|
Archive for the ‘Product Development’ Category« Previous Entries Next Entries »The Modern Suggestion BoxWednesday, May 26th, 2010  We read recently on research-live.com that auto maker Ford Motor Company has boasted of going “beyond traditional market research” with the launch of a website where members of the public can share ideas about the types of features they would like to see in future car models. This initiative – to be found within TheFordStory.com – invites people to make suggestions for vehicle improvements. Ideas that appear on the site can be reviewed and rated by others, with the most popular due to be forwarded to Ford’s advanced product marketing and planning teams for review. Now, don’t get us wrong. We fully support asking customers to get involved, offer thoughts, feedback, suggestions and ideas about what they really value. After all, it’s pretty much what we do day-in, day-out – so we know it’s of vital importance to the ongoing growth and development of any company. We would warn, as always, that you can’t just rely on this, though – you cannot expect customers to do the job of new product development by themselves. Their feedback can certainly shape what you choose to do, but it should not unquestioningly dictate it. You still need to investigate, research and test any new concept thoroughly. Our only question is whether this is really such a ground-breaking and innovative idea as the article would suggest? After all, it does kind of seem like that good old-fashioned ‘suggestion box’ you might find located in your local supermarket for customer comments… A suggestion box for the 21st century, perhaps? We applaud Ford nonetheless for listening to their customers and encourage more organisations to do the same. Find out more about product development studies by clicking here or reading our white paper, Using Market Research For Product Development. A Recessionary Review of Market Research in the USAWednesday, May 12th, 2010  Hot on the heels of the successful opening of its Beijing office in 2006, B2B International took the decision to expand its operations into a further new continent – North America – and its New York office opened in early summer 2008. Not three months later and we had the meltdown on Wall Street, triggering one of the deepest and harshest global recessions in living memory. One question it might be appropriate to ask in these circumstances is whether we would have done things differently, had we known what was just around the corner? While I’m sure we would have thought long and hard before making the decision, in truth we probably would have gone ahead as planned. Why is that? It’s because, as many of you will already know, the market research industry has consistently proven itself to be fairly resilient in times of adversity. Perhaps saying market research is “recession-proof” would be going a bit far, but the industry is certainly able to withstand a degree of external pressure. Conducting market research is, of course, a means of reducing risk in business decision making, and when do companies most need to play it safe? When times are tough. When things are going swimmingly, you can perhaps afford to take the odd chance and risk making the occasional mistake. When the economy is in freefall, there can be no margin for error. We have to acknowledge that 2009 was a challenging year for many. Budgets in most industries were cut and – while we can argue all day about the logic behind it – market research spend, like expenditure in many other business areas, was reined in for some. Similarly, a number of our clients were forced to delay projects due to the economic uncertainty. Yet, overall, levels of enquiries and commissions have not altered significantly over the past 18 months. What we did, however, notice during the height of the recession was a change in the type of research we were being asked to conduct. The more ‘aggressive’ market entry and market assessment studies commissioned by companies looking to expand into new markets and find new customers were replaced by more ‘defensive’ projects such as customer satisfaction. It has clearly been more important than ever to protect what business you do have and look after your existing customers to ensure they don’t defect. In recent weeks and months, as increasingly we see optimism re-emerge in North America – as indeed globally – clients are gradually feeling emboldened. As their business strategies become more ‘adventurous’, so too are the types of research they require. Perhaps a little surprising to us in America has been the high number of clients commissioning product development studies during the recession. However, most of these have not been of the all-out ambitious new product development variety; rather, they have tended to focus more around improvements to existing products or extensions to an existing product range. While we cannot determine precisely the reason for this trend, we believe it has been a measured response to a real or perceived increased threat by competitors’ products and/or decreased market share. Product improvements are a means of establishing differentiation at the same time as demonstrating innovativeness and reinforcing a commitment to better serving clients’ needs. At a time when the economic environment is forcing many competitors to lie low, product development has the added advantage of giving you something to shout about. The intensifying of the recession also appeared to curb the movement we had been witnessing towards environmentally-friendly products and services. Many of the first market research projects we conducted upon arriving in the United States in 2008 assessed the potential for introducing ‘green’ extensions to existing product lines or launching an already-successful North American energy-saving product in other global markets. This type of project request became noticeably less common throughout 2009 but early indications in 2010 – across all our offices, not just in the U.S., it must be noted – lead us to believe that environmental issues will once again rise to the fore. A more general observation that can be made about the U.S.A. has been the optimism throughout the hard times. Perhaps being a pessimist Brit and used to constant negative media coverage about the doom and gloom we’re all facing, being in America has, at times, been like a breath of fresh air. In spite of rocketing rates of unemployment (up from 6% in September 2008 to 9.7% at the time of writing), record mortgage foreclosures, horrendous stock-market declines and trillion-dollar Government bailout packages, what has been noticeable has been the positive messages portrayed in the media. People haven’t denied the economic problems but have been very much of the opinion that “things will get better”, “together we’ll pull through” and “America will rule the world once more.” And there I was thinking the British were supposed to be full of Dunkirk spirit! In part, I think the presidential election of November 2008, which coincided with the start of tough times, generated a lot of positivity. President Barack Obama’s “Change we can believe in” slogan was a beacon for many. His election was seen as a chance for America to change for the better. Eighteen months on and the general public may not be quite so enamoured with what’s being achieved on the political agenda, but negativity has not taken over. Indeed, as we begin to see signs of improvements here on this side of the Atlantic, we are thankful that things have not been worse. I will conclude by referring to an observation made to me earlier this week by a British colleague, also based here in New York: “Americans are more confident, more willing to take a risk and therefore more likely to succeed”. That, in a nutshell, sums things up nicely. Does Research Tell You Anything New?Monday, April 12th, 2010
 We like Luke Johnson’s column in the Financial Times and regularly feature it on our blog. He is something of a hero of ours, having built up Pizza Express, become exceedingly rich as a private equity investor, and proved to be an astute commentator on entrepreneurial issues. It was with a sinking heart that we read the article he wrote about focus groups in the Financial Times last week. Luke Johnson singled out focus groups for criticism but in truth his points could be applied to any type of market research. He claims that market research he commissioned told him very little that he did not already know. This will not be an unknown observation to many market research practitioners reading this blog. They will have often times presented a detailed and thorough piece of research with many incisive findings and sharp recommendations, only to hear some member of the audience claim that there was nothing new in it for them. One way round this would be to ask everyone who attends a market research presentation to bring with them a sealed envelope in which they summarise their pre-understanding of the market so that it can be compared with the findings of the research survey. When market research findings are laid out in a clear structure it is quite likely (and quite right) that much of what is said will concur with existing knowledge. However, without the market research, the knowledge may be uncoordinated and there could be many internal disputes about where the marketing priorities lie. A good piece of research that confirms knowledge and places it in a framework that everyone understands, can be worth its weight in gold. However, there is another issue that is worth considering. There is an old saying that “a problem defined is a problem half solved”. In other words, a good brief, which clearly lays out the problem to be researched, is critical in delivering findings that resonate. In the case outlined by Luke Johnson, an obvious question we would ask is “what were the focus groups seeking to achieve?”. Focus groups work best as an exploratory tool, possibly forming the first stage of a larger program. Were the focus groups used as a single research solution to something that should have had a qualitative stage followed by a quantitative stage? We don’t know, but we do know that there is a dangerous tendency to commission focus groups as a stand-alone research solution when they should be just one component part. We shall carry on reading and promoting Luke Johnson’s articles because he challenges all and everything around him and we like that. However, on this occasion Luke, we think you may have been a tad hard on the market researchers and maybe you should also challenge yourself — did the research really tell you nothing worth knowing, and did you really give the researchers the right brief? Read on.
Why focus groups tell you the obvious By Luke Johnson I recently commissioned some market research and, as is too often the case, it told me what I already knew or was obvious. I paid the bill of several tens of thousands of pounds, consoling myself with the fact that the work at least confirmed my prejudices – always a satisfying sensation. But I also sensed I had received very poor value; and in talking to other clients of research companies, I realise quite a few feel the same way. As Michael Skapinker wrote yesterday, the idea that the customer is always right has become an accepted truth in business. Unfortunately, customer desires are often wholly unrealistic – because of cost, technology or legislation. As Henry Ford said at the launch of the Model T: “If I’d asked the customer, he’d have asked for a faster horse.” I remember Peter Boizot, founder of PizzaExpress and my predecessor as chairman, telling me how, in 1965, customers in his Soho pizzeria felt uncomfortable with authentic Italian pizza – and demanded chips. But he stuck to his vision and guided their tastes to the genuine product. I have also experienced data blindness over research studies. Consultancies supply blizzards of material – far more than could ever be useful. Wordy, sprawling PowerPoint presentations compensate for a lack of incisive thinking. One can end up paralysed with indecision, buried in e-mails too large to even download. Great breakthroughs in fields such as new product development are frequently achieved by avoiding surveys and committees altogether. Constant testing can lead to blandness and safety-first choices. In creative affairs, corporate brainstorming sessions usually end up with groupthink dullness, all originality squeezed out because of the fear of failure or through the influence of office politics. As Steve Jobs said: “It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” At Channel 4, many of the most brilliant and distinctive programme ideas during my time as chairman were pioneered by eccentric independent producers who were championed by renegade commissioners. Meanwhile expensive, mainstream concepts often flopped. Over the decades since I worked in advertising, I have sat in many focus groups and wondered about the quality and effectiveness of such qualitative research. After all, who submits to a two-hour discussion about brands of washing-up liquid? All too often, the answer is the lonely, the old, the unemployed, students and, most worrying of all, serial participants in search of the small stipend and free tea and biscuits. It is very hard to persuade a normal working person to attend such panels, but they are usually the target subjects. I worry that researchers who appear to succeed are too often the snazzy firms who trade in sexy stereotyping. They use phrases like “Inner City Adversity” and “Twilight Subsistence” to categorise and supposedly understand various imagined socioeconomic and demographic