Just a quick entry today. When I started out in the industry and used to tell other people who were just starting out what I did, they would be quick to say "I hope you don't bias your results and your data." I quickly learned to say "Of course I bias my results and data - I just know what I'm doing, that's all."
I firmly believe that any research, regardless of how careful the designers are, will bias its participants in one way or another. I believe that a researcher proves his or her mettle when they are able to analyze bias better than they are able to analyze the raw data itself.
I did 25-focus group study and found that participants would be comfortable if a particulary contentious government policy were impelmented on a voluntary basis, instead of a mandatory basis. Thought the client trusted me, they were very surprised to hear the result, and I don't blame them. Here was my explanation - I asked participants about whether it should be voluntary or mandatory after nearly two hours of previous discussion with it. As such, they were comfortable with certain aspects of the policy and other factors such that they felt a voluntary implementation would be just fine.
However, if you asked the same question on a quant study, most likely you would get a majority of people wanting a mandatory implementation. There are two reasons - first, a quant study does not allow (in my opinion) to get intimately comfortable with a topic, so they tend to answer from a place of alienation and fear especially if they do not know all the details of a policy - and mandatory sounds like it will provide more protection than voluntary. The second reason is why would someone answer that they want less of something (i.e. a voluntary implementation), when we present them with the option to get more of something (i.e. a mandatory implementation) at no additional cost or burden to them?
Here is how I interpreted the results:
- The participants got comfortable with the topic enough so that they felt a voluntary standard would suffice. If the client wants the Canadian public to accept a voluntary standard, they would need to spend significant time and effort to educate and communicate with them the same way that a 2-hour focus group got them comfortable with the topic. If the client has the resources to do this, then a voluntary implementation would work.
- If, however, the client did not have the resources available to intimately educate the public about the policy, then they would most likely want a mandatory implementation of it.
The analysis above was more based on an analysis of bias of the survey instrument and method than it was on any of the particular results that were contained in the study.
As a final strategic note, if the client did not have the resources or cash to communicate intimately with the Canadian public to try and create acceptance of a voluntary standard, they would still have to pay-out significant sums of money if policy became mandatory. Specifically, they would need to set-up monitoring and enforcement functions among the industry they regulate. As such, the client would need to investigate which option would cost them less to implement, but realizing that both options would take a significant amount of money to implement.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Layers of the personality - a primer
NOTE - THIS IS A THEORETICAL PRIMER. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH OR BRANDING. IT IS AN INTERESTING READ FOR THOSE THAT WISH TO UNDERSTAND BASIC PERSONALITY AND EMOTIONAL THEORY.
Most psychotherapies agree that people hide and defend against showing their true emotions and feelings. The reasoning is quite simple - as children at some point we learned that it was not safe to reveal how we truly think or feel. The experience that exposed us to this danger need not have been something horribly traumatic - it could be as simple as not being able to stay out an extra 30 minutes for Halloween, or it could have been the time that we were told to stop crying (maybe because our parents had a really bad headache and just needed some quiet to make it go away).
While we may not even remember the particular experience, what sticks with us throughout our life is the method we used to cover-up and subvert our own drives. From that point on, we learn to manipulate our environment to get what we want without having to express our ture thoughts and feelings. It is this manipulation and avoidance that Gestalt Psychologists refer to as the layers of the personality. This personality structure has profound implications both for qualitative research and for branding in general. It is the framework that I use when conducting, analyzing and presenting research results.
This blog will contain three articles on Layers of the Personality. This article, the first, gives an overview of what the layers of the personality are on general theoretical level. It does not have any significant information on branding or qualitative research - so don't read this expecting it. The next two articles will focus on how I use them when I conduct qualitative research and how I can diagnose brands and communications based on the layers of the personality.
To start, let's focus on the general context of the layers of the personality. We display our personality when we interact with others. When we do so, we either make conscious or unconscious decisions about how to react and how much of our true selves we reveal. When we make these decisions, we decide what layer of the personality we will be in. The decision to remain in a layer or to change a layer is largely based on how we judge the other person. The more we trust them, the more likely we are to reveal ourselves (NB - while this is not always the case in actual psychotherapy, for our purposes it will suffice). In a research context, the more we trust the moderator and the group, the more we will reveal ourselves. The more we relate to a brand, the more we want it.
There are five layers of the personality - the first four are what Gestalt Psychotherapists call Neurotic Layers, and the fifth layer, which I call the Valuable Emotional Core, contains our true thoughts, feelings and drives. It is important to note though, that each layer serves a purpose, and we can function quite well as a person and as a society operating at just the four Neurotic Layers (in fact, I could argue that we do just that!). If we went around constantly showing our true feelings or emotions, we would literally be a bunch of babies crying, throwing temper tantrums and laughing uncontrollably. So keep this in mind - our goal in research and in branding is not to always communicate in the Valuable Emotional Core, but to communicate from the Valuable Emotional Core and to use/understand how to use the other layers effectively to communicate and find-out information from qualitative research participants.
The remainder of this article will discuss the layers of the personality in general terms. The next two articles will show how I apply these in conducting qualitative research so that I thoroughly understand what participants think and feel. The second article provides applications for branding. As you read each layer, keep in mind that these layers are in reference to conversations/interactions we have with other people, and each layer is a defense to feeling true emotion.
The Cliche Layer Of The Personality:
At the Cliche layer, you and the person with whom you are talking exchange pleasentries. This is the extent of the Cliche layer. It is watercooler and cocktail party conversation. There is basic talk about family, sports, current issues, mutual interests, basic likes and dislikes and careers. It is called the cliche layer, because much of the conversation is peppered with common phrases and with opinions that really may not be our own. For example, there is a lot of discussion about "They say that our children will not be as successful as us..." or "It's so true that technology is advancing at a rate faster than the government can legislate it's control or use." or "It's getting harder and harder to make a buck these days."
The Cliche layer, like all layers of the personality, has both a positive and negative side. On the positive side, it fundamentaly whets our appitite and interest in the other person with whom we are having a conversation. Similarly, the other person becomes more interested in us. There is an undeniable bond that happens at the cliche layer between people that get along. And let's face it, how can you possibly have a relationship with someone that does not share your basic interests, or can talk to you about "things in general"
On the negative side, once the novelty of meeting someone new wears off, the cliche layer quickly becomes boring and stiffling. As human beings we long for deeper connections and expressions. As such, sticking around in the cliche layer is really quite boring. How often have you heard yourself say "I wish this guy would just stop talking about his trip to the Turks and Cacos"? The best example I can think of this is Rob Schneider's "Coffee Guy" Character on Saturday Night Live - the guy who goes around the office saying "Drinkin' the Java with the Coffee-meister." or "Ol' Jimbo - havin' difficulty with the photo-copier mahcine.... toooooo baaaadddd." People got bored of him (and Rob Schneider as an actor) very quickly. Staying in the cliche layer prevents us from having any deeper contact with other individuals, and for those who chronically stay in the cliche layer, it serves as a protection against showing any kind of real emotion.
The Role Layer:
Once you get past the cliche layer of the personality, we enter the role layer. Quite simply, this is the layer of the personality that contains all of our "shoulds" and often governs how we act. For example, people take on various roles for themselves - "I'm a good mother", "I'm a business executive", "I'm a helpful individual", "I'm an attractive person", "I'm good at breaking tension with a joke" or "I can sell anything to anybody."
As you can see, these attitudes and beliefs underlie most of our outward behaviour. A person who considers himself helpful will do just that. A person who believes that favours should be returned will help people who have helped him. This layer is one layer deeper than the Cliche layer because it governs our actions and relationships to the environment - it is how we reach-out. In the Role Layer, we are aimelessly reaching out and responding at random. At the Role Layer, deliberate actions are taken based on a set of principles.
To show how this layer is actually deeper, instead of your friend being a shoulder to lean on because your mother is very, very ill, your friend actually helps you with chores, and makes life easier for you, so that you can deal with the illness in a better way. Your friend does this because somewhere in her role layer she believes "I want to help those in need."
The positive side of the role layer is that it literally gives us a "Raison D' Etre" in this world and it brings us closer to our envrionment. The negative side of this layer is that it can just as easily distance us from our envrionmeont and can make us crazy. For example, how does a person who believes his role is "I can sell anything to anybody" begin to feel when he fails as a salesperson? How does the person who says "I am a good mother" deal with a child who has turned anti-social? We can also have opposing "Roles" in our mind - there are probably lots of people out there who are conflicted because on the one hand they believe "As a good human being, I should love, respect and get along with everyone", but on the other hand equally belives "It's a dog-eat-dog world out there." How does a person with both these roles act when a co-worker is out to steal the credit, or even his job? While our roles define us, being constantly stuck in them, and not noticing the envrionment around us makes this world a crazy place.
The Phobic Layer
So from the Role Layer, you and a friend or partner have gained a deeper bond - and are doing things for eachother based on your beliefs. However, have you ever thought that a relationship is moving too quickly, that you seem to be doing all the work in the relationship or that the "Honeymoon period" is just plain over? As we begin to doubt and question ourselves and relationships, we enter The Phobic Layer. It is the layer where we begin to see a different picture or truth to the situation. What makes it phobic is how we react to our new perceptions. Rather than acting on our new-found truth and information, we do anything but. We are scared of what we see, and a scared person is someone who tends to ignore the danger rather than dealing with it head-on. For example we:
- Give our friend the benefit of the doubt and don't say anything
- Give subtle hints, and make casual remarks, but actually don't say directly what we thing or feel. Perhaps we invite them over for dinner less because they have never invited us over for dinner to their house.
