|
Archive for the ‘Simi Dhawan’ Category« Previous EntriesThe Sincerest Form of FlatteryWednesday, November 30th, 2011  In this week’s Business Surgery, Simi Dhawan takes a look at the role of ‘copying’ within product and service development. Being intrinsically nosy, it is no surprise that I have found myself in research. Of particular interest, is anything related to new product development – where the words ‘innovation’ and ‘creativity’ are frequently bandied about as USPs. Given this interest, I was intrigued to read Lucy Kellaway’s article in the FT which discussed academic arguments towards social behaviour claiming that ‘almost all our decisions are based on copying’. The theory suggests that as time goes on and we are faced with more decisions and busier diaries, we tend to learn from others and do more copying. From a business perspective, whilst copying might bear negative connotations as the “cheat’s” way, by contrast, it is a practice that most successful businesses have actually mastered! A perfect example is the smartphone. Whilst many versions exist, making it hard to distinguish a clear product definition, broadly speaking, this is a mobile phone built on a mobile computing platform (the operating system that controls it – like Windows), enabling it to perform more advanced functions than a standard phone. Whilst IBM introduced the first smartphone in 1992 – the ‘IBM Simon’ (as seen below), more advanced smartphone products now make up the base of every leading phone manufacturer’s product portfolio. A clear case in point that ‘copying’ and advancing others’ ideas is not only commonplace, but canny business practice in getting ahead of competitors and capitalising on existing markets created by their products and hard work!  There are many such historical examples in business, although you would meet with some resistance in getting people to proudly declare that the basis of their creative innovation is imitation. Whilst (not surprisingly) there is stigma attached in linking the two together, I agree with Lucy Kellaway’s notion that it is less a “necessary evil” but a skill to be embraced and perfected. This is a topic that has been the subject of much scholarly debate for many years. An article by Theodore Levitt in the Harvard Business Review in 1966 made the point that our business world increasingly bows to innovation – seeing it as the pre-requisite to business survival and growth – a view that still stands true 25 years on. However, the article also goes on to explain that whilst we see a continual flow of seemingly new products and services enter our market, strictly speaking, these are actually not innovations at all but imitations of previous products where he argues that imitation is “not only more abundant than innovation, but actually a much more prevalent road to business growth and profits”. Tied in with this, as an avid viewer of the TV series ‘Dragon’s Den’ (clearly the pinnacle showcase of all revolutionary product development), amidst the public annihilation of prospective entrepreneurs for our shameless entertainment, the ‘Dragons’ appear to cap the risk of their investments by researching a couple of basic principles, namely: • Is there an existing market for this product? • Is there a patent in place to protect this product? Fundamentally, all of what we need to know can be primarily captured in sales potential and product demand (to ensure growth), paralleled with measures taken to reduce competitor imitation (allowing us to enjoy product differentiation for as long as possible). In fact, the very existence of patent protection is evidence alone that imitation and copying forms a large part of everyday business practice! Equally, more than most, product development teams recognise that the spurring on of “new” ideas does not happen in isolation of existing ideas. In fact, very much like the atoms that make up every human being which are in a constant state of change, product development is also a continuum and never at a standstill. A stream of thoughts piled on top of thoughts, advancing and changing all the time. Indeed, in B2B research, we’re often directing insights to our client’s “product development team” rather than a “new product team” per se. More than this, since most patents are only secured for a fixed period of time (rather than being infinite), this demonstrates wide recognition that businesses reserve the right to eventually access others’ ideas and build upon these, where this is an essential part of product development and innovation. Just imagine if we were all still reliant on using the ‘IBM Simon’! As a junior researcher, I entered my role condoning the mantra that “the best products solve a problem”. Now, several years on, experience and common sense suggests that “the best products often solve problems with existing products”. Whilst I always relish an opportunity to test a new product or concept, this is often an adaptation or “add-on” feature to an existing product, rather than something that is completely revolutionary. In B2B markets, whilst the words ‘copying’ and ‘imitation’ might offend our clients and perhaps demean all