Views from the Hills by R. E. Stevens, GENESIS II (The Second Beginning) E-Mail views@aol.com

Blind Tests are Poor Indicators of Market Success

It is my position that both Product and Brand research are very important steps in the development of a successful market introduction. Both types of research serve different needs and utilize different research protocols. While both serve a wide range of needs, I view them basically as follows.

Product Research answers the following questions: Does the product serve the intended purpose, technically and perceptually? Does the consumer like the product? Brand Research answers the following: Does the brand live up to the expectations/promises? What is the market potential of the brand?

Frequently companies will conduct a blind test to determine the market potential of a product without any consideration of the intended market positioning. It would seem to me that everyone would remember the infamous Coke introduction in the 1980's. They had a New Coke that dramatically beat the Current Coke in blind tests. However, when the product was introduced into the market, replacing the Current version, they encountered a consumer revolt. They were able to retain their market share, and maybe even increase it, by introducing Classic Coke as a companion to New Coke. But it did not take long for the brand to go back to just Coke.

Recently I conducted a series of studies that reflect the potential problem of utilizing blind tests to assess market potential. The client had a new upgrade for an existing brand. He wanted to show superiority through the use of a parallel, single product, blind study. I convinced him to add a parallel, single product, brand identified, concept use leg to the study. The results are as follows:

In the blind test, the new version scored a 4.2 panel score, unit advantage over the current version. In the Brand Identified portion of the study, the current version scored a 2.2 unit advantage over the new version. Basically, the new version had appeal, but not in the context of the brand's positioning. They successfully introduced a new version which when compared with the current version, had a 1.6 unit advantage in the blind test leg and a 3.5 unit advantage in the brand identified leg. (All above differences were significant.)

I believe it is obvious to most consumer researchers that blind tests are poor indicators of market success. A friend of mine, Ken Dysart, Director at P&G, has memo pads that contain the heading "A Technical Study Has Never Predicted Consumer Acceptance, Ever!" Think about it. Pastel colors may be preferred over white for bar soaps, but would you ever make Ivory a pink or blue bar? A 365-horsepower-engine may be preferred over a 125-horsepower- engine, but which one would you put in a Neon? A floral odor may be preferred over a chemical base odor, but which one would you put in a garbage disinfectant?

Basically what I'm trying to communicate is that the characteristics of a product should reinforce the positioning of the brand. All aspects of the brand [product (all features), package, copy, price and positioning] should work together in harmony to enhance the success of the introduction. Sometime in the future, I will devote a Views publication to the methods used in the various stages of product/brand development aimed at assessing the synergy of the components such as "Acceptability & Theme Support," "Concept & Use," RealTest," etc.

There is a time and place for both blind and identified testing. Both serve important uses in the development of a brand.


[Back][Index][Forward]