- Deny our own observations and truth. For example "How can someone so nice have a selfish streak?"
- Reproach ourselves for thinking such thoughts. For example "I'm terrible for having these thoughts about my good friend."
- Look for things in our friend or partner that are not even there, and begin to make mountains out of molehills.
- We may even begin to question whether we are worthy of such a friend or person in our lives.
I'm sure the examples above point-out the negatives of the Phobic Layer. It begins to put distance between the people around us. The more nefarious part of the Phobic Layer is that we often don't go beyond this in any of our relationships. There are many people out there who spend their whole lives in the Phobic Layer. They can drag-out relationships for entire lifetimes based on Phobic responses. I'm sure that you have people like this in your life right now - people to whom you are not close, but still see relate to on a regular basis.
The positive side is that it serves as a stop-gap for us. It is our filter and keeps us from danger in our lives. Psychotherapists begin to focus their attention at this level, with the belifef that a patient does not observe properly or knows how to make sense of the feelings they receive in the phobic layer. The sense is the patient lacks sufficient internal self-suppport to make proper decisions based on Phobic layer observations and feelings.
The Impasse Layer
This is a singular and contemplative layer, where you are not interacting with the outside world. Instead, there is a war going-on within yourself. If you interpret the signals from the phobic layer correctly, you have discovered that the person or situation with whom you are relating is not what you originally thought. You have a choice to make, you can continue in a phobic layer relationship which does not serve you well, or you can make a change and proceed to the next layer of the personality, which is the Valuable Emotional Core. Until you make a decision, you are stuck in the impasse layer. It can be characterized by depression, withdrawl, avoidance or mood swings.
The benefit of this layer is that it gets us ready to take significant action or experience strong emotion. When we are here, we are testing the water in terms of what it would be like to progress to the next layer, which is the Valuable Emotional Core. When we were very young, we learned to protect ourselves from showing emotion or doing things that we really wanted because (from a baby's, toddler's or young child's perspective) we felt that our lives were threatened for taking such actions. Adults who cared for us as young children could have scolded us or reacted very angrily at what we were doing, so we learned to be very careful about showing emotion. This guarded approach sticks with us as adults.
The disadvantage is quite obvious. We will become depressed or be subject to mood swings. We are cut-off from from our desires and wishes and our actions in the general envrionment are impared.
The Valuable Emotional Core
After going through all the other four levels of the personality, we finally reach the valuable emotional core. It is, as you can guess where our emotions lie, and this level of the personality really does govern how we act and feel. Consider it this way - our emotions radiate out from the core through the other four levels of our personality, and by the time they reach our consciousness (or Ego, for you Freudians out there), they have gone through so many filters that they reach us very muddled. Also, since we access the core so infrequently, we tend not to know how to handle our emotions. If we are angry, we tend to "Rage-Out", or if we feel profound sadness, we "break-down" and cry.
The core is so powerful that it forms the basis of all the action we take. In many cases, we act NOT to feel certain emotions. For example, we may take on a role of being a good mother, because being anything less will cause us great sadness that we cannot deal with. Someone may be an overachiever because they want to rage-out at certain people in their lives, but do not want to face the anger it would cause them. Our emotions could be tangled-up. We may want to have as many joyus experiences as we can, but in order to do so requires taking some risks - so we live in the Impasse layer, experiencing some joy, but not too much for fear of the sadness that may come in obtaining the risk.
Marketers reach this layer when their Brand or product makes consumers feel or experience something that resides in the core. While I cover this in much more detail in other articles, a few examples will suffice. A few examples in my life:
It is worthwhile to note that it is much more common that a brand does not reach the Valuable Emotional Core. In that case it is worthwhile to poke-around at what emotions, deep thoughts and images they bring-up. A few examples from my life:
Most psychotherapies agree that people hide and defend against showing their true emotions and feelings. The reasoning is quite simple - as children at some point we learned that it was not safe to reveal how we truly think or feel. The experience that exposed us to this danger need not have been something horribly traumatic - it could be as simple as not being able to stay out an extra 30 minutes for Halloween, or it could have been the time that we were told to stop crying (maybe because our parents had a really bad headache and just needed some quiet to make it go away).
While we may not even remember the particular experience, what sticks with us throughout our life is the method we used to cover-up and subvert our own drives. From that point on, we learn to manipulate our environment to get what we want without having to express our ture thoughts and feelings. It is this manipulation and avoidance that Gestalt Psychologists refer to as the layers of the personality. This personality structure has profound implications both for qualitative research and for branding in general. It is the framework that I use when conducting, analyzing and presenting research results.
This blog will contain three articles on Layers of the Personality. This article, the first, gives an overview of what the layers of the personality are on general theoretical level. It does not have any significant information on branding or qualitative research - so don't read this expecting it. The next two articles will focus on how I use them when I conduct qualitative research and how I can diagnose brands and communications based on the layers of the personality.
To start, let's focus on the general context of the layers of the personality. We display our personality when we interact with others. When we do so, we either make conscious or unconscious decisions about how to react and how much of our true selves we reveal. When we make these decisions, we decide what layer of the personality we will be in. The decision to remain in a layer or to change a layer is largely based on how we judge the other person. The more we trust them, the more likely we are to reveal ourselves (NB - while this is not always the case in actual psychotherapy, for our purposes it will suffice). In a research context, the more we trust the moderator and the group, the more we will reveal ourselves. The more we relate to a brand, the more we want it.
There are five layers of the personality - the first four are what Gestalt Psychotherapists call Neurotic Layers, and the fifth layer, which I call the Valuable Emotional Core, contains our true thoughts, feelings and drives. It is important to note though, that each layer serves a purpose, and we can function quite well as a person and as a society operating at just the four Neurotic Layers (in fact, I could argue that we do just that!). If we went around constantly showing our true feelings or emotions, we would literally be a bunch of babies crying, throwing temper tantrums and laughing uncontrollably. So keep this in mind - our goal in research and in branding is not to always communicate in the Valuable Emotional Core, but to communicate from the Valuable Emotional Core and to use/understand how to use the other layers effectively to communicate and find-out information from qualitative research participants.
The remainder of this article will discuss the layers of the personality in general terms. The next two articles will show how I apply these in conducting qualitative research so that I thoroughly understand what participants think and feel. The second article provides applications for branding. As you read each layer, keep in mind that these layers are in reference to conversations/interactions we have with other people, and each layer is a defense to feeling true emotion.
The Cliche Layer Of The Personality:
At the Cliche layer, you and the person with whom you are talking exchange pleasentries. This is the extent of the Cliche layer. It is watercooler and cocktail party conversation. There is basic talk about family, sports, current issues, mutual interests, basic likes and dislikes and careers. It is called the cliche layer, because much of the conversation is peppered with common phrases and with opinions that really may not be our own. For example, there is a lot of discussion about "They say that our children will not be as successful as us..." or "It's so true that technology is advancing at a rate faster than the government can legislate it's control or use." or "It's getting harder and harder to make a buck these days."
The Cliche layer, like all layers of the personality, has both a positive and negative side. On the positive side, it fundamentaly whets our appitite and interest in the other person with whom we are having a conversation. Similarly, the other person becomes more interested in us. There is an undeniable bond that happens at the cliche layer between people that get along. And let's face it, how can you possibly have a relationship with someone that does not share your basic interests, or can talk to you about "things in general"
On the negative side, once the novelty of meeting someone new wears off, the cliche layer quickly becomes boring and stiffling. As human beings we long for deeper connections and expressions. As such, sticking around in the cliche layer is really quite boring. How often have you heard yourself say "I wish this guy would just stop talking about his trip to the Turks and Cacos"? The best example I can think of this is Rob Schneider's "Coffee Guy" Character on Saturday Night Live - the guy who goes around the office saying "Drinkin' the Java with the Coffee-meister." or "Ol' Jimbo - havin' difficulty with the photo-copier mahcine.... toooooo baaaadddd." People got bored of him (and Rob Schneider as an actor) very quickly. Staying in the cliche layer prevents us from having any deeper contact with other individuals, and for those who chronically stay in the cliche layer, it serves as a protection against showing any kind of real emotion.
The Role Layer:
Once you get past the cliche layer of the personality, we enter the role layer. Quite simply, this is the layer of the personality that contains all of our "shoulds" and often governs how we act. For example, people take on various roles for themselves - "I'm a good mother", "I'm a business executive", "I'm a helpful individual", "I'm an attractive person", "I'm good at breaking tension with a joke" or "I can sell anything to anybody."
As you can see, these attitudes and beliefs underlie most of our outward behaviour. A person who considers himself helpful will do just that. A person who believes that favours should be returned will help people who have helped him. This layer is one layer deeper than the Cliche layer because it governs our actions and relationships to the environment - it is how we reach-out. In the Role Layer, we are aimelessly reaching out and responding at random. At the Role Layer, deliberate actions are taken based on a set of principles.
To show how this layer is actually deeper, instead of your friend being a shoulder to lean on because your mother is very, very ill, your friend actually helps you with chores, and makes life easier for you, so that you can deal with the illness in a better way. Your friend does this because somewhere in her role layer she believes "I want to help those in need."
The positive side of the role layer is that it literally gives us a "Raison D' Etre" in this world and it brings us closer to our envrionment. The negative side of this layer is that it can just as easily distance us from our envrionmeont and can make us crazy. For example, how does a person who believes his role is "I can sell anything to anybody" begin to feel when he fails as a salesperson? How does the person who says "I am a good mother" deal with a child who has turned anti-social? We can also have opposing "Roles" in our mind - there are probably lots of people out there who are conflicted because on the one hand they believe "As a good human being, I should love, respect and get along with everyone", but on the other hand equally belives "It's a dog-eat-dog world out there." How does a person with both these roles act when a co-worker is out to steal the credit, or even his job? While our roles define us, being constantly stuck in them, and not noticing the envrionment around us makes this world a crazy place.