of their hard work in bringing something new to the fore, the intelligence that they gather from working with us when it comes to testing their concept or benchmarking this against competitor products, suggests that they fully understand these principles as forming an integral part of business behaviour. If they are not learning from what competitors are doing, then they are learning (and developing) their products from the feedback and ideas obtained from their customers or end-users. It is this mass overlay of available information that allows them to progress their ideas and concepts, so as to implement them more effectively. In short, I am not arguing that adaptations to existing products or services are not examples of innovation in business terms. Rather, these are the best examples when they can drive sales and growth. Therefore, businesses need to both recognise and act upon such principles by focusing their attention on competitive intelligence as a catalyst for their own ideas or new market opportunities. If the words ‘copying’ or ‘imitation’ sound misguided or offensive, then call this “product development”, “rejuvenation” or “replenishment”. In fact, call it what you like, but know that successful imitation will see you grow. Learning from others will not only save you time, but see your business replicate the countless successes of others that have done the same – a lesson certainly worth copying. Tales Of The Not So UnexpectedThursday, June 23rd, 2011  In her latest Thursday Night Insight, Simi Dhawan assesses the place of stereotypes and clichés in the world of b2b marketing Political correctness credibly avoids offending others and yet conflicts with our psychological well-being. Whilst we’re fiercely encouraged – even warned, of the dangers of spurting out some stereotype or saying anything that might come across as casually anti-social, in psychological terms, we could argue that in some cases, our psyche inherently needs to build stereotypes to make sense of the world. Put briefly, the classification scheme in psychology termed “pigeonholing” suggests that we’re so overloaded with information entering our five senses each and every day, that we need to “group” some of it together or, at least, make general inferences (based on previous knowledge) to digest it all. Of course, that is not to overlook the dangers of making wrong assumptions – particularly those based on social stereotypes. A few weeks ago now, myself and a colleague made our way in the early hours from Manchester to Liverpool, given that Liverpool airport was the nearest location from which we could enjoy a direct flight to Poland, courtesy of “Whizz Air” (recommended – if only for the shocking bright pink theme that runs throughout the logo, aircraft and cabin crew attire). On entry into the main check-in, in full view of all of Liverpool’s finest, was an enlarged poster, advertising a certain ‘commercial sparkling light perry’ that is not unfamiliar to some of us:  Now, whilst I have been unable to source the identical visual delight that graced our eyes that very day, if you imagine the above bottles surrounded by wide-eyed party-clad young females holding wine glasses, then you wouldn’t be too far off. On noticing this advert, I recalled an earlier conversation with my colleague that in the early hours, amongst the check-in counters of many a budget airline, you can often expect to enjoy the gleeful laughter of a “hen do” party or two. With this nostalgic recollection, I couldn’t help but think “good on you, Lambrini, you know your target market!” About a week later a casual remark from a close friend revealed that Lambrini is actually manufactured in Liverpool – so was this more about inevitable geographical and commercial convenience or was this a targeted marketing ploy? Still undecided, I went about reviewing other advertising campaigns to see if there was any more evidence to secure a view on how far stereotypes are played upon and it quickly became clear that my original suspicions were right. A few experiences (in front of the box) and conversations (in the pub) later, some interesting observations came to fruition – where the most active stereotypes appeared to play on the differences between males and females. Amongst my “fieldwork”, the first growing trend I enjoyed was with advertisers seemingly offering females the “upper hand” at the expense of de-masculinising many a slightly ridiculed man. I share a personal favourite, as follows: - The “Treat It With Respect” Toyota Yaris campaign wherein a young female who is begrudged by her boyfriend’s mistreatment of her beloved car two days before (when he spills some food in it) later gets him back by “accidentally” ruining a picture she takes of him and one of his favoured celebrities they bump into (‘Gaz’ from Supergrass, for those interested). See below link: The second observation was the slightly shameless “tongue-in-cheek” manner by which advertisers blatantly flog their products by building their campaigns upon a broad cliché. For example: -The Lynx Excite “Even Angels Will Fall” adverts revolve around vaguely patronising your average male