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.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
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)