The Phobic Layer
So from the Role Layer, you and a friend or partner have gained a deeper bond - and are doing things for eachother based on your beliefs. However, have you ever thought that a relationship is moving too quickly, that you seem to be doing all the work in the relationship or that the "Honeymoon period" is just plain over? As we begin to doubt and question ourselves and relationships, we enter The Phobic Layer. It is the layer where we begin to see a different picture or truth to the situation. What makes it phobic is how we react to our new perceptions. Rather than acting on our new-found truth and information, we do anything but. We are scared of what we see, and a scared person is someone who tends to ignore the danger rather than dealing with it head-on. For example we:
- Give our friend the benefit of the doubt and don't say anything
- Give subtle hints, and make casual remarks, but actually don't say directly what we thing or feel. Perhaps we invite them over for dinner less because they have never invited us over for dinner to their house.
- Deny our own observations and truth. For example "How can someone so nice have a selfish streak?"
- Reproach ourselves for thinking such thoughts. For example "I'm terrible for having these thoughts about my good friend."
- Look for things in our friend or partner that are not even there, and begin to make mountains out of molehills.
- We may even begin to question whether we are worthy of such a friend or person in our lives.
I'm sure the examples above point-out the negatives of the Phobic Layer. It begins to put distance between the people around us. The more nefarious part of the Phobic Layer is that we often don't go beyond this in any of our relationships. There are many people out there who spend their whole lives in the Phobic Layer. They can drag-out relationships for entire lifetimes based on Phobic responses. I'm sure that you have people like this in your life right now - people to whom you are not close, but still see relate to on a regular basis.
The positive side is that it serves as a stop-gap for us. It is our filter and keeps us from danger in our lives. Psychotherapists begin to focus their attention at this level, with the belifef that a patient does not observe properly or knows how to make sense of the feelings they receive in the phobic layer. The sense is the patient lacks sufficient internal self-suppport to make proper decisions based on Phobic layer observations and feelings.
The Impasse Layer
This is a singular and contemplative layer, where you are not interacting with the outside world. Instead, there is a war going-on within yourself. If you interpret the signals from the phobic layer correctly, you have discovered that the person or situation with whom you are relating is not what you originally thought. You have a choice to make, you can continue in a phobic layer relationship which does not serve you well, or you can make a change and proceed to the next layer of the personality, which is the Valuable Emotional Core. Until you make a decision, you are stuck in the impasse layer. It can be characterized by depression, withdrawl, avoidance or mood swings.
The benefit of this layer is that it gets us ready to take significant action or experience strong emotion. When we are here, we are testing the water in terms of what it would be like to progress to the next layer, which is the Valuable Emotional Core. When we were very young, we learned to protect ourselves from showing emotion or doing things that we really wanted because (from a baby's, toddler's or young child's perspective) we felt that our lives were threatened for taking such actions. Adults who cared for us as young children could have scolded us or reacted very angrily at what we were doing, so we learned to be very careful about showing emotion. This guarded approach sticks with us as adults.
The disadvantage is quite obvious. We will become depressed or be subject to mood swings. We are cut-off from from our desires and wishes and our actions in the general envrionment are impared.
The Valuable Emotional Core
After going through all the other four levels of the personality, we finally reach the valuable emotional core. It is, as you can guess where our emotions lie, and this level of the personality really does govern how we act and feel. Consider it this way - our emotions radiate out from the core through the other four levels of our personality, and by the time they reach our consciousness (or Ego, for you Freudians out there), they have gone through so many filters that they reach us very muddled. Also, since we access the core so infrequently, we tend not to know how to handle our emotions. If we are angry, we tend to "Rage-Out", or if we feel profound sadness, we "break-down" and cry.
The core is so powerful that it forms the basis of all the action we take. In many cases, we act NOT to feel certain emotions. For example, we may take on a role of being a good mother, because being anything less will cause us great sadness that we cannot deal with. Someone may be an overachiever because they want to rage-out at certain people in their lives, but do not want to face the anger it would cause them. Our emotions could be tangled-up. We may want to have as many joyus experiences as we can, but in order to do so requires taking some risks - so we live in the Impasse layer, experiencing some joy, but not too much for fear of the sadness that may come in obtaining the risk.
Marketers reach this layer when their Brand or product makes consumers feel or experience something that resides in the core. While I cover this in much more detail in other articles, a few examples will suffice. A few examples in my life:
- When I wear a Swatch, I AM young and hip. In my role layer, I may have the wish to be young and hip, but Swatch actually makes me realize that dream.
- When I wear Roots, I AM rugged, grounded, casual and chic. That is how I feel when I put on Roots clothes. The brand has touched my Valuable Emotional Core. Again, this is different than filling my Role Layer desire to be this way - when I wear Roots clothing I am actually this way.
- When I was in Disneyworld recently, I flew a mission to Mars. It touched my Valuable Emotional Core because it brought me real, unadulterated joy that I felt throughout my entire body. For a few minutes, I suspended all reality, and actually felt myself in a Space Shuttle, and all the joy that came with it.
It is worthwhile to note that it is much more common that a brand does not reach the Valuable Emotional Core. In that case it is worthwhile to poke-around at what emotions, deep thoughts and images they bring-up. A few examples from my life:
- I use Microsoft products, and the brand could mean any number of things to me - innovative, big company, high-tech, competitive, quick to respond, etc... However, the feeling that it leaves me with is disappointment. It has nothing to do with the fact that their products don't work - it's just that I find they have failed in their promise to make computing easy for me. When I am my Valuable Emotional Core with regards to Microsoft products, there is always a sense of frustration involved, even if the product is working perfectly.
- I think we could all complain about cell phone or cable company service, and it seems any time I call them I always have to speak to a supervisor to get things accomplished. When I call them, I do not just feel disappointment, I feel like a failure. What I think should take 5-10 minutes, takes upwards of one week to resolve. So, when I deal with Rogers, I AM a failure.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Concept Testing vs. Concept Development
A lot of my focus groups test concepts, either as products, services or policies. All too often clients want to use the results to "pass or fail" a concept. In fact, the Federal Government commonly uses the term "Focus Test" to describe qualitative research that involves focus groups. I have always objected to research "passing or failing" a concept. There are a few reasons. First, people tend to have negative reactions to new ideas. The actual psychological reasons are irrelevant, but people tend to feel threatened by new ideas, are concerned about change or are jealous of not having thought of the idea themselves. Second, research can never duplicate the actual product or service being tested. What we are actually testing is concept statements, or prototypes - not the actual deployment of the product, service or policy - so research is only a proxy test at best.
In my opinion, the better approach is concept development, as opposed to concept testing. That is, we should go in to the research thinking of ways to tailor the product to the hopes, dreams , opinions and practical realities of our participants. When this is done we will provide more insight and interpretive value to our clients.
Let's start by looking at the topic in a way that interests everyone - money - or value for research dollars. I don't know how many times I've been involved in research assigments that involve more than 20 focus groups, only to hear the same responses said over-and-over again. Sometimes clients have reasons for conducting this many groups, but how much value can be achieved hearing the same responses about a concept that does not change? A better approach is to take the learnings from each successive group and change the concept being tested based on the results from each of the previous groups. The value for money then becomes apparent - we begin to develop the concept based on consumer opinion so that each new session tests and refines the new idea. At the end of the assignment the client receives results that tell them what is needed to make the concept a practical reality, as opposed to passing or failing a concept. Our clients are then in a much better position to decide if they have the resources available to implement the concept based on consumer's wishes and desires. There is just not much interpretive or monetary value in hearing the same feedback again and again. If the groups are in place, it makes sense to get as much value from them as possible - and that means changing the concept with each successive group.
Based on the above, the methodology of concept development becomes quite clear - a concept becomes a variable entity that is changed and refined for each successive research session. It is no longer a static idea that gets trodded-about like some trunk-show from group to group. This form of concept development, however, requires an experienced moderator and client. The moderator, as an expert in interpreting qualitative opinion, needs to sort through what is a real opinion and what is a postured response (or defence) to the new idea. The client, on the other hand, needs to be in a position to decide whether what is heard in the groups is realistic or not. That is, it does not pay to refine a concept in such a way only to be told by the client that the refinements simply cannot be implemented due to budgets or resource or strategic constraints.
While the client's role is to ensure that successive developments are realistic, the moderator has a more difficult challenge - he must be able to interpret opinion based on one group, and this requires the ability to sort through respondent BS and real pshcyological opinion. In the groups, it requires a more aggressive pursuit of deeper opinion and reasons for it. For example, price and requests for more informtaion are ususlly NOT the main reasons for rejecting a concept. They are simply the easiest reasons participants can give to avoid sharing their true opinions.
Similarly, hearing third person comments like "society is not moving in that direction" are not useful comments, nor are comments like "other people think this" or "the target market won't go for it." Psychotherapy talks about "The Language Of Responsibility", which has as one of its tenents a first-person response. In being more aggressive about seeking individual opinions in a concept development group, I will often say in the introduction that it is important for people to talk only about themselves, and not about anything or anyone else. If someone uses a statement like this I will usually ask "What you're saying makes a lot of sense, but what does it mean for you - will you accept or reject the concept?"