by enticing them into purchasing a deodorant that is so irresistible that it will send a plurality of model-esque females in their direction – angels inclusive: Whilst it might be easy to try and sabotage an advertiser’s attempt to allure their target consumers by advocating the use of general clichés, I hesitate to do so. It appears that this activity is a complete necessity if you are to successfully plan and execute your marketing activities by following The Four “R’s” Of B2B Marketing, namely: 1. Revenue – Marketers must generate revenue opportunities 2. Reputation – Marketers must build the company’s reputation/brand by engaging customers 3. Relationships – Marketers need to creatively strengthen relationships with customers/partners/media and reduce “distant gaps” 4. Relevant – Marketers must have something meaningful, relevant and of value to customers Indeed, taking the aforementioned Lynx advert as an example, it does appear as though this brand has been successful in meeting these B2B Marketing guiding principles: 1. Revenue – It targets the advert towards those most likely to purchase the product (men) and makes use of TV as a medium which will easily reach a mass market. 2. Reputation – It consistently falls in line with other campaigns e.g. ‘the Lynx effect’ which similarly follows the theme of a deodorant that enhances male desirability from the opposite sex. (However, does this alienate non-heterosexual consumers?) 3. Relationships – By offering some level of consistency, this, in turn, enhances the brand image of Lynx. It makes it more memorable and clear to understand what the brand is about – avoiding any ambiguity or “distant gaps”. 4. Relevant – Although it is built around the male stereotype that within their “psyche” exists the shallow desire to attract the attention of beautiful women, it is altogether presented in a very “tongue-in-cheek” fashion. Often overly enthusiastic and quite openly a visual satire with angels dropping from heaven whilst passers-by look up in the sky in awe. In this way, it does not ridicule the brand or bore viewers, but entertains and makes us smile. In B2B market research, whilst we approach each project from an objective stance, we would be lying if we told you that we never involve any common sense in our analysis. In a recent European research project examining bathroom usage of general home-owners, it would have been impossible to not have an expectation on “activities carried out in the bathroom” and was therefore a reassuring finding that more males than females trim their beards each morning (suggesting our data was representative of our prior understanding!) However, it is often good research practice to include a few “sense check” questions in any survey, to help validate the accuracy of your data in general, where if something looks out of the ordinary, then you can assess your approach. In this respect, taking human experience and general judgements into consideration (even those that could sit inside a common finding or cliché) is not a disadvantage – but a valuable skill. In short, research is not an exercise employed to unveil a host of new surprises to the marketers commissioning any project; rather, it exists to further refine and build on our pre-existing thoughts and inferences. To further demonstrate my view that clichés can work in our favour, I (in clichéd fashion) end with a quote by the eminently wise Stephen Fry:
“It is a cliché that most clichés are true, but then like most clichés, that cliché is untrue.” Worlds Apart But Not Much DifferentThursday, February 3rd, 2011 In this weeks Thursday Night Insight, Simi Dhawan finds a stark difference in the Inuit daily routine when compared to her own, but also finds undertones of universal similarity. I’m turning into my dad. Not quite the revelation that a twenty-something female should readily admit, but there it is. I accept this statement on the grounds that I thoroughly enjoyed watching “Human Planet” on the box this evening – gripping stuff indeed. The content could not have been more apt as I watched how men and women across the globe wondrously survive Arctic conditions – whilst my mind flipped back to the photos emailed by colleagues in our New York office this afternoon displaying the 17 inches of snow that had fallen overnight! It’s often easy to accept your daily routine as you instinctively follow a set pattern of behaviours day-in, day-out. Get up. Brush your teeth. Get dressed. Eat breakfast. Go to work – and so on. In doing so, it’s no wonder that you can forget about the bigger picture and fathom that human beings across the globe live a completely different lifestyle to your own. Today, I watched in awe as I learned of how an Inuit’s dogs are more than merely “Man’s Best Friend” in Greenland, but are their only reliant means of transport to source food and other resources for their survival. Whilst we grumble and curse if our boiler breaks down, there are those who can within minutes create warmth in dangerously freezing conditions by building an igloo with just their hands for tools – now that’s resourceful. Whilst the programme unfolded and I watched mesmerized by how “different” life in other corners of the world is, perhaps the most interesting revelation was that, in fact, it isn’t much different at all. This occurred to me as one Inuit turned to his brother during a hunting expedition and grumpily requested that “he stop snoring so loudly this time!” Whilst I don’t claim to be sledged to work every morning by 12 Greenlandic dogs across sea ice, what I can profess is that as human beings, our basic needs for survival do not change. How we go about achieving these needs in our everyday existence is merely a product of our environment and heritage, but in essence, these are universally the same.  