We discussed how the paradigm of market research should change and what are the options for enriching it. To answer the question “How do we mine the information out of the cultural and social surroundings?” we need some heavy caliber research methods at our disposal. This time, let’s take a look at ethnography.

What is ethnography and why bother?

Ethnography is both quantitative and qualitative research method, where all decisions made by the researcher are transparent. It is the most effective mode of analysis when it comes to observing culture. The scientist becomes a part of the studied group and lives with it for a significant period of time.

The key to effectiveness is to become a “professional stranger”, as Michael Agar put it, and to record even the simplest rituals. Making familiar seem strange and making strange seem familiar will make the marketers understand their public in its own domain. That will lead to what we crave the most – an accurate consumer insight unspoiled by the filters that come into play during a focus group discussion.

Limitations of ethnography

Whenever you are doing an ethnographic study, make sure it is empirical. This should make your life easier when you are presenting the results. Numbers help, statistics are also good. However, ethnography will never give you a full picture with all unknowns revealed. Given that it’s about people and their (in a way really weird) habits, it should be open to elements that cannot be codified. Messy results are fine and may provide you with additional insights that the hard data would never reveal. The last key thing to remember is that this mode of analysis is limited to the target audience you are observing at the time within a given space. You couldn’t draw conclusions about 18-23 years old urban professionals based on a study about 20-25 years old farmers from small towns and villages. The results from the first study could be used as a basis for some generalization but the degree of bias and difference would be way too high.

How to do ethnography?

The best way to do an ethnographic study is to live within the tribe you are observing. Think about Margaret Mead, Bronislaw Malinowski or Edmund Leach who studied its subjects in situ, unlike other anthropologists before them. Ethnographic research incorporates many previously used methods and turns them into a very powerful amalgamation of tools that give you a holistic picture of the studied subjects. Here are some ways of building up an ethnographic analysis.

• Transcribed focus group discussions
• Interviews with key actors
• Self-reporting by key actors
• Personal biographies of key actors
• Participant observation – recorded
• Field notes
• Data from other sources

Case study: San Mig Light

Instead of filling your mind with theory only, here is a case study that illustrates the uses of ethnography.  When a brewery San Miguel had been facing decline in sales, it hired an Asian division of Ogilvy to help it out. The key strategy of the advertisers was to utilise ethnography as the core of their market research.

They mingled among the target audience (18-25 years old guys and girls), interviewed them in-depth and gathered some information about them. Since the researchers were too old to fit the tribe for a long-term survey, they handed a camera to every participant and instructed them to document their lives.

The results were amazing – when the researchers had analysed the data from the interviews and images regarding the lives of the target market, they found several key elements the target market had in common.

• Irreverence and the need to provoke the establishment
• Crowd mentality, yet fickle loyalty to the current leader
• Constant vying for leadership by demonstrating that “I can be a better badass” than the current leader
• Destroying public property, as these landmarks belonged to current establishment and orderly system
• Slacking without any objectives
• Phatic communication dominating the interaction among the group

It goes without saying that the following ads appealed exactly to the aforementioned elements. The campaign managed to increase the sales and create a lasting bond with the target audience.

In closing remarks, I would like to thank Tess Slavickova in regard to the theoretical part, because most of the information presented in the post comes indirectly from her classes and class materials.

Image credit: LexnGer

This is the first part of a larger text dedicated to the collapse of the old paradigms in market research and finding new ways to know what is in the customers’ heads.

The classical model of market research went like this.

• Narrow down your target market
• Grab a more or less representative sample
• Distribute a few surveys and gather data
• Throw a focus group and take notes
• Feed the target market with messages distilled out of content you harvested from the focus group
• Call it a new campaign, launch it and wonder why it turned into just another mediocre waste of resources

If you are talking about research in communication, you can add another step to the aforementioned process, and that is “poll the message among the target audience”.

This model has been consistently applied throughout the years and has led to some good campaigns but never to anything truly exceptional. My concern is how do the marketers create an exceptional campaign and distill more interesting data from the audience. It’s definitely not by following the steps and coloring within the lines.

The false dogma

The dogma and behind the classical approach to market research is that the answers to the problem at hand are in consumers’ heads and if the marketers interrogate them well enough in a controlled environment, the subjects of the focus group will unveil the answers. That does not happen, though.

Why doesn’t it work? Focus groups fail to provide the marketers with good insights because the truly original ideas in consumers’ minds have to pass through layers of filters that strip them down of their originality. The most frequently used and the most hated filters are peer pressure and the need to please the questioner. And they always kick in no matter what happens in the group or for what product you are doing the testing.

Peer pressure hinders individuals

Imagine a focus group for a “boring” product, like a detergent, where there is no logical reason for peer pressure. You are one of the housewives sitting in the room and discussing emotional benefits of a brand that you seldom use and very much dislike. Then there is a group of your peers who love this brand, use it regularly and appear very vocal and sincere about both of those factors.

Even though you would love to say that you actually hate this product and cite why you do, the fear of losing face among your peers is stronger, so you tone down the response to how you are sometimes mildly dissatisfied with the detergent. Why? Because you do not want to look like the only one who is upset with the brand. Opposition is hard work and you just feel that if you disagree with the group, its members will dislike you due to your different opinion.

Marketer’s desperation

Cut to the marketer’s point of view. As the housewives are sitting in a room trying to sum up the benefits of your average detergent, sales of the product continue to take plunge. You need some high-quality input to help you to restructure the product and turn around the plummeting sales. You need an honest opinion, albeit a negative one to keep the product development going and to find new ways of marketing it to the consumers. Too bad that you are not getting any, because most of the housewives are just reiterating the messages of your latest communication campaign.

The real insight never manifests itself and you will have to base your next campaign on unsubstantial claims because the consumers just don’t tell you what they really want. They tell you what you want to hear. What are the chances that you will create an exceptional campaign out of that input?

Let us substitute this malfunctioning paradigm for something completely different. Let’s search for the answers to our questions in the social environment, mainly in culture. Analysis of the phenomena embedded in culture that surrounds us reveals observations about our target market that we wouldn’t have discovered by just asking the consumers directly.

Yes, there is a solution to this problem. You will find it in the next post that is coming up soon.

Image credit: fireflythegreat

Millward Brown revealed the Top 100 most valuable global brands of 2010 today. What has changed compared to the last year?

Ups and downs

Here is a gist of the most significant indicators in regard to brand value. All are compared to the year 2009.

• Brand value of financial institutions is recovering after the economic recession – up 12%
• Technology is up 6%
• Cars are down 15% despite desperate efforts and spending to stop this decline

Stable TOP 5

The cream of the crop are the technology companies Google, IBM and Microsoft. They are staying continuously on the top of the ranking for the third year in a row (except IBM, which was on the 6th place in 2008). Google achieves this with extraordinary user experience it provides to its customers, while IBM relies on coming closer to the desired market segment and shaving off all unnecessary divisions.

The rise of Asian brands

The Chinese search engine Baidu has made it to the top 10 technology brands and also got recognised as the brand with the greatest momentum. An Indian bank ICICI, a newcomer to the TOP 10 brands, managed to re-brand itself from a corporate bank into an institution trusted by the Indian youth. That has built up massive trust between its customers and the business and caused its smashing success.

B2B is getting more important

Many criticised IBM’s decision to shed the consumer products division and sell it to Lenovo. In the long run, we can see that it left a positive impact on the brand. It has strengthened its position and reinforced the ability to connect with the target market.

Interesting nuts and bolts

• Google is the only brand that has a value exceeding $ 1 billion
• Adapting your brands to fit into the BRIC countries will give you a competitive edge

Disclaimer: I do not own the report or its parts. All credit goes to Millward Brown Optimor and the awesome people who helped to create it. I am posting it here only because I want to share it.

Many PROs complain that they don’t have enough of data about their target audience. However, if you look at merits of this complaint, you will find it ridiculous. The data is everywhere. There are skilled market researchers pulling out the information you need from the consumers’ heads. Of course, it’s not free, but it’s there.

Now with analyses of semiotics, discourse, stylistics, pragmatics, psychoanalysis, ethnography and all the innovative modes of research, you can answer almost any question about your audience.

You can find out WHO they are, WHAT they do, WHERE are they located, WHEN do they sleep, eat and work, and with the help of some sophisticated research, you can discover WHY they do things they do. These are all valid questions, but one stands above all of them.

Knowing the plethora of information about my target audience, HOW do I engage them on their own terms in the most impactful manner?

In other words, this is about choosing your channels of communication well. Do you know of any extraordinary example that would show how a brand engaged its audience in a really meaningful, yet creative manner?

Image credit: darkmatter

Seth Godin recently spoke at the TED convention. He talked about tribes and power of the ideas. Check out the video.

• Everything is about leadership nowadays
• Being a leader makes you a leader
• Humans are desperate for connecting with others
• If the marketers manage to be passionate about the product and connect people, they will succeed
• Mass marketing is dead

Share  your perspective with others! Tell us what you think.

Image credit: inquisitr

Recently, I ran into a thought-provoking conversation about flexibility and its application at the workplace. I argued that it is quite impossible to be truly flexible in multinational companies operating in Czech Republic.

Our socio-cultural climate has made a notion of consistency overrated. So overrated, that it is stifling individual and organizational flexibility in today’s environment.

Definitions

Consistency: Steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form.

Flexibility: Capability of being changed

Why are we consistent?

Without a certain level of consistency, our lives would be too confusing and chaotic. Robert Cialdini, an expert on studying compliance, identified three sources of the need to appear consistent:

1. Consistency is valued in our society. The more consistent you are, the more the value of your public image increases.
2. Consistency = convenience. The more consistent you are, the less change you have to deal with, which means less stress for you.
3. Humans are prone to taking mental shortcuts. When faced with a problem, you don’t have to think, all you have to do is to recall your last similar decision and behave consistently with it.

Weakness link

In some more collectivist cultures we can see a bizarre link of inconsistency to weakness. The more often you change your mind or modify a plan, the more you are perceived and labeled as a ‘weak character’. That simple label will devaluate your opinions, suggestions, and input. It will also decrease your influence.

It seems to me that the Czech cultural climate glorifies consistency even to such an extent that standing behind a decision under almost ANY circumstances is valued. No matter that the decision may be based on faulty assumptions, or just downright stupid.

Changing your mind to accommodate a shift in the context is perceived as being inconsistent, and therefore, weak. Needless to say that your authority among your peers and subordinates suffers like a third grader forced to read War and Peace in original.

I don’t have any academic research to prove that, just anecdotal evidence and my own experience. If anyone wants to prove me wrong or support my view, feel free to comment.

Consistency vs. Flexibility

Consistency is mainly about taking a position and standing behind it while not paying so much attention to the circumstances.

A consistent leader says

“We are going to sell 10,000 pairs of male black shoes until the end of the year.”

He won’t stop until the objective is achieved. Notice that there is no mention of an environment in which the sales will take place. It seems like a ‘tunnel vision’ plan.

Flexibility, on the other hand, is about being able and willing to adapt your position in a given situation according to the context.

A flexible leader says:

“We will be selling shoes, and since many men now demand the black ones, we will sell more of them. The desired target is 10,000.”

Guess which one of them is more likely to accurately respond to constantly fluid global business environment. I believe that flexibility is going to become a much more important trait than consistency. That also explains why nimble start-ups are likely to come out of the economic crisis as more competitive than the large firms.

Japanese Kanji sign of Flexibility. Credit: About.com

What do they really want?

Nowadays the employers advertise jobs that require flexibility as a trait. However, if a truly flexible person applies and shows that he is able to operate in flux and uncertainty, he will be judged as inconsistent and weak, thus, unsuitable for the work team and the job.

So, what do the employers really want? Are they ready to accept potentially inconsistent people, or has ‘flexibility’ become yet another buzzword?

I strongly believe that in order to succeed, even large corporations are going to need to adopt flexibility as their guiding principle. When everyone is talking about being customer-oriented; being flexible and adaptable is the only way to capture customers’ fickle and changing desires before it’s too late.

It is hard work, and sometimes it doesn’t pay so well. But it’s the only way to survive.

“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”

- Oscar Wilde

I started playing around with narratives and narrative theory recently. After talking to a couple of my geek 2.0 friends, I found out that some of them are afraid of a very dystopian future. The future, where computers will dominate the human race, just like in The Matrix.

Credit: flyingdutchee

To support their claims, my friends list examples from sci-fi literature and their connection to scientific development. It’s quite difficult to establish the connection from an academical standpoint, but we’ll stick with anecdotal evidence for now. In case anyone is interested to turn this topic into a full study, feel free to do so. I will only encourage it.

Here is the outline from the story to unrealistic expectations.

• Perceive the narrative
• Changes happen in the real life
• Uncertainty leads the mind back to the narrative
• Assert its conclusion however bizarre
• Unrealistic expectations and fear of technology

That doesn’t make much sense now, does it? Let’s put it into a narrative for better understanding. We will start from the premise that sci-fi literature influences technology and scientific development.

Perception

The readers perceive the narrative in the sci-fi literature. It seems believable, consistent and follows a logic of good reasons. In plain English: My friend John is sitting in his armchair, reading a book about computers dominating the humanity. Everything flows smoothly in the story, which makes it easy to be remembered.

Uncertainty

Then changes happen in the real life. The scientists create a supercomputer with a processing capacity exceeding the one of a human brain. What used to be only a part of the sci-fi narrative is now reality. That sparks John’s interest in the potential of this invention. “Maybe the sci-fi predictions are becoming reality.” He then recalls the narrative in the novel, and quickly asserts its conclusion.

Explanation

Some humans panic like there were no tomorrow. Why? John doesn’t know what happens next, but knows that these changes were described in the sci-fi narrative. By applying the logic of good reasons he assumes that narrative = reality. However irrational it may be, he may believe that the computers will subdue humanity.

All this happens on the level of heuristics, not logic. Even though we are thinking that we are thinking, we are actually taking shortcuts. What shortcuts do you make?

The fallacy of consumer omniscience

Most of the marketers assume that the consumers have all answers to their problems. Do you need to develop your brand? Ask the consumers, they will tell you how! Do you need to come up with new packaging? Ask the consumers, they will tell you what looks pretty! Do you need to extend the product line? Ask the consumers, they will know what is missing in their lives!

This conventional approach often leads to stagnation and awful communication. Malcolm Gladwell has shown us that the consumers are not omniscient. Jaroslav Cir also confirms it in his post about the outliers and normal distribution (in Czech). I will now contribute to the debate by indentifying some problem areas in consumer research.

A quick note on focus groups

The marketers often get an unrepresentative sample. A consumer from Northern Moravia does not think the same way like the one from Prague or Cheb. We can’t get an accurate picture out of that research. This is also one of the reasons for diversity marketing becoming increasingly popular.

Getting to the results

This is the most difficult part of the journey. The moderator asks questions and makes the group participate in a discussion. Answers often depend on what question is asked, and in what manner it’s asked. The consumers often feel threatened, because the moderator keeps asking questions they can’t relate to.

This leads to the participants closing their communication lines, and not sharing their intimate experiences with the brand. In the end, you will end up with most of the subjects saying one thing, but thinking something else. This fundamentally skews the research.

There is also a danger of groupthink (more on it here and here). Once one person psychologically dominates the situation, others subdue to his opinions. It often means that the most outspoken person owns the group. This dominance is correlated with language. Use of very certain expressions and ambiguity avoidance frames others’ minds.

Why don’t big corporations step away from this model of research? It is convenient – they have done it for ages, and they have a lot of comparable data. It is easily quantifiable – the brand manager cannot say “We have understood the psyche of some of our customers, but we can’t measure the results,” otherwise he becomes jobless overnight.

Statistics

Those who understand statistics will know better about this point. The results are often a matter of applying the right evaluation method to the data. Getting overly creative with the numbers can distort the whole work, let alone, waste your precious resources.

It is  vital to look at factors influencing the consumers from different perspectives. That involves time and money which are crucial resources for everyone. The firms are getting locked in their comfort zone by passing on these opportunities.

Do you / your company take the easy way out too?

This talk sort of supports the notion that the consumers do not know what they want. What do the marketers do about it? Any suggestions?

There are many things that happen before a decent blog post gets out into the aether. Yet, there are some things that should happen before the great posts are born. We call this magic “research.”

Everyone can find out how to do proper research on the net, so there is no big deal, right? Wrong. Most of the bloggers perform some data gathering, which is limited in scope, breadth and depth, and claim it is a research that gives their post credibility and balance. In the world of constant time pressure, it is somehow expected that you are not going to spend extensive amount of time on checking the facts and analyzing raw data.

I would like to share with you four principles about research I have learned and applied thus far.

Don’t rely on other blogs only. Find the original study, or the raw data, and interpret them yourself. It is time-consuming, but it is worth it. The benefits of such action are obvious. You will analyze the issue at hand from a different point of view, learn more about it, and create a better content for your post (which also translates into increased traffic). Everybody wins.

Be skeptical. Did the study present unshakable evidence that smoking is not only healthy, but it also cures lung cancer? Don’t believe everything that seems to make sense at the first glance. Check the statistics behind the words, ask experts for their opinion (you can also get an expert quote for the post) and be sure to examine the conflicting evidence with an open mind.

Research a variety of sources. The more data you have, the better for you. However, if all the data come from one source, you limit yourself to thinking inside the box and often not seeking other evidence. That is bad, because it limits the scope of your analysis.

Endurance pays off. Let’s suppose you have found a great study and data that support your hypothesis. What now? Get out of your comfort zone, and search for more! Searching more persistently and finding new evidence brings more insight into the situation, and consequently, makes you to be a more credible source of information and analysis yourself.

I hope you will find the aforementioned essentials useful. The list is by no means exclusive; it is composed of actions that have served me well when doing research. Do you know some more? If you do, share them with us.