Mike Arauz posted an interesting metaphor connecting brands to desire paths.  Here's how he describes it:

This is a desire path (lots more here). Desire paths are the walking paths that get traced across the ground when groups of people, over time, leave the sidewalk and find their own more convenient routes from one place to another... We have many places to go and experiences to choose from; and our decisions are guided by our personal interests and the groups of people we want to join.

What I love about this metaphor is that it brings home the point that consumers will always find the most direct route to satisfy their motivations. Yet, if you ask them for directions, they will probably not describe the desire path.  Why? Because desire paths are personal. People don't assume that you would desire the same path, so they will most likely talk about the "accepted" path.

You can only learn about the desire path by connecting with the consumer. Successful products, brands, and services convey that they follow the same desire path. How do they do that? This is the fundamental skill that separates good consumer insight from superficial consumer insight.  It also separates good design and development execution from rote design and development execution.

How well do you understand your consumer's desire path? How well is this knowledge translated into other areas of your business? If you're not doing both of these things well you will be wondering why, after you've done everything "right", your consumers are no longer walking by your side. They have left you to follow a path you couldn't see.

Several weeks ago, my friend and excellent Salon participant Sean was inspired by Saul Kaplan's article about The Passion Economy. Sean decided to put forth a challenge to several of us to write a short article on what the idea of the passion economy meant, and its potential as an opportunity or fad.  All of the articles were written independently, and we did not see the other contributors or the whole document until it was finished. Feel free to download and share the finished e-Book, and join the conversation!

There is a lot of information out there about creativity; how to develop it, how to harness it productively, and how to nurture it within a company.  What I see far less often, is how to hone critical thinking skills. As I've said before, I define innovation as, "Doing something new that adds value to the business."  Creativity is necessary to explore new things. Critical thinking is necessary to recognize whether or not the new things will add value.

So far, one of the best ways I have been able to hone critical thinking skills is to start a "Salon."  The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Salon as: A periodic gathering of persons noted in literature, philosophy, the fine arts, or similar areas, held at one person's home.  Salons thrived during The Enlightenment period in the 18th century as a means to use reason to challenge previously accepted doctrines and traditions, and resulted in many humanitarian reforms.

For the last several years I have been leading informal Salon groups and I have found them to be invaluable in terms of sharpening my thinking. While I don't have any formal rules about how to set one up, I can offer a few thoughts about what has worked for me. 

Start with a Pink Elephant There are usually a few issues that polarize people in a company. This polarization can bring discussions to a halt, as everyone avoids mentioning the pink elephant in the room. These Pink Elephants are often based on tradition or other immovable obstacles in an organization.  Other good issues are when someone is exposed to new information that may cause a group to rethink how they perceive an issue. It's best to fully understand the implications of your position before a customer or client exposes the inconsistency.

Choose the right people Ideal candidates to join the Salon group are people who do not take discussions about issues personally, and who seek higher understanding of how to reconcile different points of view. The group should represent as much diversity as possible in how they think about issues, but similar in their openness to contribute new ideas or ways to combine existing ideas.

Seek higher understanding Salon discussions should seek to build frameworks for understanding an issue. These frameworks will often represent the different perspectives, and how they fit into the higher idea. This serves to reconcile differences, and provide rationale for abandoning ideas that are no longer useful. They should recognize the past usefulness of the ideas, and show how and why new circumstances require a change.

Don't try to solve everything The group should meet regularly. Allow enough time between meetings for people to "background process" the issues that have been discussed, allowing for new patterns to emerge. It's good if a meeting ends with open issues for people to think about, as these thoughts provide a good beginning for the next meeting.

Make it safe to say "dumb" things Recognize that the issues you are discussing have not been articulated clearly in the past. It will take many tries by group members to get the thoughts out. People may need to draw things, or write ideas, or try to build frameworks to illustrate what they are thinking. Expect that before the clarity dawns, there will be a lot of muddy articulations of ideas. It's good to encourage discussion of ideas that haven't yet been worked out.  That's why you're here.