In B2B market research, some of our prospective Clients would feel reassured to learn that we’ve previously worked within a similar industry to theirs. However, in truth, whilst this logic stands to reason, I’m confident that my colleagues would agree that whether we have or not makes little odds when compared with what really matters; the question or objective that the research is seeking to address. When we’re designing a study that will shed meaningful light on an issue, we don’t worry so much about the sector as we do about the research method we’ll adopt and the specific questions we will ask. If we’re product testing, then we know a demo within a focus group is likely to ascertain the most meaningful results – whether the industry is education or sanitaryware, what matters is that the audience is the right one and the questions we ask will give us the answers we need. As people, we enjoy the possibility that we are unique, but yet feel reassured when we are backed by others. In the same way, whilst businesses thrive on standing apart from their competitors, they equally enjoy keeping a keen eye on their competition. A risk assessment could be carried out before an important decision is made. However, in simple terms you have two options: you take risks and lead the market by innovation or you opt for a more sensible approach and wait for others to take the leap first. If the market reacts positively, you can jump on the bandwagon and strike whilst the iron’s hot (to win market share of a market which you now know exists) or you go back to the drawing board if the market is not forthcoming. As a researcher, the most rewarding aspect of what we do is knowing the value that you can add to such a decision. I don’t say this with any agenda, but from experiences that I’ve repeatedly encountered. During a project brief, you are completely at the mercy of those responsible for informing you about their business and the particular product, service or market that is being explored. However, post-research at the project de-brief, it never fails to intrigue all involved how much more insight is warranted from research – from the voices of the market as it stands now, rather than an assuming perspective that is slightly out of sync. I wouldn’t necessarily say that I have the fundamental demeanour to call myself a risk-taker, simply because, by genetic default, I like to think things through and take measured decisions. However, given the right tools, information and intellectual ammunition, there would be no reason why I wouldn’t take a risk to try and reap the rewards in doing so! Indeed, this is what market research gives you. It’s the balance between a blind-sighted gamble and a calculated risk. It’s realising that to know your market you need to listen to what it wants and stay close to it. Like our fellow human Inuit’s across the globe, it’s imperative that to survive any condition (however extreme), you need to keep alert of every changing aspect of your environment – only taking risks once you have acquired all the necessary skills and resources you can pool together to do so. A Million Pounds……..How Do You Keep Yours..?Friday, October 8th, 2010 In her latest TNI, Simi Dhawandares to dream about getting her hands on a million pounds, but just how will she carry it? What’s the largest amount of cash you’ve seen at any one time? For the majority of us, everyday, over-the-counter transactions may involve the exchange of a few £20 pound notes, possibly a few more £10 pound notes and we’ll all certainly be familiar with the £5 pound note – a handy wallet-warmer for the masses. With this in mind, it was only a couple of weeks ago that I gamesomely directed a brain-teaser over to my colleagues when asking “How many briefcases would be needed to transport £1 million in cash?” The answers were vague and possibly lukewarm given that no-one had seen this amount of cash first-hand. However, of the responses offered, these were as follows:
So, there was my answer – one suitcase. Or was it? My experience as a researcher, has led to some reluctance to mindlessly accept an answer without thinking it through. Some might call this over-analytical; I’m more inclined to call it cautious. My dilemma here was that whilst I’d asked the question, I’d failed to give enough surrounding detail. For one, I hadn’t stated the cash-type (was this £50 notes, £1 coins or a mixture?) and for another thing, I hadn’t specified the exact size of the briefcase, in question.
