I recently had lunch with a former colleague who had spent the last 15 years in the world of Marketing and Digital Communication Agencies. “John” wasn’t particularly happy at work. He talked about how frustrated he was that we often make decisions and build communication programs around brand needs versus consumer wants. He complained that we simply didn’t do enough research. He wanted his company to invest in creating demographically segmented consumers and business owner panels to weigh in on new product concepts, strategic platforms, creative ideas all in real time.
Not a new concept, but one he believed was sorely underused when making business decisions. In hearing this pursuit, I asked one question; “How is this predictive?” The response was a blank stare, and then the statement; “because it’s coming from the mouth of the consumer, they’re telling us what they want, not what we want them to want.”
And there’s the rub. Research in this format, often doesn’t tell us what consumers want, it tells us what they know. Think about it; how many consumers will tell you that even though they have a relatively new cell phone, they would purchase a one that they don’t need for a few more features. How many consumers can explain why they are happy to be driving a hybrid car, but in their driveway also sits a not-so-environmentally-friendly SUV. Why they are buying organic milk to dip their Oreos in. While consumers make numerous rational decision every day, they make many other decisions (many of which are purchase decisions), based on internal and external factors, some emotional, others factual. They are influenced by economic news and social cues. Research that goes beyond the consumer, that takes into account the factors that are actually influencing them, is more likely to predict their real behavior, than their “reported” decisions.
Just something to consider while thinking about purchasing that ipad to compliment your iphone and macbook.
Comments
Connections
What an odd post!
It’s almost like someone dredged up an article from 1965. There’s been lots of research since, usually custom, that delves into the motivations of the consumers, both what they can articulate directly, and into the subtle AND subconscious motivations of the customer.
This really smacks as one of those “myth breaking” articles you sometimes see, where they tee up a myth and then show why they’re so smart in breaking it. Yet, when you look at the myth, you wonder just who was thinking that because it’s certainly no one you know.
Here’s an idea for another, “what’s wrong with research” post: why focus groups are useless and we have to remove the artificiality and get the feedback unsolicited. You know…buzz. Be sure to imply one obviates the other: “Buzz monitoring makes focus groups superfluous.” You’ll sound smart.
Marketing is fundamentally about building products based on customer needs. Bad marketers ask customers what they want and go build mediocre things.
Good marketers create something awesome and ask customers if it solves their problems. People are bad at telling you what they want (to your point). But that can point at something and tell you if it sucks or not.
Overall, this post seems to be advocating interaction design models for marketing efforts. Odd indeed.
Marketing, on a corporate level, is much more than UX. Consider competitive differentiation, investor relations, technical innovation, and long-term strategic goals. And, marketing a B2B company is quite different from a B2C company. And it would be a big mistake to see B2B customers/clients as just users. They are strategic partners.
Brand needs are just as important as customer wants (while obviously being interconnected). Insights gained from research are inherently reactive, surveying and analyzing the past in an effort to glean potential future needs and opportunities. And these insights are only valid within that past context, not necessarily germane in rapidly evolving social, technical, and economic environments. Effective marketing connects where a company is now (and resonates with customers/clients), but then projects the company to where it wants to go. Companies need to not only respond to their customers, but also pull them forward to new ideas and opportunities. This latter need is inherently proactive.
And on an operational level level, “John” should realize that his desire for “creating demographically segmented consumers and business owner panels to weigh in on new product concepts, strategic platforms, creative ideas all in real time” adds an extra level of overhead expense and logistical complication to innovation and execution.
I agree with Matt. Since consumers don’t know what they don’t know, and only the most visionary types can imagine the next step of evolution (think SciFi), asking consumers what they desire produces limited results. Feedback is a different animal. Playing with something tangible, even the most grouchy types will tell you what’s lacking in the product. Yes, iPad is lacking camera and Flash… Guess what? That’s simply a prototype to be both worshipped and cursed. And guess what? Applie will be adding cameras in the next release, surprise-surprise! Now all other tablet providers that are coming out with their own devices with cameras can accuse Apple of copycatting
Oh, and Star Trek Padd came some 20 years before iPad…
This is wdrneofully encouraging, Willem! “Copy-cat” is a great technique for all forms of learning. Of course, this technique has been used throughout history by teachers of martial arts, yoga, dance, sports, and similar physical practices. But it works with mental practices, as well. It would be interesting to see the results of using Copy-Cat for math problems. I bet it would be quite effective.I’m about to try it while teaching Test-Driven Development for the first time. I’ve converted the standard TDD demo into an I-do-you-do exercise. I’m hoping this will keep people more engaged, will increase retention, and will stimulate interesting questions.