Push for clarity Ultimately the goal is to establish clarity on an issue, that can be described in simple terms. Often after a few sessions someone will say something that is instantly recognized by the group as the simple way to say what everyone has been struggling to describe.

These are just a few thoughts on what has worked for me. As I think of more I will continue to post new ideas. I think there is far to little written about the value of critical thinking, especially about how to use it as a way to make creative ideas work. I'd love to hear about what others are doing, and what has worked for you.

Today GM and Chrysler are approaching the US Treasury for more aid. They have been preparing their case to prove that they need more money to survive in the current economy, and that they are being responsible in cutting costs, headcount, and negotiating with the unions and creditors.

This leads me to a question.  What are they going to make?  Before you roll your eyes thinking "of course they'll make cars", hear me out.  In reading about what it is they are going to do differently, I have not read anything about how they are going to ensure that the cars they make will appeal to the people they most desperately need to buy them.  I know they have a mandate to make more energy efficient cars, but that is a technology.  What type of car - or should I say, motorized people mover - will the new technology be powering?  Who are the people who will buy these cars, what do they need, and how do GM and Chrysler plan to meet those needs?

Simply cutting costs, or investing in technology is not enough. The car companies are in trouble because they were not able to make cars that people wanted.  Yes, consumer needs changed quickly, and another part of their plan should focus on how they will be more flexible and responsive to rapidly changing conditions. 

These are things that will enable long-term success for any company.  Yet today, we continue to see focus on operational efficiency, cost cutting, and investment in technology without a holistic sense of purpose.  At the end of the day, the wrong product is still the wrong product, regardless of its technical superiority or efficient production.

Let's hope the answers to the questions I'm posing are buried somewhere in the 100 page report that will be presented today, but I suspect they are not.  As part of a network of people who make their living solving problems like this, I can tell you that car companies are not among the new clients calling.

I find that people who use consumer research tend to fall into one of two camps.  Those who look to the consumer for answers, and those who look to the consumer for problems.

People who look to the consumer for answers will spend a lot of time setting up research so that it will yield explicit recommendations for what your offering should be.  I find that this can be useful if you are looking to incrementally improve your existing offering. Consumers can be reasonably explicit in telling you what they like or don't like about your current offering, and many can offer suggestions for improvements.  Does it mean that you should take their suggestions literally?  Not usually, but it is fairly easy to understand where they are coming from.  The potential pitfall is that you could end up missing an opportunity to do something radically different, because the focus on what the consumer wants, rather than why they want it.

People who look to the consumer for problems will spend a lot of time trying to discern the motivations and values of the consumer that are driving their decision-making process.  I find that this is useful if you are looking for opportunities for disruptive innovation.  In this case, the consumer cannot explicitely tell you what to do, but in understanding how they make decisions, you can develop criteria for the success of a new offering. This focus can also help you to develop incremental improvements as well, because the way they make decisions doesn't change.  The potential pitfall is that many people have a difficult time translating the decision process into a successful offering.  It requires that the people doing the research can balance and connect linear and non-linear thinking, and they are more difficult to find.

I'm curious to know how others use consumer research, because I feel that there is a disconnect between what great research can yield, and what most companies are getting from it.  Regardless of how you use research, it is a tool to help you to make decisions.  If it is a stand-alone discipline it is probably too isolated to help to define either problems or solutions. What practices have you seen, and how well do they work?

As long ago as 2003, when Michael Silverstein's book Trading Up was published, we've been acknowledging a shift in consumer spending.  Wealthy consumers will trade down to less expensive items when it makes sense, and the middle class will trade up to more expensive items if the benefits justify the expense.

With the current economic crisis well underway, it's interesting to see that this behavior is still playing out, but in a slightly different way.  When the economy was strong, consumers acknowledged trading up to higher priced products.  They justified their purchases by citing the additional benefits, or by trading down in other areas that were less important to them.  Now, it appears that the consumers' rationale has changed.  People are only spending extra money on necessities, but looking closely, one consumer's necessity is another consumer's luxury. 

