docs that outlines best practices/approaches in qual (we do lots of teaching at various ad schools/orgs/agencies)
l.daley at hall-and-partners.com
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
This is an interesting and provocative thread, but I’m afraid I’m going to differ with many of the opinions here.
Well crafter and objectively executed research is extremely helpful in understand the corporate and consumer behavior that drives brands. I will admit that most of the research I’ve seen doesn’t fall into this category. Most agencies know how they want the research to come out before they do it and that will always compromise the results. But when you are truly going at it to learn, and you make no assumptions about where you want it to go, it will beat intuition almost every time.
I never do my own research and never tell my research team how I want things to come out. As often as not, there are new insights that my intuition hadn’t accounted for.
As for whether consumers change when they are part of research, perhaps, but if you ask me what I thought of my lunch today, I’m going to tell you the truth as I see it. If you ask me about the service, I’m going to tell you the truth as I see it. Perhaps the food was really excellent, but I perceived it to be bad and everyone else did. Than from a brand point of view, the perceptions will still drive consumer behavior.
Many agency people that think research doesn’t help just haven’t seen great research. And many of those who think their intuition can beat out consumer observation are a little too sure of themselves.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Liam,
You’ve asked how anyone would know if the interpretation of a focus group is bad. First, you want to look for whether the facilitator led the responses in a given direction, whether the questions asked are objective, whether any stimulus presented was neutral in its composition.
Then, if you’ve done an adequate number of people or groups, you want to look over the results to identify patterns in the responses. Are people saying the same things over and over? Do they have no opinion? Do they have divided opinions? If you’re experienced it’s pretty easy to see when the interpretation of the research isn’t consistent with the research as it was conducted. If you’re an agency trying to get it right. ALWAYS tape record all groups and one-on-one interviews and get them transcribed. That way you won’t rely on the interviewers notes. When we write notes we put down what we believe to be relevant, but the process involves subjectivity. I want to see the actual transcripts to see what can be learned. Usually quite a bit.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I find the separation of intuition and science….weird. Science, or all the tools of the trade, are real, work, and are relatively wel understood – to the point clients get a feel for the amount and type of work is employed to uncover behaviors and the context of those behaviors. On the other hand, as these tools have become standard place and expected, it’s the researcher’s unique intuition and ability to peel the onion a bit that yields great insights and new directions. Isn’t this the unspoken, but expected negotiation between science and intuition?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:08 am
I was half hoping when I posted what’s the difference between good and bad research that some new innovation would have been revealed and put me back in my box. Not so. I think the pros have ignored the premise of the question and unwittingly supported those favoring immersive intuition.
Lets go back to the start, human beings change their behavior if they know they are being observed. No amount of “yes, but I’m an objective professional” gets round it.
The very premise on which your research is founded is false. In traditional research the respondents are lab rats being observed under controlled conditions, so any information you glean is potentially false.
Which means your intuition and interpretation is what counts, the problem is your intuiting and interpreting spurious data.
So if we all agree, and I think we actually do, that it’s your ability to interpret information that counts, then why would anyone not favor real world immersive research? I know I’ve learnt more from people who have specialized in cultural studies, from real reporters and from reading a few books on behavioral economics, all of which you can get for free in the library, compared to the many research debriefs I’ve sat through.
Lastly, the real danger of traditional research is it ends up in the brief. Times too numerous to mention when you ask someone where did you get that insight or proposition from backs comes “the consumer told us”. This is the root cause of why 90% of all marketing is wallpaper and lacking in original thinking and execution.
Traditional research is puppet show theatre and should be categorized with astrology, numerology and other forms of superstition we use to allay our uncertainty about future outcomes.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Rupert, can you define immersive intuition and immersive research?
Also, I’ve found the “fuzzy front end” of most design projects are what clients are scared of and unwilling to pay for..even though most of the magic happens there. So how do you get them comfy? You explain the tools, get them involved, show them some insights they’d never trip over (even with their infinite amount of experience in their field)….everybody’s happy right. Wrong. That debrief is so holy, because so many people are close to it. They’ve dumped in tons of cash. They now see clear as day what their customers need (false as it may be)…then you say…I interpret that like this or my intuition tells me that…
What’s the client to do? Perception is reality.
I don’t know…maybe there needs to be a validation phase added to the process that tests the research outcomes against three unique interpretations (all relevant to some broader context. The debrief outlines these three directions and become the basis of moving forward.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Due to technical problems, I’m posting this for Rupert:
Immersion is just a posh way of saying getting out into the real world, away from any form of structured research, talking to people, doing a lot of reading and then spending a considerable amount of time reflecting on what you’ve found. And, yes, you’re right, most clients probably prefer to see something more structured “being done” but that doesn’t make it right, and, in a recession, I think there is an opportunity to confidently assert this.
After all we know 9/10 products fail, 90% of marketing has no discernible effect and I would guess a very high % of it has been through some kind of market research and testing.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Fascinating discussion here. I am a long-standing creative catalyst and qual researcher. I agree that human beings alter behavior when they know they are being observed—and that’s obvious during the first few minutes of any focus group, or when videotaping consumers in an ethnographic study…but clearly over time, research subjects lose their self-consciousness, let their guard down and allow for a more authentic window into who they are. Of course that only happens with a trained and empathic researcher, one who is attentively listening and observing with all senses, skin and muscle. ( I call that whole body/whole brain listening and observing.) And a researcher has to be aware of the disconnects between what a participant is saying or doing and what their tone of voice or body is suggesting—and then go in and probe, probe, probe to try to ferret out the truth. I find it’s easier to do this when you are face to face, much harder trying to get this level of understanding via on-line research.) I’ve had many situations where my probing served to enlighten the respondent to a behavior or attitude that they were unaware of. I believe that great research serves to inform and inspire the client, the researcher and the research subject. And a last point here is that market research is not just about behavior but about understanding attitudes, opinions and getting ideas that will inspire a client team to think differently about their brand/products/services.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I always fall back on something I learned long ago – “Research is an aide to judgment, not a replacement for it.” Whether we want to call intuition judgment so that it feels more legit, fine. But I think a healthy dose of intuition is what makes for great planners and great creative ideas. My experience in doing research is that most folks would like to help the moderator, interviewer (etc.) with his or her topic or problem. Being upfront about your hypotheses and letting people help you prove, disprove or improve your ideas. I think it is less important, these days, to hide the topic or cloak the client.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm