Foresight 20/20

The internet doesn't encourage people to do anything they wouldn't already do.  It does, however, make it easier for them to do what they would want to do anyway, such as finding others with whom they share interests.  Today, groups of people can rally around a cause, idea, hobby or other passion like never before.  Even people with very niche interests can gain strength in numbers, giving them a stronger voice and greater power to make things happen.

On the surface, it would seem like this is a marketer's dream.  Just find these groups, and you have a ready audience to whom you can market your products and services.  But it's not working out that easily.  These groups have become much more than billboards for the eyeballs they attract each day.  They have become thriving, vibrant communities of people who care about each other and do not want to be assaulted by blatant marketing and sales tactics.

This has highlighted the importance of truly understanding your consumers.  The insights you derive should guide your company to new ways to provide authentic experiences that your consumers will value.  You need to become one of them before they will pay attention to you.  The internet has made this point blatently obvious as we see so many companies fail to gain traction with their "online media strategies."  But the fact that it's obvious now doesn't mean that it wasn't always true.  

Many companies make the mistake of thinking that this is how the online world is different from the traditional channels they know well.  In reality, this is how the expectations of newly empowered consumers will change the way the traditional world works.  Are you ready to meet these challenges? 

Who at your company is responsible for understanding the consumer inside and out?  How is this understanding changing the way you think about the way you do marketing and develop new products and services?  Hopefully you've discovered that the lines are blurring, which may be a bit confusing.  If so, then see it as a sign that you're on the right track.

While we're on the topic of publishing, Chuck Frey of Innovation Tools published an article I wrote about guiding innovation with consumer research. 

It's a brief how-to, illustrating how consumer research is applied differently for incremental improvement or developing breakthrough innovation.  The example is from the past, and shows how consumer research on a desktop computer could lead to the improvements we enjoy today, or to the development of the laptop.  I'd love to know if it clarifies the common "one size fits all" perception of consumer research techniques.

Innovation Tools is a weekly newsletter where Chuck shares tools, methods, and ideas he collects through the week.  It's a great place to find all the latest tools and thought leadership to aid in mind-mapping exercises, brainstorming, bringing out creativity, etc.  As with any resource, use it wisely.  Tools can help you to be better and more efficient at what you need to do.  No single tool, however, can give you the answer, or transform your organization on its own.  You still have to do that work. 

You can also download it here, and if it's helpful, feel free to share it - but don't sell it. consumer guided innovation.pdf (66.32 kb)

The other day I was talking with a Director of a service business in a B2B market.  They felt that they didn't need to focus on understanding their customers as much as a consumer products company.  It's their understanding that the decision criteria for choosing their service was much more objective than the decision criteria a consumer exhibits when choosing products from the store shelf.

As the conversation continued, I learned that their customers do in fact have fairly straightforward selection criteria for their type of service. As I suspected, however, the actual decision making process isn't that simple.  When I asked what these customers liked best about their service, the answer was that they were very consistent.  They never let their customers down.  That type of failure would leave the customer with egg on their face, and potentially cause their operations to be severely hampered.  Then I asked how they were able to gain new customers, and how they gained the level of trust their customers needed to have in them.  These answers were not so straightforward.  I then asked how he imparted this knowledge to new employees.  Silence.

This Director clearly has a good understanding of his customers and the intangible value his business provides.  Yet until this conversation, he only articulated the tangible value to outsiders and new staff.  It became clear that his customers were much more like consumers at the store shelf than he had thought.

I often hear discussions of whether to use the words consumer, customer, user, or target when describing the insight portion of my work.  I use the word consumer because at the end of the day, a person decides whether or not to buy your product or service instead of an alternative.  In that moment, this person is a consumer of what you are selling, and they are all influenced by their own tacit and explicit motivations.  Ultimately, they are more similar than they are different.

To finish expanding on the techniques used to uncover explicit and tacit motivations, let's talk about uncovering tacit motivations.

As mentioned in the previous post, tacit motivations are those that consumers either cannot or do not tell you about directly.  As such, the research to uncover them needs to foster a deep connection with the consumer.  Specific interview methods should be developed based on the type of information you need to learn, the overall goal of your project, and the types of people you are interviewing.  

This type of research is conducted when you want to develop something new and different, and it is important to remember that the consumer may not be able to imagine something new and different.  When we talked about uncovering explicit motivations, we talked about conducting in-context interviews to learn about problems consumers may have with your current products.  In this case, we may also conduct an in-context interview, but the conversation with the consumer is different.  It is less focused on having a consumer give you an answer, and more focused on having the consumer tell you how they feel when they perform a certain task.  The interviewer may then probe about other tasks that make them feel the same way, or other solutions that may make them feel better.  Direct statements are used mainly to exemplify deeper thoughts, and consumers can only be expected to describe their current reality. It's then your job to do translate this information into criteria for your new offering. 

Since you're trying to create something that does not yet exist, you cannot take the consumers' suggestions at face value.  The translation between what they say and the criteria you need to develop for a successful new product may take several iterations.  For example, you may discover a strong theme in your research that consumers lack confidence in performing certain tasks related to your category.  You may then find out that other situations may build confidence, but may not be related to your category.  Your job then is to identify the basic elements of confidence building, and find ways to incorporate that type of criteria into your new product.  This may take several iterations, will require multiple translation steps, and it is not a linear process at all.  

These research methods can yield great insights to establish criteria for new products, services, and business models.  Just remember that the process is messy and indirect.  Failure tends to occur when the group tries to derive new offerings from things consumers have said directly.  The time must be taken to make the links from tacit motivation to tangible offering.

A couple of people have asked me to expand on the techniques used to uncover explicit and tacit motivations.  Let's start with explicit motivations.

As mentioned in the previous post, explicit motivations are those that consumers can tell you about directly.  As such, the research to uncover them can be very direct.  I'm not going to be prescriptive about specific research methods, because what's more important here is knowing when and how to utilize the information consumers give you.

If you are trying to improve your current offering, it is important to set up conditions in which the consumer can describe the actual use of your product for you.  First, make sure to talk to people who are doing the task your product helps them to do.  Then, make sure you talk to people who use your product, people who use your competitors' products, and people who do not use either.  You want to understand the role your product plays for them.  The same is true if you offer a service.  It's important to set up use conditions that mimic actual use as closely as possible, and observe, as well as interview, the consumers.  Most ergonomics and human factors research methods fall into this category.  An in-context interview setting is often used, but if you have a group setting or online experience, that's fine also.  Just make sure you are aware of the impact the method may have on the research.

Since you are trying to improve upon what already exists, you can take the consumers' comments at face value.  The translation between what they say and what you need to do to improve is very straightforward, as the consumer is usually familiar with the existing category and offerings within it.  You may not execute their specific suggestions, but the needs are discernable and solutions can be defined. Evaluation methods should be equally straightforward, and you may return to the same consumers for feedback on how well proposed solutions are working.

Direct research methods can yield great insights to the explicit motivations that drive consumers to use your product or service over your competitions'.  Just remember that they are most useful in determining the best way to improve your offering, and are of limited value if used when you are trying to develop something that is truly breakthrough in your market.

I find it useful to think about two types of consumer motivations; those that are explicit, and those that are tacit. 

Motivations that are explicit are those that consumers can tell you about directly.  For example, if you want to improve your product you can find consumers who use it, and directly ask them what should be improved.  These improvements could be things like enhancing ease of use, changing product placement so they can find it easier in the store, adding new features, or delivering the same features in new ways.  You can see how you would map out a plan to implement these ideas, and your company can decide how or when to invest in them.

Motivations that are tacit are those that consumers cannot tell you about directly.  For example, let's say that the consumer tells you that one improvement would be to enhance ease of use of your product.  You may be able to improve the direct experience of using your product, but what if the real motivation behind that comment was deeper than that?  What if the consumer lacks confidence in performing the overall task that your product is a tool in accomplishing?  If that is the case, then improving the experience of using your product may not help them to achieve their overall goal.  You may need to develop an entirely new product that addresses their needs more holistically.  Or you may be able to market your product more broadly as a tool within a larger process that you can then own.

When you are thinking about innovating in your company, it is useful to make a clear distinction about whether you want to improve your current products or develop something new and different.  This will dictate the type of consumer research you will need to guide development efforts. 

Product improvements can be guided by explicit consumer motivations, and they can be discerned through direct research methods.  These methods are relatively quick to conduct and interpret, and can guide improvements directly.

Inventing new products, business models, or other types of disruptive innovations are best guided by understanding consumers' tacit motivations regarding your category.  These methods are exhaustive in their depth, and require people who are very skilled in this type of work to spend a lot of time analyzing, hypothesizing, and evaluating their conclusions.  Getting it right, however, will yield unlimited inspiration by which you can guide innovation efforts and evaluate their potential success.

There is an interesting discussion going on in one of my Google groups.  (Thank you Cameron, Victor, Shel, and Manuel.) It's about the idea of Elimination Design, and is culminating in the development of a design award for removing things rather than making things.

Of course, services come to mind when thinking this way, and an example was given of a woman who wanted to have a cool, funky wardrobe.  Instead of buying new clothes, she hired someone to find clothes that had already existed at thrift shops.  They would be more funky, one of a kind, and interesting than what she could find in a department store anyway.  Then the example was extended.  What if the shopper then took the woman's existing clothing to be donated to the less fortunate?  At that point, the service evolves to the shopper becoming a clothing redistributor, and you can carry out this evolution to many interesting conclusions.

I talk a lot about developing offerings that will add value to consumers' lives.  But adding value doesn't have to mean adding things.  I'm sure many consumers would find value in being able to reduce the number of things they need to buy, maintain, and ultimately discard.