Shifting the focus to "I" responses needs to be done with care and with a specific purpose. Believe it or not, the purpose of the question is not to get someone to say whether or not they will actually accept or reject the concept - the actual purpose is simply to get the participant to start expressing their own inner thoughts and feelings. If a participant says "The market is not going in that direction so the concept will not work" they are rejecting the concept - and they are doing so in a manner that does not put responsibility on them, or in other words, they are taking the easy way out. If they are asked to phrase the statement in terms of "I" language, they may realize that they, themselves, are rejecting the concept - and they may not want to take responsibility for it for fear of offending the moderator, or people behind the mirror. More likely, they predisposed to being perceived as agreeable. As such, they may say something like "Oh, if it were me, sure I'd try it - I was just commenting on what I think the market would do."
What happens next is critical - the moderator cannot accept that response on face value or ask the participant why they are now accept the concept. To ask why a respondent accepts a concept at this stage will likely make them dig deeper into more inaccurate justifications (and in analysis, these responses should not be used as key findings, also the goal is concept development and not testing). Rather, the moderator should just say "OK, let's keep going - tell me what you think about..." and then continue to ask questions that elicit a first-person response. The goal of the intervention is to get the respondent to simply talk in terms of themself and not in the third person. Also, by not acknowledging the response, we will gain credibility in the eyes of the participant - if they are lying, and we did not acknowledge or fawn over the response, they will likely understand that we can detect their BS.
When a moderator gets the participant to internalize the concept, the more accurate the responses will be. At the end of the discussion, if the focus has been on "I" responses, the modeartor will have a very good set of qualitative data based on the participant's true thoughts and feelings as opposed to an assemblage of views that are really stated simply to avoid any real judgement of the concept to begin with.
There are other important tricks up my sleeve that I like to use when concept testing, and that is when I show a concept statement, I will often start with asking people what they dislike about the concept first. This gets the negative stuff out of the way. People tend to want to criticize a concept more than they want to praise it, so it is a good idea to let these thoughts out into the open, so that participants are not hanging on to them when it comes time for positive comments. Also, since there will likely be more negative comments, this tends to get the creative juices flowing in the group and encourages participants to open-up more. It is important to realize that if the goal is concept development, and not concept testing, clients worried about too much emphasis on the negative turing people off the product, should relalize that the goal of the resaerch is not to determine whether people will actually use the product or not.
Another method I often use is projective techniques at the beginning of the group. I will spend maybe 5-10 minutes lip-servicing the general likes and dislikes of the product category so that the client gets a sense of the "head-responses" people have towards the category. To me, the more valuable exercise is a projective technique where participants are split into two groups. One group imagines the most positive experience they can with the product category, and the other group immages the worst possible debacle. This kind of exercise will produce more relevant information about the product category than a simple "what do you like or dislike" about a product. These techniques encourage clients to tell a story - we are more likely to understand their entire situation and gain a more holistic view of the overall data.
While group process can play an important part in concept development (i.e. as new developments are described, the group can react), I believe that there is also a strong case to be made for one-on-one interviews for concept development. The main reason is that one-on-ones tend to avoid posturing by participants. In the case of concept development, participants are more likely to give more direct feedback on a concept without being intimidated by anyone in the group. They are not so concerned, for example, as coming off as someone who wants to please others, and therefore never criticizes in public. While a good moderator can find ways around posturing, I believe that one-on-ones are certainly a more efficient method.
Finally, in terms of concept statements, it is important to work with clients to emphasize benefits as well as features. In terms of a concept statement, benefits are what will get people interested in the product or service, not a listing of feautres. The features may be important, but it it the benefits that sell the product. I always encourage a client that for every feature they list, they must list either a direct corresponding benefit or have the same number of features and benefits in the concept statement. I also avoid statements that contain jargon like "class-leading horsepower among mid-sized sedans" or "high-end apparel and accessories for the fashion-forward and trendy career woman." Bottom line - that is not the way consumers talk.
All of these techniques - projectives, focusing on benefits, changing the concept statement and ensuring that participants evaluate the product from their point of view are all designed to lead to a single two-second moment in the qualitative research. It is when participants go "A-Ha", or "That's what I mean" and a light goes off in their head. This signifies that the product actually provides a solution to them. The "A-Ha" is truly the way of "testing" whether a product will work or not in the marketplace. In my opinion, the only way to reach that moment is to "develop the concept" within the group. The chances of any one concept statement eliciting that response, without any creative intervention or continual development is slim to none. And in fact, I believe, that without taking the steps above to properly research a concept, those are the exact chances that a product will have in the marketplace.
Ultimately, good marketers are looking to give their concepts the best chance of success possible in the marketplace. They are not looking to see simply whether a concept will fly or not - and that is why I practice concept development, which by its very definition, gives marketers exactly what they are looking for.
In my opinion, the better approach is concept development, as opposed to concept testing. That is, we should go in to the research thinking of ways to tailor the product to the hopes, dreams , opinions and practical realities of our participants. When this is done we will provide more insight and interpretive value to our clients.
Let's start by looking at the topic in a way that interests everyone - money - or value for research dollars. I don't know how many times I've been involved in research assigments that involve more than 20 focus groups, only to hear the same responses said over-and-over again. Sometimes clients have reasons for conducting this many groups, but how much value can be achieved hearing the same responses about a concept that does not change? A better approach is to take the learnings from each successive group and change the concept being tested based on the results from each of the previous groups. The value for money then becomes apparent - we begin to develop the concept based on consumer opinion so that each new session tests and refines the new idea. At the end of the assignment the client receives results that tell them what is needed to make the concept a practical reality, as opposed to passing or failing a concept. Our clients are then in a much better position to decide if they have the resources available to implement the concept based on consumer's wishes and desires. There is just not much interpretive or monetary value in hearing the same feedback again and again. If the groups are in place, it makes sense to get as much value from them as possible - and that means changing the concept with each successive group.
Based on the above, the methodology of concept development becomes quite clear - a concept becomes a variable entity that is changed and refined for each successive research session. It is no longer a static idea that gets trodded-about like some trunk-show from group to group. This form of concept development, however, requires an experienced moderator and client. The moderator, as an expert in interpreting qualitative opinion, needs to sort through what is a real opinion and what is a postured response (or defence) to the new idea. The client, on the other hand, needs to be in a position to decide whether what is heard in the groups is realistic or not. That is, it does not pay to refine a concept in such a way only to be told by the client that the refinements simply cannot be implemented due to budgets or resource or strategic constraints.
While the client's role is to ensure that successive developments are realistic, the moderator has a more difficult challenge - he must be able to interpret opinion based on one group, and this requires the ability to sort through respondent BS and real pshcyological opinion. In the groups, it requires a more aggressive pursuit of deeper opinion and reasons for it. For example, price and requests for more informtaion are ususlly NOT the main reasons for rejecting a concept. They are simply the easiest reasons participants can give to avoid sharing their true opinions.
Similarly, hearing third person comments like "society is not moving in that direction" are not useful comments, nor are comments like "other people think this" or "the target market won't go for it." Psychotherapy talks about "The Language Of Responsibility", which has as one of its tenents a first-person response. In being more aggressive about seeking individual opinions in a concept development group, I will often say in the introduction that it is important for people to talk only about themselves, and not about anything or anyone else. If someone uses a statement like this I will usually ask "What you're saying makes a lot of sense, but what does it mean for you - will you accept or reject the concept?"
Shifting the focus to "I" responses needs to be done with care and with a specific purpose. Believe it or not, the purpose of the question is not to get someone to say whether or not they will actually accept or reject the concept - the actual purpose is simply to get the participant to start expressing their own inner thoughts and feelings. If a participant says "The market is not going in that direction so the concept will not work" they are rejecting the concept - and they are doing so in a manner that does not put responsibility on them, or in other words, they are taking the easy way out. If they are asked to phrase the statement in terms of "I" language, they may realize that they, themselves, are rejecting the concept - and they may not want to take responsibility for it for fear of offending the moderator, or people behind the mirror. More likely, they predisposed to being perceived as agreeable. As such, they may say something like "Oh, if it were me, sure I'd try it - I was just commenting on what I think the market would do."
What happens next is critical - the moderator cannot accept that response on face value or ask the participant why they are now accept the concept. To ask why a respondent accepts a concept at this stage will likely make them dig deeper into more inaccurate justifications (and in analysis, these responses should not be used as key findings, also the goal is concept development and not testing). Rather, the moderator should just say "OK, let's keep going - tell me what you think about..." and then continue to ask questions that elicit a first-person response. The goal of the intervention is to get the respondent to simply talk in terms of themself and not in the third person. Also, by not acknowledging the response, we will gain credibility in the eyes of the participant - if they are lying, and we did not acknowledge or fawn over the response, they will likely understand that we can detect their BS.
When a moderator gets the participant to internalize the concept, the more accurate the responses will be. At the end of the discussion, if the focus has been on "I" responses, the modeartor will have a very good set of qualitative data based on the participant's true thoughts and feelings as opposed to an assemblage of views that are really stated simply to avoid any real judgement of the concept to begin with.
There are other important tricks up my sleeve that I like to use when concept testing, and that is when I show a concept statement, I will often start with asking people what they dislike about the concept first. This gets the negative stuff out of the way. People tend to want to criticize a concept more than they want to praise it, so it is a good idea to let these thoughts out into the open, so that participants are not hanging on to them when it comes time for positive comments. Also, since there will likely be more negative comments, this tends to get the creative juices flowing in the group and encourages participants to open-up more. It is important to realize that if the goal is concept development, and not concept testing, clients worried about too much emphasis on the negative turing people off the product, should relalize that the goal of the resaerch is not to determine whether people will actually use the product or not.
Another method I often use is projective techniques at the beginning of the group. I will spend maybe 5-10 minutes lip-servicing the general likes and dislikes of the product category so that the client gets a sense of the "head-responses" people have towards the category. To me, the more valuable exercise is a projective technique where participants are split into two groups. One group imagines the most positive experience they can with the product category, and the other group immages the worst possible debacle. This kind of exercise will produce more relevant information about the product category than a simple "what do you like or dislike" about a product. These techniques encourage clients to tell a story - we are more likely to understand their entire situation and gain a more holistic view of the overall data.
While group process can play an important part in concept development (i.e. as new developments are described, the group can react), I believe that there is also a strong case to be made for one-on-one interviews for concept development. The main reason is that one-on-ones tend to avoid posturing by participants. In the case of concept development, participants are more likely to give more direct feedback on a concept without being intimidated by anyone in the group. They are not so concerned, for example, as coming off as someone who wants to please others, and therefore never criticizes in public. While a good moderator can find ways around posturing, I believe that one-on-ones are certainly a more efficient method.
Finally, in terms of concept statements, it is important to work with clients to emphasize benefits as well as features. In terms of a concept statement, benefits are what will get people interested in the product or service, not a listing of feautres. The features may be important, but it it the benefits that sell the product. I always encourage a client that for every feature they list, they must list either a direct corresponding benefit or have the same number of features and benefits in the concept statement. I also avoid statements that contain jargon like "class-leading horsepower among mid-sized sedans" or "high-end apparel and accessories for the fashion-forward and trendy career woman." Bottom line - that is not the way consumers talk.
All of these techniques - projectives, focusing on benefits, changing the concept statement and ensuring that participants evaluate the product from their point of view are all designed to lead to a single two-second moment in the qualitative research. It is when participants go "A-Ha", or "That's what I mean" and a light goes off in their head. This signifies that the product actually provides a solution to them. The "A-Ha" is truly the way of "testing" whether a product will work or not in the marketplace. In my opinion, the only way to reach that moment is to "develop the concept" within the group. The chances of any one concept statement eliciting that response, without any creative intervention or continual development is slim to none. And in fact, I believe, that without taking the steps above to properly research a concept, those are the exact chances that a product will have in the marketplace.
Ultimately, good marketers are looking to give their concepts the best chance of success possible in the marketplace. They are not looking to see simply whether a concept will fly or not - and that is why I practice concept development, which by its very definition, gives marketers exactly what they are looking for.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
A New Definition Of Projective Techniques
I get very annoyed when people think that projective techniques are "parlour games" like picture sorts, fill-in-the-blanks, simple metaphors or product/brand obituaries. If you want to get purely technical, these are examples of projective techniques, but they are more like empty shells. It's like trying to drive a car without an engine - they just don't get you anywhere.
Ever since I started telling people that I was practicing projectives, I got very annoyed when they thought I was doing these rudimentary kinds of projectives. With my feelings front and centre, I knew I needed to come up with a definition of projectives that would differentiate me from the conventional thoughts about projectives. In my opinion, a proper projective goes beyond the metaphoric - it uncovers emotional and deeply held opinions that cannot be touched by conventional questioning or standard projectives.
For example, let's say we ask a participant to project "If Calgary, as a tourist destination, were a famous person, who would it be?" Let's say the answer is Clint Eastwood. Many people under the conventional definition of the technique would think that they have hit on a gem of a response - Clint is rugged, handsome, Western, prosperous, legendary, full of achievement, classy yet rebellious and has wide appeal. Surely, people would think, this is a perfect projection of Calgary.
Now, let me ask you this - how does the projection of Clint Eastwood differ from asking participants to list some attributes about Calgary? If I asked people to list some attributes of Calgary, they may say things like "Calgary is beautiful and full of Western history and tradition which make it appealing to me. There is a certain ruggedness and rebelliousness in Calgary, yet because it is in Canada there is a lot of class associated with it." In this situation, there is absolutely no difference between the projected response and the conventional question. On top of that, there is absolutely no emotion attached to the response.
If projectives are to be given their due in market research, we must understand that there is a difference between a metaphoric response and a true emotional response. In Clinical Psychology, we call the "Clint Eastwood" response a "Head Response" - that is, the participant is answering from their intellect and not from their emotion. In order to get someone out of their head, the we must relax them. They need to be distanced and isolated from the fact that they are answering questions for a market research study. If there is one thing you learn from this blog - know that a good projective technique will always involve the participant engaging in some sort of mental relaxation exercise before the projection begins. I do not care how much a research supplier promises that their projective will work at probing deeper responses - unless there is a relaxation exercise first, you will not be getting as much information as you could. Projectives that start off with "OK - who can fill in the blank the fastest in this sentence..." are doomed to give a "head response".
Prior to giving an example of what a good projective looks like, it is worthwhile to understand the phenomenon of projection from a psychological point of view. Projection is one of the most common psychological phenomena in existence - and psychotherapists have been using projective techniques for over 100 years! It is far from a new innovation, and moderators who have psychotherapeutic training will have learned projectives first-hand.
On a very base level, when someone psychologically projects, they are disowing a part of themselves that they do not want to admit to owning. That is, people are too scared or ashamed of certain traits about themselves, so rather than owning what they find disgusting or disturbing, they put it out into the environment. The quintessential example of projection is the "I have a friend" visit to the doctor. Most people know this situation - a person has a medical symptom that they are mortally concerned or ashamed about, but rather than admitting to themselves and to their doctor, they go in attempting to get information for "a friend."
As it relates to emotions and market research - Clinical Psychologists believe that people have a difficult time owning or relating to their emotions because society and our own peers prefer that we suppress them or keep them down. For example, how many times have we been told "Not to take it personally, it's just business"? Have you ever noticed that someone who wails in sadness at the funeral of a loved one is often described as someone who "broke-down and cried" as opposed to someone who "had a really, really healthy release of emotion?"
Similarly, people from a very early age are told not to criticize or complain, so when we ask about people's honest opinions towards products or services, if people do not like it, we may not get the full story because the feel ashamed to complain. Note too that this takes into account the participant who loves to complain or "dis" a product or service. They may be over-compensating - that is they may amplify their situation so that they feel justified in complaining about something that is only a minor annoyance.
The stage is now set to implement a proper projective technique. We know that people project things about themselves that they have difficulty accepting, and we know that emotions and deeply held opinions are things that are not easily accepted by individuals. We also know that metaphoric responses are akin to head responses, and those do not reaveal the real data that is valuable to marketers. To start, we need to get people primed to project, and get them out of their head. In fact, we can combine the relaxation and the projective together. Here is how I would implement a projective to get at real opinions and feelings about Calgary as a tourist destination:
"First, I want you to close your eyes and think about the following. You have just won a radio contest - a free trip to a mystery vacation. You know that you have an all-expense-paid week's vacation, so you are excited. Now, I want you to picture yourself on the plane to the mystery destination, and you are very relaxed. You are in first-class and you are in a nice seat. You have a lot of legroom to stretch-out, so stretch out if you want to. You are enjoying a great movie on the in-flight entertainment system. As you continue this relaxing plane ride you are starting to envision your vacation. As the plane starts to descend, the pilot says 'Ladies and gentlemen, we will soon be landing in Calgary.' This is the first time you know where you are going.
Now - as you are sitting in the plane, what do you begin to feel towards the radio station for sending you to Calgary? What do you really want to tell them? What do you envision this vacation will be like for you?
Now, as you get off the plane, you look around the Calgary airport. What do you see? What do you smell? How does your luggage feel? How are you walking through the airport?
Next, you think about the kind of hotel the radio station will put you in. What kind of accomodations do you expect? Describe the room to me in detail
Now, you are driving from the airport to your hotel and you are starting to get a good look at the city. As you look out the cab, you are going to see something that interests you. Look at it closely and describe it to me in detail. Now, you are going to look out the other side of the window and you are going to see something that repulses you. Look at it closely and describe it to me. Now, you get a call on your cell phone - it's a friend of yours that you share all your true feelings with - tell them what you see, think and feel about being in Calgary based on all your experiences so far."
I think that most of you can see the true value of the questions that are being asked, and that they will provide richer, more valuable data on true feelings, opinions and emotions than what we normally consider to be a projective technique. If you take away anything from the example, I hope you understand that emotions and feelings cannot be accessed by traditional modes of questioning and that relaxation is critical to any good projective.
Finally, to me the projective techniques that I have outlined do more than just provide sound qualitative data - they are a way of incorporating basic humanity in the research process. We are thinking, feeling creatures that work better when we do not have to suppress or keep our emotions in check. I strongly believe that any occasion that gives people a chance to experience, feel and express some of their more deeply held emotions is a very worthwhile exercise. A moderator who recognizes the human factor in all of this will be able to provide clients with information that will truly bind them to their customer base.
Ever since I started telling people that I was practicing projectives, I got very annoyed when they thought I was doing these rudimentary kinds of projectives. With my feelings front and centre, I knew I needed to come up with a definition of projectives that would differentiate me from the conventional thoughts about projectives. In my opinion, a proper projective goes beyond the metaphoric - it uncovers emotional and deeply held opinions that cannot be touched by conventional questioning or standard projectives.
For example, let's say we ask a participant to project "If Calgary, as a tourist destination, were a famous person, who would it be?" Let's say the answer is Clint Eastwood. Many people under the conventional definition of the technique would think that they have hit on a gem of a response - Clint is rugged, handsome, Western, prosperous, legendary, full of achievement, classy yet rebellious and has wide appeal. Surely, people would think, this is a perfect projection of Calgary.
Now, let me ask you this - how does the projection of Clint Eastwood differ from asking participants to list some attributes about Calgary? If I asked people to list some attributes of Calgary, they may say things like "Calgary is beautiful and full of Western history and tradition which make it appealing to me. There is a certain ruggedness and rebelliousness in Calgary, yet because it is in Canada there is a lot of class associated with it." In this situation, there is absolutely no difference between the projected response and the conventional question. On top of that, there is absolutely no emotion attached to the response.
If projectives are to be given their due in market research, we must understand that there is a difference between a metaphoric response and a true emotional response. In Clinical Psychology, we call the "Clint Eastwood" response a "Head Response" - that is, the participant is answering from their intellect and not from their emotion. In order to get someone out of their head, the we must relax them. They need to be distanced and isolated from the fact that they are answering questions for a market research study. If there is one thing you learn from this blog - know that a good projective technique will always involve the participant engaging in some sort of mental relaxation exercise before the projection begins. I do not care how much a research supplier promises that their projective will work at probing deeper responses - unless there is a relaxation exercise first, you will not be getting as much information as you could. Projectives that start off with "OK - who can fill in the blank the fastest in this sentence..." are doomed to give a "head response".
Prior to giving an example of what a good projective looks like, it is worthwhile to understand the phenomenon of projection from a psychological point of view. Projection is one of the most common psychological phenomena in existence - and psychotherapists have been using projective techniques for over 100 years! It is far from a new innovation, and moderators who have psychotherapeutic training will have learned projectives first-hand.
On a very base level, when someone psychologically projects, they are disowing a part of themselves that they do not want to admit to owning. That is, people are too scared or ashamed of certain traits about themselves, so rather than owning what they find disgusting or disturbing, they put it out into the environment. The quintessential example of projection is the "I have a friend" visit to the doctor. Most people know this situation - a person has a medical symptom that they are mortally concerned or ashamed about, but rather than admitting to themselves and to their doctor, they go in attempting to get information for "a friend."
As it relates to emotions and market research - Clinical Psychologists believe that people have a difficult time owning or relating to their emotions because society and our own peers prefer that we suppress them or keep them down. For example, how many times have we been told "Not to take it personally, it's just business"? Have you ever noticed that someone who wails in sadness at the funeral of a loved one is often described as someone who "broke-down and cried" as opposed to someone who "had a really, really healthy release of emotion?"
Similarly, people from a very early age are told not to criticize or complain, so when we ask about people's honest opinions towards products or services, if people do not like it, we may not get the full story because the feel ashamed to complain. Note too that this takes into account the participant who loves to complain or "dis" a product or service. They may be over-compensating - that is they may amplify their situation so that they feel justified in complaining about something that is only a minor annoyance.
The stage is now set to implement a proper projective technique. We know that people project things about themselves that they have difficulty accepting, and we know that emotions and deeply held opinions are things that are not easily accepted by individuals. We also know that metaphoric responses are akin to head responses, and those do not reaveal the real data that is valuable to marketers. To start, we need to get people primed to project, and get them out of their head. In fact, we can combine the relaxation and the projective together. Here is how I would implement a projective to get at real opinions and feelings about Calgary as a tourist destination:
"First, I want you to close your eyes and think about the following. You have just won a radio contest - a free trip to a mystery vacation. You know that you have an all-expense-paid week's vacation, so you are excited. Now, I want you to picture yourself on the plane to the mystery destination, and you are very relaxed. You are in first-class and you are in a nice seat. You have a lot of legroom to stretch-out, so stretch out if you want to. You are enjoying a great movie on the in-flight entertainment system. As you continue this relaxing plane ride you are starting to envision your vacation. As the plane starts to descend, the pilot says 'Ladies and gentlemen, we will soon be landing in Calgary.' This is the first time you know where you are going.
Now - as you are sitting in the plane, what do you begin to feel towards the radio station for sending you to Calgary? What do you really want to tell them? What do you envision this vacation will be like for you?
Now, as you get off the plane, you look around the Calgary airport. What do you see? What do you smell? How does your luggage feel? How are you walking through the airport?
Next, you think about the kind of hotel the radio station will put you in. What kind of accomodations do you expect? Describe the room to me in detail
Now, you are driving from the airport to your hotel and you are starting to get a good look at the city. As you look out the cab, you are going to see something that interests you. Look at it closely and describe it to me in detail. Now, you are going to look out the other side of the window and you are going to see something that repulses you. Look at it closely and describe it to me. Now, you get a call on your cell phone - it's a friend of yours that you share all your true feelings with - tell them what you see, think and feel about being in Calgary based on all your experiences so far."
I think that most of you can see the true value of the questions that are being asked, and that they will provide richer, more valuable data on true feelings, opinions and emotions than what we normally consider to be a projective technique. If you take away anything from the example, I hope you understand that emotions and feelings cannot be accessed by traditional modes of questioning and that relaxation is critical to any good projective.
Finally, to me the projective techniques that I have outlined do more than just provide sound qualitative data - they are a way of incorporating basic humanity in the research process. We are thinking, feeling creatures that work better when we do not have to suppress or keep our emotions in check. I strongly believe that any occasion that gives people a chance to experience, feel and express some of their more deeply held emotions is a very worthwhile exercise. A moderator who recognizes the human factor in all of this will be able to provide clients with information that will truly bind them to their customer base.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
First - I apologize if I got that danged Michael Jackson song in your head, but it is a perfectly appropriate title for this blog. Since I started my education in clinical psychology, I quickly learned to hate the dreaded, oversized and exceptionally obvious one-way mirror. Every time I see one I shudder. And for the longest time, I thought it was a necessary evil - until recently - I finally came across a simple methodology that gets me past the man in the mirror.
Before I indicate my methodology, let me tell you why I hate the mirror. There are likely a lot of moderators getting ready to perch themselves on their boxes and are about to tell me how they overcome the mirror, and how their results are just fine in a standard room. They'll tell me how they acknowledge the mirror in their introduction and let participants know that there are people behind it observing the process. They'll say that if we are up-front about the mirror people will be more comfortable with it.
To me, this is psychological and existential BS - people may accept the explanation and their level of comfort may even improve with the explanation, but no amount of words can remove the fact that the mirror is there - period. On top of that, it's a honkinly big and imposing presence in the group. It physically separates the participants from the observers, and in my opinion it fundamentally changes how people answer and perform.
Some simple examples will suffice. First, people react differently when they are being observed. Have you ever been at a stoplight, and you start singing to the radio only to stop when another car pulls beside you, or when you notice that other people are looking at you? This is a prime example of people acting differently when they are observed. While this is a different situation than being in a focus group room, it illustrates our human nature - and believe me, no words of explanation can fully obliterate what is thousands of years of human evolution.
As another example, say that you are in a restaurant and you notice an exterminator's truck in the parking lot. Will this change your opinion of whether you want to continue eating there? Say as a further example that the Maitre D' is upfront with everyone saying "Yes there are exterminators, but no worries - they are behind the doors in the kitchen. They're there so they won't disturb you while you are eating, and you won't be able to see them. In fact there has never been a problem in this restaurant, which is exactly why they are here to begin with." Will your comfort level reach what it was before you knew the exterminators were there to begin with? Will you change your order from a full dinner to just a sealed bottle of wine even though you have been given a satisfactory explanation? If you do stay, will your comfort level vary throughout the night? Will you be a little more likely to examine your food when it comes to your table? Will you chew differently? These self-examining behaviours are human nature, and will occur despite a satisfactory explanation.
These examples show that explanations, regardless of their truth, may not completely put respondents at ease. The fact is the mirror is there. The fact is participants are being observed from behind it. A mirror in a focus group creates what Martin Buber calls an I-It Relationship, where participants in the room feel distant, observed and alienaited from the larger process.
Now, my goal is not to imply that mirros in focus group facilities completely skew results - the fact is they don't, and they won't. However, if you are looking to probe deeply held feelings or engage participants in worthwhile conversation, I do believe the mirror has a fair potential of limiting optimal results. As such, for certain types of research projects, I do not use standard facilities anymore - rather I invite participants for dinner in a restaurant and secure a private spot or room within it. The details of the methodology and its benefits are described below:
1) After recruiting, I send-out a dinner invitation on fancy paper - after all, they are attending a dinner, and not a research session. If we are researching the general attitudes and opinions of a specific audience, I can observe how they dressed for the occasions and probe on that factor to uncover information about them.
2) I prefer to tell the participants who the client is. I know this is a massive no-no in many traditional research sessions (and I certainly do not give out information about the client if they, or the research methodology would be compromised - for example, I would not reveal the brand or topif if I felt that in so doing participants would drop-out of the dinner). However, I want participants to get an open feeling and that there is nothing to hide. If some participants come prepared and others don't, I do not see this as a significant problem. Research leaders are called "Moderators" because they do exactly that - they level the playing field for participants in the group and "moderate" opinions and group situations to get the most information. Clients coming prepared tells me a lot about the participant and the brand itself.
3) I get the client sitting right at the table with the participants - and I introduce the client as such. I instruct the client to keep comments to a minimum, and encourage them not to take copious notes. If they do take notes, I encourage them to do so when I am talking and not when others are talking. I can easily defer to the client when there is a question that I cannot answer, and this makes for a very fluid group. Moreover, I can use a wonderful projective technique with the client there. For example, if the client is from Ford, I can ask people to look at the client and ask them if they would have been able to guess that the client was from Ford - what is it about the client and about the brand that are the same and different? It is a wonderful experience for a client to see how participants think they personify the brand.
I also ask the client to avoid answering questions or responding directly to participants. What matters most is to observe how participants communicate with someone who they feel represents the brand. The fact is, in the real world, my client himself or herself will not be communicating back to the participants - it will be the client's brand, logo, advertising, customer service reps, etc... In the group process, it is important to realize that in some instances we will learn more about a person if there is less interaction than if there is more of it. With less interaction, the participant has the opportunity to express more of their real feelings and emotions, as opposed to simply "reacting" to different stimuli. After the group session is over, I encourage the client to address any unfinished discussions with participants directly, so this way participants will still leave knowing that the client still cares enough to address their issues directly.
4) I choose an approrpriate restaurant. If I have a group of suburban housewives, I may choose a Kelsey's or The Keg. If, however, I have urban hipster 20-somethings, a downtown hot-spot would be better (say the back room of 7-Numbers on Danforth). The point is that the environment should make participants feel more comfortable than a typical focus group facility.
5) I find the best application of the dinner methodology comes when a client wants to understand the thoughts, ideas, hopes, fears, language, attitudes and outlook of a particular group so that they can develop communications or products. On a fundamental level I belive that if you want to learn about a group of people, you should observe them in environments in which they feel familiar and comfortable. Focus group facilities do not give this feeling the way a good restaurant does.
I belive that if we fully humanize the entire process of gathering qualitative data, we will achieve better results. Focus group rooms have a lot of benefits, and I continue to use them with many clients and for many topics. However, I have also taken a good look in the mirror and realized that in certain instances it definitely pays for me to get out from being infront of it.
Before I indicate my methodology, let me tell you why I hate the mirror. There are likely a lot of moderators getting ready to perch themselves on their boxes and are about to tell me how they overcome the mirror, and how their results are just fine in a standard room. They'll tell me how they acknowledge the mirror in their introduction and let participants know that there are people behind it observing the process. They'll say that if we are up-front about the mirror people will be more comfortable with it.
To me, this is psychological and existential BS - people may accept the explanation and their level of comfort may even improve with the explanation, but no amount of words can remove the fact that the mirror is there - period. On top of that, it's a honkinly big and imposing presence in the group. It physically separates the participants from the observers, and in my opinion it fundamentally changes how people answer and perform.
Some simple examples will suffice. First, people react differently when they are being observed. Have you ever been at a stoplight, and you start singing to the radio only to stop when another car pulls beside you, or when you notice that other people are looking at you? This is a prime example of people acting differently when they are observed. While this is a different situation than being in a focus group room, it illustrates our human nature - and believe me, no words of explanation can fully obliterate what is thousands of years of human evolution.
As another example, say that you are in a restaurant and you notice an exterminator's truck in the parking lot. Will this change your opinion of whether you want to continue eating there? Say as a further example that the Maitre D' is upfront with everyone saying "Yes there are exterminators, but no worries - they are behind the doors in the kitchen. They're there so they won't disturb you while you are eating, and you won't be able to see them. In fact there has never been a problem in this restaurant, which is exactly why they are here to begin with." Will your comfort level reach what it was before you knew the exterminators were there to begin with? Will you change your order from a full dinner to just a sealed bottle of wine even though you have been given a satisfactory explanation? If you do stay, will your comfort level vary throughout the night? Will you be a little more likely to examine your food when it comes to your table? Will you chew differently? These self-examining behaviours are human nature, and will occur despite a satisfactory explanation.
These examples show that explanations, regardless of their truth, may not completely put respondents at ease. The fact is the mirror is there. The fact is participants are being observed from behind it. A mirror in a focus group creates what Martin Buber calls an I-It Relationship, where participants in the room feel distant, observed and alienaited from the larger process.
Now, my goal is not to imply that mirros in focus group facilities completely skew results - the fact is they don't, and they won't. However, if you are looking to probe deeply held feelings or engage participants in worthwhile conversation, I do believe the mirror has a fair potential of limiting optimal results. As such, for certain types of research projects, I do not use standard facilities anymore - rather I invite participants for dinner in a restaurant and secure a private spot or room within it. The details of the methodology and its benefits are described below:
1) After recruiting, I send-out a dinner invitation on fancy paper - after all, they are attending a dinner, and not a research session. If we are researching the general attitudes and opinions of a specific audience, I can observe how they dressed for the occasions and probe on that factor to uncover information about them.
2) I prefer to tell the participants who the client is. I know this is a massive no-no in many traditional research sessions (and I certainly do not give out information about the client if they, or the research methodology would be compromised - for example, I would not reveal the brand or topif if I felt that in so doing participants would drop-out of the dinner). However, I want participants to get an open feeling and that there is nothing to hide. If some participants come prepared and others don't, I do not see this as a significant problem. Research leaders are called "Moderators" because they do exactly that - they level the playing field for participants in the group and "moderate" opinions and group situations to get the most information. Clients coming prepared tells me a lot about the participant and the brand itself.
3) I get the client sitting right at the table with the participants - and I introduce the client as such. I instruct the client to keep comments to a minimum, and encourage them not to take copious notes. If they do take notes, I encourage them to do so when I am talking and not when others are talking. I can easily defer to the client when there is a question that I cannot answer, and this makes for a very fluid group. Moreover, I can use a wonderful projective technique with the client there. For example, if the client is from Ford, I can ask people to look at the client and ask them if they would have been able to guess that the client was from Ford - what is it about the client and about the brand that are the same and different? It is a wonderful experience for a client to see how participants think they personify the brand.
I also ask the client to avoid answering questions or responding directly to participants. What matters most is to observe how participants communicate with someone who they feel represents the brand. The fact is, in the real world, my client himself or herself will not be communicating back to the participants - it will be the client's brand, logo, advertising, customer service reps, etc... In the group process, it is important to realize that in some instances we will learn more about a person if there is less interaction than if there is more of it. With less interaction, the participant has the opportunity to express more of their real feelings and emotions, as opposed to simply "reacting" to different stimuli. After the group session is over, I encourage the client to address any unfinished discussions with participants directly, so this way participants will still leave knowing that the client still cares enough to address their issues directly.
4) I choose an approrpriate restaurant. If I have a group of suburban housewives, I may choose a Kelsey's or The Keg. If, however, I have urban hipster 20-somethings, a downtown hot-spot would be better (say the back room of 7-Numbers on Danforth). The point is that the environment should make participants feel more comfortable than a typical focus group facility.
5) I find the best application of the dinner methodology comes when a client wants to understand the thoughts, ideas, hopes, fears, language, attitudes and outlook of a particular group so that they can develop communications or products. On a fundamental level I belive that if you want to learn about a group of people, you should observe them in environments in which they feel familiar and comfortable. Focus group facilities do not give this feeling the way a good restaurant does.
I belive that if we fully humanize the entire process of gathering qualitative data, we will achieve better results. Focus group rooms have a lot of benefits, and I continue to use them with many clients and for many topics. However, I have also taken a good look in the mirror and realized that in certain instances it definitely pays for me to get out from being infront of it.
Branding and Psychological Cathexis
Human behaviour is largely about acquiring and destroying. Freud stated that we attach a either a positive or negative cathexis to every object, person or idea in our environment. When we attach a positive cathexis to something, we will invest a significant amount of time and energy in acquiring that object or living in that idea. When we attach a negative cathexis to something in our environment, we we do everything in our power to obliterate or destroy it.
Think about it this way - when we fall in love with someone, we want to do everything we can to be with and even possess the person that is the object of our desire. Should our affections change, we will do everything we can to avoid or remove that person from our lives. This is a prime example of positive and negative cathexis, and for those who have been in and out of love, we know the amount of energy that we can spend on these pursuits.
I believe that attachment to brands works the same way - we attach either a positive or negative cathexis to every brand that we see. If there is a positive cathexis, we will go to the ends of the earth for that brand. If there is a negative cathexis, we will not bat an eye towards it. The challenge for branders and marketers, of course, is to determine what attributes will create a positive cathexis, given that every individual is different and has a unique set of ideals as to what they positively or negatively cathex.
To address this challenge, in qualitative research I am often called-upon to evaluate what people think of products, brands or communications. Though clients may not like to hear this - I know within 5 seconds whether a person or group likes what I am presenting to them. The reason why is we react instantly to objects to which we assign a positive or negative cathexis (imagine the dewey look a new lover gets in his/her eyes when describing their new significant other - we know in an instant that the person to whom we are speaking is smitten, even if we don't know all the details). In psychotherapy clinicians are trained to look for these shifts in a person's face, body posture, language and even the energy they give off. Though these cues may not be highly visible from behind the mirror, to a trained moderator in the room, they can hit like a ton of bricks.
Many of the questions that typically follow after presenting a brand, communication, product or concept are typically less reliable than the initial reaction that reveals the cathexis participants have towards what is being presented. That is, we typically ask what participants think, what they like, what they don't like, how it compares to other products, etc... These questions put participants into their heads - participants are trying to explain their own cathexis process that operates invisibly to them.
There are a number of practical considerations for qualitative research and analysis based on this:
- Qualitative research should not strive to have participants "head-state" their ideal product, brand or communication. Rather, the moderator should attempt to create an environment where participants will be able to actually display those initial reactions to products, brands and ideas. The moderator should probe the reaction as it happens (and the associated feelings) and not read from a pre-defined list of questions, as this will put participants into their heads, losing all the visceral emotions from the initial reaction. Clients need to trust a moderator's instinct, and for that matter should work with a moderator who has clinical psychology experience or training, as it is more likely this person is more in touch with his or her instincts.