This presents an interesting opportunity for innovation and product development.  Many companies are responding to economic conditions by defeaturing products and cutting any costs possible to better appeal to the masses.  I would argue that companies that serve the needs of their consumer groups in better - which may not always be cheaper - ways, will be better off in the long run.  The other day, the Financial Times reported that BMW may actually post a profit for 2008.  BMW does not appeal to the masses and consumers who appreciate the features and attributes of the brand do not have common income levels.  What they do have in common, however, is that they consider the features and benefits of their BMW to be a necessity and will either pay a premium price, or would rather buy a used BMW over any other new car.  This tells me that BMW has taken the time to find out what their consumers consider necessary, and they deliver it in their products.  They aren't trying to find ways to make their cars have universal appeal, and it appears to be paying off.

What do your company's consumers consider to be a necessity in their lives?  Do your products and services deliver on the qualities that your consumer would deem a necessity?  If your consumers have less disposable income than they had before, the answer to these questions becomes even more important.  If you won't give your consumer what they need, surely someone else will.

It's important to evaluate new offerings with consumers before launching them into the market.  I don't know of many companies who would disagree.  Yet I am consistently amazed by how many companies will be satisfied with the statement "100% of consumers preferred Option A", when they have no answer to the question "Does Option A resonate best compared with other market alternatives, or is it just the least bad of the options presented?"

Before new options are developed, it's important to have defined the consumer and market opportunities first. Every option that is developed should satisfy the consumer and market opportunities in some way.  The logic behind how it satisfies these opportunities should be clear, even if it looks "out there" at first glance.  If this work is not done, you will have no way of knowing whether your consumer evaluations are confirming a market winner or just the best loser.

Think about the levels of confidence for market success you are building into your product development process. Is 100% preference of one over four bad options better than 75% preference of one over four likely winners really better?  While most would say the latter is better, I tend to see the former far more often.  Why?  Because most don't know when all the options are missing the mark in the first place.  I'd say that this is the single biggest reason for market failures that I see, and the single most important change that can be made in a product development process.

The companies that get this right will win.  Every company I have worked with who takes this seriously has realized great success for the effort. 

There's something I need to get off my chest. It's about newspapers. I know the newspaper industry is in the tank. I know that they need to find new ways to deliver and monetize the content they provide. I also know that the current state of their crisis is due in part to the fact that they are trying to protect tangible assets rather than capturing the intellectual value they provide.  Something has to change. I get it.

But - I love my morning newspaper.  I love starting the day by finding out what's going on while I eat my breakfast - in the kitchen, not at the computer.  It's how I prepare myself to face the day, and I love the experience. 

I read that the New York Times is toying with the idea of abandoning the printed newspaper and distributing the Kindle to all subscribers. Yes, it can go with you to all the places the printed paper can go, but it severely limits the ability to scan the whole paper to get an overall sense of what's important that day. This made me realize that the value of the newspaper to me is not to deliver all the details of the news.  I can get that online much more easily.  The true value to me is to give me a sense of the zeitgeist. I can quickly check the vital signs of what's going on in the world, and then decide where I want to focus interest.

This all made me think of a better purpose for the printed paper.  Wouldn't it be great if I could get a very thin version of the paper, with all the headlines and summaries of the major papers that I like to read?  For me, it would be a collection of the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, and the Boston Globe - with the headlined summaries compressed into a small, one-section version of the paper.  This would reduce clutter, which is why there is no way I could ever subscribe to all the current print versions of these papers.  And most importantly, would allow for even more comprehensive scanning - a major benefit to me.  Allow the ability to customize what goes in your bundle, and voila!

Of course, my point is a bit broader than to suggest a specific idea here. When trying to think of ways to reinvent your business, it's not always an either/or situation.  Don't forget to think about the aspects of the experience that your end-users currently value and think of ways to blend the old and new.  In my example, printing costs could be drastically reduced, cross marketing and co-branding between brands and delivery platforms could be beneficial rather than competitive, and the main value of the printed paper experience would not be lost, but enhanced.  Most importantly, when the aspects of the experience I value are increased, I'd be happy to pay more.  I bet consumers in other industries would too.