Confirm Your Hypothesis/Assumptions
A thought: Is it wise to make a major move based on a single piece of research?
I don't think so. A single piece of research is just one view
of many and a view from a very specific perspective. Just as the
NFL has multiple cameras for instant replay, we should have multiple
perspectives of our solution to a consumer need or desire.
Never take serious action on a single data point. I like to view
findings as new hypotheses. That is, when I think I have learned
something different, I try to tell myself that I now have a new hypothesis
and before I accept it as truth, I should confirm my
new finding or in other words, validate it.
Early in my career I developed an approach to problem solving that involved
approaching the problem from different
perspectives to see if I came to the same conclusion. Basically
it was my position that if you asked three people to describe a
tree sitting on a hill, and the three people were at different places
on the hill, you would get three accurate but different
descriptions of the tree. The result of this thinking is that
if you truly want to understand something, approach it from different
perspectives. Those different views in the aggregate will yield
a more accurate view than any of the three perspectives by
themselves.
I believe that one of our most pressing problems today in consumer research
is Rush to Judgment. We do not take the time
to really understand the market and how our solution relates to that
market. In most cases we do not give sufficient attention to
our solution to give it the best chance to succeed in the marketplace.
That is what I believe to be one of the major factors
contributing to the 90% failure rate of new products in the market.
In an earlier Views written on August 4, 1997, titled, "Is it the 3
Es of Consumer Research or is it 3 Es Plus a C?" I presented
the rush to judgment of James River with their Quilted Northern Toilet
Tissue commercial and the almost disastrous rush to
market with an introductory display of Liquid Bold. Both are
examples of moving forward too fast in the case of James River
and almost moving forward too fast with a bad idea in the P&G case.
There are, I believe, many cases where ideas are
prematurely given final judgment either based upon assumptions or incomplete
data. For example, consider the following two
case studies:
Study #1 - One day while visiting a client,
I noticed that one of their products was wrapped in shrink wrap.
I
asked if the wrap was meant to maintain the
integrity of the physical properties of the product. The client's
answer
was a definite, "NO." He said it was
to protect the product from premature opening in the store. The product
came in five fragrance versions. The
company assumed that if there was no barrier to opening the packages, the
shoppers would open all five versions and
sniff each one to find the version they preferred and then they would
select an unopened carton leaving five opened
ones on the shelf (the openings were perforated tabs not easily
re-sealed). The client's response was
that opening the packages in the store was an obvious act. I challenged
their assumption and convinced them to confirm
their assumption. We conducted an in-store study of the brand
without shrink wrap and found the original
assumption to be far from true. Their 1992 cost savings project was
the elimination of the shrink wrap at a savings
of $800,000 a year. After eight years, the brand is still without
shrink wrap.
Study #2 - I was involved with this study at
the same time and with the same company mentioned above. The
company had a heavy duty liquid laundry brand
on the market. The packaging of the brand was seen as being old
in appearance. They wanted to update
the image of the brand through a package change. That is, make it
modern looking. They had designed a
very attractive bottle using a PET plastic bottle (crystal clear plastic),
and a
very attractive red, blue and yellow label.
The combination of the label and the bottle/product gave the
appearance of an attractive label on a bottle
that looked dark blue in the center and as the bottle thinned along the
edge a light blue color, almost like a halo.
This bottle had been compared with the current
bottle in a mall intercept study where the new design label/bottle
held a significant advantage. Two Vice
Presidents (R&D and Marketing) wanted to move forward nationally with
the upgrade. The President of the company
was concerned with the potential of a loss of heritage. I was asked
to design a study comparing the shelf appearance
appeal of the two versions of packaging. I designed an in-store
shelf appearance study. The Market Research
manager had not seen an in-store study. (This was in 1991.)
We
went to Chicago to see the study in progress.
Walking down the aisle of the first store we visited (one where we
were testing the modern version of the label/bottle
that day), Tom stopped and made the comment that we had the
wrong product. I asked what was wrong
with it. His reply was that it looked like "S_ _t". It
seemed that when
the attractive appearing label/bottle was
placed on a store shelf where the light only comes from the front, you
lose
the attractiveness of the light blue halo
as well as the blue color. Actually as one respondent said, "It looks
like
dirty motor oil." Not exactly what you
want your detergent to look like.
Tom went back the next Monday, took the two
VPs and six bottles to a local supermarket, placed them on a
shelf and asked if that was the appearance
they wanted for their brand. The plans for a national distribution
of the
new label/bottle were terminated.
The problem in this initiative was that through
the whole process of design and evaluation, the label and bottle
were sitting on a table with light all around
them and not in the environment of a store shelf.
I consider it to be irresponsible to make packaging changes involving
color and/or script without first
evaluating them under the conditions appearing to the consumer at the
time of purchase.
Success in the market is all about learning and understanding.
It is about testing and re-testing. It is
about learning and confirming. It is about challenging the status
quo.
A LITTLE FROM THE LIGHTER SIDE:
Success is not a doorway, it is a staircase.
Grudges are like
matches, if you hold them too long they'll burn you.
Your conscience
may not stop you from doing wrong, but it will keep you from enjoying it.
A mistake is
a lesson on the way to be learned.
There is no
such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer.
A long dispute
means both parties are wrong.
Good judgment
comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.