I received an email from a regular reader of this blog asking the following question:

I need to think about an interesting topic to do a 10 min presentation to my Global Consumer Insights Vicepresident. If you were him, what would you like to hear about from a CI manager of a WW consumer goods company?

Here are a few thoughts from conversations I've had with clients recently:

Remember that the consumer is a source of information, not answers.

Think about what you really mean when you talk about statistical significance.

Insights are derived, not observed.

Innovation is not random.  There is a way to identify and evaluate the market relevance of opportunities before investing in development.

When taking the time to derive a consumer's motivations, remember that the most valuable result of the work is to pose the right (ie: market relevant) problem for the organization to solve.  Don't shortcut this work and jump into problem-solving mode before you know whether or not you're solving the right one!

I'm sure others could add to this list, and I would love to know what you think.

It's funny how the planets sometimes align around a topic.  This week it's the chicken and the egg question regarding technology and consumer research. 

It all started last week when I was talking with a friend from a local technology start-up about the need to understand consumer (or other end-user in B2B situations) motivations in order to ensure the relevance of new product offerings.  Then today I saw two interesting posts that essentially dance around the same question; when developing breakthrough innovation, which comes first?  The first post is from Don Norman, and suggests that historically breakthrough innovations begin with technology, and that what he's calling design research to uncover unmet needs is only useful in developing incremental improvements.  The second post is from Roy Luebke and is a response to Norman's post, suggesting that design (observational) research can point to all types of innovations.

What was interesting was that I was able to agree and disagree with both of them, based on a) how narrowly or broadly consumer research is defined, and b) the expectations for what either research or technology will deliver.  Let's look at both.

First, Norman describes the tasks of design research, and points to the fact that pure technological invention was what drove the creation of many inventions from the airplane to text messaging.  And I would say that taken literally, he is correct.  If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know that I view contextual research as a source of information, not answers.  (I use the term contextual research because it does not focus the outcomes too narrowly.) And consumers could never be expected to come up with such breakthrough inventions as the ones he describes.  When viewing contextual research as a source for answers, the most you can expect is a good list of improvements to existing products.

Second, Norman then points out that it is technological invention that is the source of breakthrough innovation.  Again, he is right in that the inventions he described would not be possible without new technology.  However, they would not be successful if they didn't satisfy a consumer motivation.  In reality, consumers rarely change their behavior to accomodate technology.  They adopt when the technology is put into a form that seamlessly fits into their lives.  All of the inventions on Norman's list enable consumers to do something they already wanted to do (travel, communicate, etc), but in a better, faster, less expensive, etc way. Knowing the motivation ahead of time can save a lot of time and money, as well as help a company to define what business they are really in.

In that sense, Norman's post appears to be based on the idea that the consumer will give you the answer, and that after the technology is developed product success is hit or miss.  I would have to disagree with both of those assumptions.

On the other hand, Luebke acknowledges that learning from consumers can point to many different types of innovation.  That is true, but he doesn't comment on the fact that contextual research should be tailored to collecting the information that will inform the decision that needs to be made.  For example, a consumer can be asked directly to evaluate current product features.  Understanding their motivations, however, is what is necessary to guide the development of new products and services they would never think to ask for.  This is the type of constraint inventors typically love to solve with new technology.  This is how learning from consumers can drive technology development - it provides a purpose, not a directive.  This is where research and invention come together.

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether we are starting with a technology or a market segment.  Technology can certainly enable the creation of totally new products and services.  But these new products and services will not succeed unless they satisfy the market's motivations better than existing alternatives.

I was thinking about the value of intangibles and the "knowing where to tap" story came to mind.  If you don't know it, it goes something like this:

A jet engine manufacturer was experiencing failures in one of their large turbine engines.  After trying everything they called in an expert turbine engineer to consult on the problem.  After studying the situation for a few minutes, the engineer asked for someone to bring him a ladder and a hammer.  He then positioned the ladder up against a section of the turbine, climbed to the top, and tapped the turbine several times with the hammer.  He then instructed them to turn on the turbine, and it ran smoothly.

A week later, the manufacturer received the invoice for the work, and was shocked that the total came to $5000.  He called the engineer and asked if he could break down the costs, as $5000 seemed like a large amount of money to pay for a task as simple as climbing a ladder and tapping with a hammer.

Another week later, the manufacturer received a new invoice.  It said, "For observing the situation, climbing the ladder, and tapping with the hammer  - $5.  For knowing where to tap - $4995.  The manufacturer then got the point, and paid the invoice immediately.