People buy products because of the experiences they will have when they use them.  What experiences do your products provide to your customers?  Is there a way you could provide those experiences by eliminating things?  This type of thinking could spawn incredibly innovative business models, beyond the basic service model example stated above.

I'll keep you posted on the development of the competition.  Whether or not you enter, I hope it will inspire you to think differently about the intangible value you provide to your customers.  It's not just about the stuff.

The Laggard is an interesting beast.  In marketing terms, the Laggard consumer is so far behind the adoption curve that it makes little sense to expend resources to attract them.  When we are developing new products and services, however, we may want to reconsider the time and attention we give them. 

We've talked about learning from Lead Users as a way to stay ahead of market needs when developing new products and services.  In trying to ensure that the new offering will appeal to a broader audience than just the Lead User, many people like to also learn from the Early Adopters.  While the intent is good, the problem is that the Early Adopter likes new products simply because they are new, and this enthusiasm may lead you down a path that is interesting, but not particularly useful.  Learning from the Average Joe in your category is even less helpful, because these people don't care enough in either direction to illuminate their underlying motivations.

Learning from the Laggard, on the other hand, can yield a treasure trove of useful insight.  In some cases, these people are working just as hard to shun your category as the Lead User is working to innovate within it.  While the Lead User is helping you to understand what your new offering should do, the Laggard can help you to understand what your new offering should not do. 

An (oversimplified) example can be illustrated by the evolution of the PC.  The original PC made it easy to input and store documents and other data.  It also required that you sit in front of it to type in notes you may have taken at a meeting.  Many people did not want to do two steps and limited their use of the PC.  Enter the laptop.  Take it to a meeting or on a trip, and you never miss a beat.  Then there were people who disliked that fact that the screen was so small that they didn't like using it as a sole computer, didn't want to maintain two, and limited their use of the laptop.  Enter the docking station.  You get the point.

Of course, there are some people who are Laggards because their inertia and reluctance to change present too great an obstacle to be overcome, and I'm not suggesting that we break our backs to try.  What I am suggesting is that when trying to innovate within your category,  it may serve you well to find the people who are Laggards because using your current products would force them to give up something valuable.  If you solve that problem for the Laggard, chances are that the rest of your market will like it too.

Most companies have methods to evaluate the potential success of a new product or service.  Sometimes they come in the form of a focus group, or an online or in-person panel of consumers, or even an internal group of people who are thought to be "in the target market."  These types of evaluation typically have one element in common.  They usually are asking consumers directly about their preference of a new product over one, or several, alternatives.

This type of testing is useful if you are evaluating an incremental improvement, or correcting a problem with your current product.  These are things you can learn about directly from consumers, and during an evaluation they can directly tell you whether or not your solution hits the mark.  Companies feel good about these types of evaluation because they eliminate the guesswork in developing new products.

The problem arises when you are trying to evaluate a new product or service that challenges accepted paradigms of behavior within a category.  When asked about preference, consumers generally have a strong bias toward what is familiar.  Any new product or service that challenges the familiar runs the risk of performing poorly in a preference test.  There are countless examples of companies who missed an opportunity to be first to market because a product did not fare well in a preference test. 

Evaluating a paradigm changing solution requires different methodology.  The test needs to be designed to evaluate how well a new solution solves specific criteria, and consumers need to be immersed in that criteria to be able to give meaningful responses.  We can discuss many ways to do this, but what's important is that consumers are seldom asked to state their preference.

The next time you are struggling to understand why your new product is failing the standard preference test, think about whether it's the solution or the test that needs to be changed.

This weekend, my husband and I decided to finally replace our very old washer and dryer.  After doing all the requisite research, shopping, reading reviews, etc, we decided that we should get one of the new machines that use very little water.  As we were placing the order with the appliance company, we were reading some information that suggested we use a low-sudsing laundry soap.  No problem, we thought, that makes sense.

Well, the manufacturer suggested a brand of laundry soap that we don't see very often in our local grocery store, so we thought we'd just find another.  Well, after looking around, we found some that say they are HE.  Looking into that a little more, we learned that HE is for High Efficiency machines.  This is probably what we need to use, but I found it odd that nowhere on the HE package did it indicate that this was a low sudsing detergent.  This got me a little miffed.  After reading all the information, I concluded that we are probably making the right choice, but why couldn't the detergent manufacturer and the machine manufacturer simply use the same terms?  Why is it that the consumer is left with the job of doing the math and making the connection? 

I'm sure that both companies were trying to do what they felt was easiest for the consumer.  The machine manufacturer is trying to describe the detergent (low sudsing), and the detergent manufacturer is trying to describe the machine (high efficiency).  What is easiest for the consumer, however, is consistency.  The consumer needs for these companies to talk to each other, to create a consistent consumer experience.  They should support each other, and not behave as they would toward a competitor.

Think about your company.  How often do you encourage others to look beyond their immediate sphere of influence to think holistically about the consumer experience?  What people, groups, or companies should you be working with that do not live inside your company, yet are trying to improve your consumers' experience?