groups. I am unconvinced that this terminology and philosophy is especially practical and relevant for many companies. In my restaurants, the people who know our customers are not researchers but branch managers, who serve the public all day, every week. Our staff may not have the slick patter, but they have the frontline, first-hand knowledge. Another unfortunate byproduct of the growth of research has been the increasing use of surveys by political and charitable organisations in their campaigns. Almost every day a pressure group gets publicity by publishing selective and scary conclusions about poverty, health, discrimination or other controversial issues. Journalists rarely question the study methods or validity of the results. Even if there were no errors in the sampling techniques, questionnaires or systems used, the media often over-simplify and exaggerate outcomes. Over-reliance on researchers means owners and managers are separated from the consumer. Successful entrepreneurs I know put more effort in talking to customers themselves, than they do working with costly experts who tell them what they should have learned long before. Be Vocal—It’s Good Medicine For EverybodyFriday, April 9th, 2010  During a week of laryngitis, Eve Lenkowsky reflects on how frustrating it is to lose your voice—and how market research can be a powerful cure for millions of people worldwide. Wouldn’t you bet my luck that the week the weather turns beautiful and everybody is ready to go outside and shout, that I should lose my voice! Since Saturday, I have been croaking, whispering, and wheezing at anybody who can stand being within earshot of my raspy voice. Luckily, I have people who care for me and who patiently crane an ear to hear what I am saying. But after a while, whether I’m trying to communicate with a loved one or a stranger, I wind up screaming but my words barely come out. Eventually, when you keep on yelling but nobody hears, you give up on trying to get someone to listen. It becomes very frustrating, and sometimes disheartening, when your voice is lost. I think that it is times like these that make me appreciate being a market researcher the most. That’s because I spend most of my time listening to the voices of other people who might otherwise go unheard. Whether it’s a construction worker or a printer, a doctor or a lawyer, business owner or a scientist—these are the people whose voices really have something to say. They are the end-users, the experts, the consumers and people closest to the products and services that our clients provide. They have a vantage point that our clients can only guess at. Sometimes it’s good feedback, sometimes it’s negative—all of it is important. I listen to people’s opinions and requests for improvement in many ways. Sometimes I have the pleasure of speaking with respondents on the phone, either asking them a specific list of questions or having an in-depth discussion to focus on subjects with which they have the most experience. Sometimes, we’ll do focus groups with a bunch of people saying what they think and commenting on each others’ views in a conversation. Other times, I’ll read through comments that hundreds of people type into online surveys when we ask them open-ended questions. Market researchers call these people’s comment quotes ‘verbatims,’ because the person literally tells us his or her point of view—verbatim. Have you ever taken a survey that asks you to answer a question by typing in a comment? Or given some of your time to answer a survey over the phone? Well, rest assured, your voice will be heard! There’s going to be a market researcher out there like me who reads through all of your complaints, compliments, and suggestions, and then communicates your key points directly to the person who has the power to make things better. Market research creates an open dialog that allows consumers to communicate back to the businesses that sell and advertise to them. Consumers are bombarded every day with messages from companies, and market research is one of the key ways that they can speak out and bring about change. Think of it as activism that is actively sought by companies, that benefits everybody. So basically, my job lets me be the voice of thousands of people every year, sharing their opinions with our clients so they can make their products and services better. I can’t ask for anything more—and this week, with this sore throat, I mean that literally! Understanding the Impact and EffectThursday, March 18th, 2010
In her latest Thursday Night Insight, Carol-Ann Morgan points out that our best intentions are not always quite as well received as we might hope. In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton compiled his three laws of motion. The third law is commonly reported as… The environmental story has been hovering around the top of the political agenda for some time now and, consequently, there is considerable attention given to the issues being debated in the press. However, we are having trouble grasping the arguments, as they are so equivocally defined and incalculable to the man on the street. Whilst experts argue amongst themselves as to the level of influence from our behaviours, and even the value of action, most of us are left confused as to what we should do next. Excited by the idea of developing alternative fuels which reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere and potentially threaten the long-term future of the planet, the growth of some crop-based biofuels has now been shown to carry some responsibility for recent global food shortages. Similarly, engines developed to reduce emissions appear to have created social tensions and increasing hardship amongst communities living and working around the platinum mines. Examples such as these can be found all around us, and they demonstrate that there can be counter-reactions to most of our actions, particularly so in the commercial environment. These counter-reactions can be both positive and negative; delivering business opportunities or threatening our existing business operations or offerings. This is where research plays a strong role. Testing concepts and new business offerings in the marketplace can throw up any unexpected or unwanted reactions, which then prepare us for the future. Being in possession of this knowledge enables us to take advantage of new opportunities and also mitigate threats to the business. Change and development are critical to the future of most businesses; spotting the needs of the future before they are in full view, and responding to them, is critical. However, Newton’s law serves to remind us to ensure we are aware of, and give due consideration to, potential unwanted consequences which may be harmful to the future security of our business. « Previous Entries Next Entries » |
|