What is valued at your organization?  Does it reward the real value regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible?  The same can be asked of your consumers.  Do you know what they truly value?  Are your products and services representative of that value?

I've been reading several articles lately that discuss different processes for innovation.  They typically center around a few main themes; ethnography, rapid prototyping, open innovation, and other ways to connect market insight with opportunities for new offerings.  And yet when I talk with clients who have tried similar processes, I get mixed responses regarding the results.  Most can point to isolated events that would not have occurred without the new process, but none can say that these processes have increased their ability to consistently connect opportunities for new offerings with the market they are intended to satisfy. 

I'm actually not surprised when I hear this.  Over the past few years I've come to the realization that there is a big, pink elephant in the room regarding innovation processes.  That pink elephant is the fact that some people are better at making non-linear connections between disparate disciplines than others.  Why does this typically go unsaid?  Because the perceptual skills required to make these connections are difficult to identify, define, and measure, let alone codify into a bullet-point job description.  However, everyone perceives the world differently, and better descriptions of process will not turn a linear thinker into a non-linear thinker.

Think of it this way.  No one would argue that everyone has different levels of physical ability.  I can swim, but if I was standing next to Michael Phelps, we wouldn't need to be near the water for anyone to guess who could swim faster.  That's because physical differences are observable, definable, and we can easily measure the results of the output.  Differences in perceptual skill are invisible, but that doesn't mean they aren't real.  The problem is that most organizational processes have been designed to take the human variable out of the system.  In terms of development and other day-to-day processes I think this is a good thing.  But it just doesn't work for developing breakthrough innovations that will connect with the market.

In the next few posts, I'll be reviewing best practices I've developed to identify the right types of perceptual skills for innovation, and connecting them to different disciplinary skills.  For now, start noticing how different people in your company perceive the world around them.  You may be surprised at what you see when you really start looking.

I have repeatedly heard the word insight as something to be observed, as in "We observed several insights on that consumer interview."

There are several entries in dictionary.com for the word insight.  In different ways, they all describe insight as an understanding of the true motivational forces that drive actions, define underlying truths, shed light on, or help to solve a problem.  Assuming that is true, insights cannot be observed directly; they need to be inferred or derived by thinking critically about the observations we make.

The word insight, as it is applied to consumer research, is increasingly misrepresented.  Observing behaviors and describing them is a fairly straightforward exercise, and many people can easily do this.  Deriving insights requires the ability to observe, infer why the observation occurred, formulate a theory, test the hypothesis against multiple data sources, and construct an argument that will prove that the conclusion is valid. A smaller subset of people who possess a specific aptitude and attitude are best suited to do this.

Almost everyone, however, has the ability to understand the difference between an observation and an insight. Mistaking them is understandable for most, but if you use consumer insights to inform your work, please make sure you know the difference.

The other day I was having a chat with some colleagues about authenticity. Current wisdom suggests that brands and companies that are perceived to be less than authentic are doomed to fail. However, we know that brands, companies, and even people will behave differently in different situations. We even expect that they should. To lack the flexibility to do so would be socially disrespectful. So what is authenticity, and how to we ensure that others will perceive our work as authentic?

"To thine own self be true." That's the standard answer. If you are true to yourself, then you (meaning your brand, service, company, etc) will be perceived as authentic. However, I think that's only part of the answer. People can't judge how true you are to yourself. They judge how true you are to them, based on what they perceive. If you know what cues your market will respond to, then you can manage their perception consistently. This requires the ability to suspend what it means to be true to yourself, in order to fully immerse yourself in what it means to be true to someone else.

A few years ago, I was mentoring a person just starting out in his career. I imparted the standard guidance as he was doing his first solo project, and I asked him to periodically let me know what he thought was "cool", and why.  He did well on his project, and I learned a lot about how his social group thought about the world. One day, we were talking about why he shunned big, corporate brands, and he used me as an example.  "The coolest thing about you Ellen, is that you know how uncool you really are. Some big brands get that right, but most don't." 

Hmmm...who said authenticity was a good thing?

I enjoy the weekend edition of the Financial Times, part of which is Tyler Brule's weekly column.  A few months ago, something started to catch my attention.  It appeared that Brule's publication, Monocle, is doing quite well.  It is a lifestyle magazine, and has an associated website with audio reports in addition to the printed publication, and even a recently launched retail concept.  There is no user generated content, and it is obvious that everything, from the website, to the audio reports, to the physical publication itself, are very well produced. That's not cheap. So what is Brule doing that allows him to be successful by going against the current wisdom in the industry?