- Projective techniques and guided imagery are often useful in this instance. For example, if a client is researching a new body soap, rather than having participants describe their "ideal characteristics" of the soap, we can use guided imagery that starts-out by putting the participants in an environment in which they already have a positive cathexis. Say, for example, we have participants close their eyes and ask them to drive around in their dream car - we ask them what it is like (e.g. the interior, the noise, the smell, the power of the car, the look of the dashboard, etc......) and how they feel (e.g. exhilarated, luxurious, practical, etc...). From there, we can ask them to look over at the passenger seat, and see emerging in it a bar of soap, and this bar of soap is going to give them the same feeling that they have driving the car. We can ask them, for example, what smell the soap has to it that gives them the same feeling, etc... The logic to this method is fairly simple - we have placed the participant in a positively cathexed environment, and asked them to get in touch wit the emotions and attributes they have in it. From there, we ask them to project those attributes onto the client's product.
- While the above will provide clients with a good sense of the emotional features and drivers for the bar of soap, most products or brands do not succeed unless they help consumers solve a problem. Think about it this way - we have a positive cathexis towards a partner based both on their physical attributes and also because they fulfill our human need to be loved and to care for others. A product, no matter how it is designed, must fill a need as well. Needs can be divided-up into two categories - practical and emotional. A car provides transportation, and it gives us a sense of identity in the world. Nike gives us both athletic shoes and confidence.
Again, in order to determine the benefits of the product, all we need to do is have participants envision using the product and then ask them how they envision their ego ideal - that is, what do they expect to happen to them, their environment and their psyche once they use the product and brand.
- Where brands, communications and products run in to trouble is when consumers have assigned them a negative cathexis, yet still purchase them anyhow. This is the very definition of neurosis - when one does not have the ability to annihilate a negatively cathexed object, or when one cannot properly acquire a positively cathexed object. Say we have a group of "frequent buyers" of our product in the room and when we ask them about the brand or product, we do not get that instant energy associated with positive cathexis. Instead what we get is a lot of "head talk" about how the brand has the best price/value ratio, or that it comes in convenient sizes, or that children like it, or that the product has a lot of great features. Sure, these are positives, but it is like dating someone just for their looks - the relationship will eventually fail once the couple realizes that they do not have anything in common.
The job of a good moderator, and the needs of a good marketer in this situation are not to find out what cosmetic adjustments can be made to the product, brand or communication - as these are just superficial changes. Rather, the moderator needs to delve into two things to attempt to uncover factors that create a positive cathexis:
1) What problem does the product or brand really help address or solve, or what problems would they like the product or brand to help solve. What is their grandest wish for the product or brand?
2) How do participants want to feel using the product or brand? What archetypes do they want to activate (e.g. the good mother, caring parent, prudent investor, maverick rebel, creative expressionist, etc...) and what are the feelings associated with these archetypes. It it critical to note that probing both of these factors requires use of projective techniques, as participants (and people in general) often blot-out or are unaware of these basic needs.
Good branding and marketing are not rocket science. A positively cathexed product addresses practical, emotional and archetypal needs of the individual. Researchers and marketers cannot focus solely on the practical (or head-space) benefits. If they do, they run the risk of putting out products that consumers will not have any long-term attachement to. That is, the products may look good and function well, but in reality the consumer has attached a negative cathexis to the product or service because they do not meet emotional or archetypal needs. When the consumer realizes that they can annihilate brands like this, they will do so - it is inevitable human nature.
Think about it this way - when we fall in love with someone, we want to do everything we can to be with and even possess the person that is the object of our desire. Should our affections change, we will do everything we can to avoid or remove that person from our lives. This is a prime example of positive and negative cathexis, and for those who have been in and out of love, we know the amount of energy that we can spend on these pursuits.
I believe that attachment to brands works the same way - we attach either a positive or negative cathexis to every brand that we see. If there is a positive cathexis, we will go to the ends of the earth for that brand. If there is a negative cathexis, we will not bat an eye towards it. The challenge for branders and marketers, of course, is to determine what attributes will create a positive cathexis, given that every individual is different and has a unique set of ideals as to what they positively or negatively cathex.
To address this challenge, in qualitative research I am often called-upon to evaluate what people think of products, brands or communications. Though clients may not like to hear this - I know within 5 seconds whether a person or group likes what I am presenting to them. The reason why is we react instantly to objects to which we assign a positive or negative cathexis (imagine the dewey look a new lover gets in his/her eyes when describing their new significant other - we know in an instant that the person to whom we are speaking is smitten, even if we don't know all the details). In psychotherapy clinicians are trained to look for these shifts in a person's face, body posture, language and even the energy they give off. Though these cues may not be highly visible from behind the mirror, to a trained moderator in the room, they can hit like a ton of bricks.
Many of the questions that typically follow after presenting a brand, communication, product or concept are typically less reliable than the initial reaction that reveals the cathexis participants have towards what is being presented. That is, we typically ask what participants think, what they like, what they don't like, how it compares to other products, etc... These questions put participants into their heads - participants are trying to explain their own cathexis process that operates invisibly to them.
There are a number of practical considerations for qualitative research and analysis based on this:
- Qualitative research should not strive to have participants "head-state" their ideal product, brand or communication. Rather, the moderator should attempt to create an environment where participants will be able to actually display those initial reactions to products, brands and ideas. The moderator should probe the reaction as it happens (and the associated feelings) and not read from a pre-defined list of questions, as this will put participants into their heads, losing all the visceral emotions from the initial reaction. Clients need to trust a moderator's instinct, and for that matter should work with a moderator who has clinical psychology experience or training, as it is more likely this person is more in touch with his or her instincts.
- Projective techniques and guided imagery are often useful in this instance. For example, if a client is researching a new body soap, rather than having participants describe their "ideal characteristics" of the soap, we can use guided imagery that starts-out by putting the participants in an environment in which they already have a positive cathexis. Say, for example, we have participants close their eyes and ask them to drive around in their dream car - we ask them what it is like (e.g. the interior, the noise, the smell, the power of the car, the look of the dashboard, etc......) and how they feel (e.g. exhilarated, luxurious, practical, etc...). From there, we can ask them to look over at the passenger seat, and see emerging in it a bar of soap, and this bar of soap is going to give them the same feeling that they have driving the car. We can ask them, for example, what smell the soap has to it that gives them the same feeling, etc... The logic to this method is fairly simple - we have placed the participant in a positively cathexed environment, and asked them to get in touch wit the emotions and attributes they have in it. From there, we ask them to project those attributes onto the client's product.
- While the above will provide clients with a good sense of the emotional features and drivers for the bar of soap, most products or brands do not succeed unless they help consumers solve a problem. Think about it this way - we have a positive cathexis towards a partner based both on their physical attributes and also because they fulfill our human need to be loved and to care for others. A product, no matter how it is designed, must fill a need as well. Needs can be divided-up into two categories - practical and emotional. A car provides transportation, and it gives us a sense of identity in the world. Nike gives us both athletic shoes and confidence.
Again, in order to determine the benefits of the product, all we need to do is have participants envision using the product and then ask them how they envision their ego ideal - that is, what do they expect to happen to them, their environment and their psyche once they use the product and brand.
- Where brands, communications and products run in to trouble is when consumers have assigned them a negative cathexis, yet still purchase them anyhow. This is the very definition of neurosis - when one does not have the ability to annihilate a negatively cathexed object, or when one cannot properly acquire a positively cathexed object. Say we have a group of "frequent buyers" of our product in the room and when we ask them about the brand or product, we do not get that instant energy associated with positive cathexis. Instead what we get is a lot of "head talk" about how the brand has the best price/value ratio, or that it comes in convenient sizes, or that children like it, or that the product has a lot of great features. Sure, these are positives, but it is like dating someone just for their looks - the relationship will eventually fail once the couple realizes that they do not have anything in common.
The job of a good moderator, and the needs of a good marketer in this situation are not to find out what cosmetic adjustments can be made to the product, brand or communication - as these are just superficial changes. Rather, the moderator needs to delve into two things to attempt to uncover factors that create a positive cathexis:
1) What problem does the product or brand really help address or solve, or what problems would they like the product or brand to help solve. What is their grandest wish for the product or brand?
2) How do participants want to feel using the product or brand? What archetypes do they want to activate (e.g. the good mother, caring parent, prudent investor, maverick rebel, creative expressionist, etc...) and what are the feelings associated with these archetypes. It it critical to note that probing both of these factors requires use of projective techniques, as participants (and people in general) often blot-out or are unaware of these basic needs.
Good branding and marketing are not rocket science. A positively cathexed product addresses practical, emotional and archetypal needs of the individual. Researchers and marketers cannot focus solely on the practical (or head-space) benefits. If they do, they run the risk of putting out products that consumers will not have any long-term attachement to. That is, the products may look good and function well, but in reality the consumer has attached a negative cathexis to the product or service because they do not meet emotional or archetypal needs. When the consumer realizes that they can annihilate brands like this, they will do so - it is inevitable human nature.
Introduction
Hello, my name is Brian Baumal. I run thinklounge, a Canadian Market Research firm that specializes in qualitative research with a focus on advanced projective techniques. My background is both in business and clinical psychology - a combination that is fairly unique in the Canadian market
Read this blog to see our thoughts on qualitative research, projective techniques, branding and communications
Read this blog to see our thoughts on qualitative research, projective techniques, branding and communications
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