To satisfy my curiosity, I did a quick search and found an interview with Brule in the Austrailian WSJ that sought out my very question.  What I learned was quite revealing.  While there are several factors responsible for his success, what stood out for me was his statement that they don't do any research at all, and that he doesn't believe in it. He then described what research was to him, and it consists of using focus groups to decide what the cover should be, or other specific executional details.  Later, however, he talked about how he spends time with consumers in the shop, just having a chat with them.  He also mentioned that he watches what magazines business people are buying in the airport, and then how he observes what people are reading on the plane. From reading his weekly column, you can also see that he is spending the bulk of his time immersing in his market. He maintains a grueling travel schedule, and makes sure his reporters and correspondents are in the places they are covering. He then mentioned that they did use a readership survey to confirm some of their assumptions about their readers' habits. It was not to learn what features they might like.

Like most business people, Brule has a very narrow definition of what research is.  Unlike most business people, he knows that research as he defines it is not going to help him to connect with his market and deliver the experience they are seeking but cannot define.  From my perspective, Brule executes brilliant research.  He does whatever is necessary to connect with his market, and fully understand what is driving their decisions.  He knows that it is his responsibility to deliver an experience that will connect with this consumer, and he does not expect them to ask for it.  He also knows that there is greater value in delivering an experience that the consumer wouldn't think to ask for, but suits them perfectly.

What can be learned from his success? There is little to be learned from the execution, as what he is doing is right for his market, and would probably not work for say, the New York Times.  What can be learned is that he is ignoring current consumer, industry, and economic trends, he's learning what is driving his market, and he's delivering a series of products to satisfy their needs in a way that his industry competition has not.

Is your company using research this effectively?

People often ask me how they can improve their consumer interviewing skills.  The thought being that if they can perfect the art of the one-on-one interview that they will have the key to understanding their markets.

I applaud the intention, and people who try to stick to a script rather than have a conversation with a consumer can surely improve their skills.  But it's important to remember that one-on-one interviews are only one tool in your toolbox.  Full understanding of what will drive consumer behavior in a given market requires a combination of qualitative and quantitative, primary and secondary, and generative and evaluative research tools.

How do you know which ones to use?  The answer to that question requires a clear understanding of the business decisions that need to be made.  Research should never be expected to give you an answer.  It is a tool to give you information that will help you to derive the right answer.  And the best way to ensure that you've arrived at the right answer is to collect information that will expose all sides of the issue you are dealing with, covering the proverbial blind spots.

Which leads me to the blind men and the elephant metaphor.  In the story, six blind men are asked to describe an elephant, yet each only touches one part of the elephant.  The man who touches the tusk thinks the elephant is like a spear, the man who touches the side things the elephant is like a wall, and so on.  They end up arguing that the elephant is most like whichever part they had experienced, without realizing that the elephant is made up of all of the elements, and is not at all like any single one. 

My advice is that the best way to improve consumer understanding skills is to figure out which perspectives and information will be necessary to paint the whole elephant. This can only be done by reconciling the results of all the tools used, rather than relying on any one to deliver the answer.  Which then means that the best skill to hone is critical thinking.

There's a multimedia presentation in the online Harvard Business Review about how to get a better understanding of what customers may truly want. 

I think this research method is a small step in the right direction.  It shows how most quantitative evaluations that ask consumer to rate the importance of different features can lead to average ratings of each feature against the others.  The new method they propose forces trade-offs of one feature over others in a variety of groupings.  This results in a better understanding of what the consumer truly would prefer.

While this method is an improvement, I can't help feeling a bit uncomfortable with the process of having consumers choose discrete features from a list that was created based on aggregated focus group input.  What's uncomfortable is that a consumer's ultimate opinion is the result of how they perceive experiences holistically. In the presentation the example was from a restaurant chain.  The features were things like "food served hot and on time", or "updated decor".  What this does is force consumers to decide which single attributes are most responsible for creating the experience they would like to have. 

Asking consumers to do this is unfair. They are not restaurant space designers, and they are not chefs. It takes a lot of work to understand what experience the consumer would like to have, and then even more work to figure out how to combine the design and food elements to holistically deliver this experience.  It also leaves designers and chefs with ambiguous instructions for how to proceed.  Should the chefs deliver hot hamburgers quickly while the designers put white linen on the tables? Yes, this is an extreme, but we've all seen it happen.

Next time you're evaluating features in your next product, think about what you're really asking consumers to do.  Are you evaluating products holistically, or are you shirking your responsibility and asking consumers to translate features to experiences for you?

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!