Based on the above statistics, whilst the variation of several inches might not appear to be much on a superficial level, this could potentially be quite significant when comparing the space available to carry the cash in question, where those extra cubic inches could make all the difference!! To demonstrate, I wanted to see how size of briefcase impacted upon the number of cases needed to accommodate £1 million in £1 coins. To begin, a quick calculation based on the dimensions above told me that with the medium sized briefcase, I had a volume of 1,404 cubic inches. Looking then at the dimensions of a £1 coin (225 mm in diameter and 3.15mm thick), this had a volume of approx 1.25 cubic centimetres or 0.076 cubic inches. Therefore, the number of £1 coins that a medium-sized briefcase could hold was £18,473……which told me that at least 54 briefcases would be needed in total to accommodate the £1 million pounds discussed earlier. But how did this compare with the small and large briefcase? Using the same method to calculate this figure, interestingly, the number of briefcases needed varied quite significantly, where for the small briefcase, at least 82 would be required to transport the £1 million pounds in £1 coins versus only 35 (approx) that would be required for the large briefcase. Therefore, size of briefcase, in this example, could be proven to change the outcome dramatically. Whilst, in truth, the purpose of this exercise was not to advocate the transportation of £1 million in such an impractical manner, it is a comparable demonstration of the considerations and difficulties often encountered when it comes to market sizing. We, as researchers, have to combine common sense, careful thought and research practices to effectively draw out a realistic estimate of the size of any potential opportunity. It is seldom the product of a series of clear-cut figures and distinctions that can be used in a straightforward mathematical equation. The process often involves a thorough and intelligent market assessment that needs to demonstrate plausibility which is, of course, backed up by supporting facts and figures, but which also takes accounts of all threats (e.g. competition, market fluctuations etc) as well as opportunities (e.g. exponential growth, supporting regulations etc). Therefore, extra care should always be taken when scoping out such a project from the offset so that the research has a clear focus and direction, void of ambiguity. Therefore, to the same colleagues who I directed this question to, I now re-phrase and ask you, “How many briefcases of average UK size (to be researched) would be needed to transport £1 million in cash made up of £5 notes?” Answers welcome, but more questions about this research are what could, in theory, add more value. For more information on how B2B International can help, visit the Market Assessment page of our website. The Truth About Cats and Dogs….And Their Owners!Friday, July 23rd, 2010 A light-hearted discussion about cats and dogs this week led Simi Dhawan to question what drives behaviour and to what extent we should believe the statistics we are told. Would you say that you are a dog person or a cat person? Common belief has it (or what I’m possibly more inclined to refer to as “semi-pseudo social philosophy”) that an individual either prefers one or the other – rarely both, as reflected in their personality. It was a recent conversation with work colleagues over the weekend that led to this issue being raised wherein it was concluded that I was the latter following my inarguable mini-obsession with a colleague’s pet cats…….or rather, giant cats of the Maine Coon kind. For those of you unfamiliar with this breed, a short synopsis is that they originated in Maine, North America and are renowned for growing larger in size than your average domestic cat, characterised also by longer coats and a bushier tail. I include an exemplary picture below:   In a frenzied quest to curb my curiosity, I ran a quick internet search to see if I could find out whether my colleagues were right about my social disposition, carrying out a short “Pet Personality” quiz online at the following location: http://quiz.ivillage.com/home/tests/catdog.htm. After some rather banal questioning which commenced by asking me about my preference for a “Perfect Friday Night” (of which the possible tick box choices differentiated the socialites who enjoy “a wild night out” from the less extreme independent impartial persons who “prefer a quiet night in with a book” (original, eh?), the quiz concluded that I was indeed, a “Cat Person”, with the following personality traits:
Crumbs. My colleagues were right. However, having the typical Cat Personality trait of being intrigued by world mysteries (I would argue true in specific cases!), I decided that I wanted to dig deeper into how public opinions are formulated. As a starting point (and whilst continuing on with this captivating “Cat” theme), I recall a colleague at the aforementioned gathering discussing the popular TV series “8 Out Of 10 Cats”. A majority will have probably heard of this, but for those who haven’t, the programme is centred on quizzing teams of celebrity respondents about various opinion poll findings and statistics. The title of the show was famously derived from a Whiskas Cat Food campaign which claimed that 8 Out Of 10 Cats prefer Whiskas. Whilst this campaign was one of the first to adopt this style – triggering others to do the same, the inevitable question “overlooked” is ‘What on Earth are these cats / cat owners comparing Whiskas to and saying they prefer it over?’ Is it another cat food product? Is it a multitude of cat food products? Is it something other than cat food such as Heinz Baked Beans (in which case, no contest really!)? What exactly is it? It is a common underpin of opinion polls used in advertising to state a loose statistic completely out of context, which excludes the comparative element that would allow it to make logical sense! We shouldn’t have to wait too long in an evening before any such campaign graces (or plagues!) our television screens. Yesterday evening, for example, I was informed that 9 out of 10 people with sensitive teeth do nothing about it (thanks Sensodyne Toothpaste) and that 9 out of 10 women would recommend the new “falsies” mascara range to a friend (thanks Maybelline). But in what context has this data been derived? Is this plausible data which has virtuously reached a conclusion from a fair and objective series of questions whereby respondents were introduced to a number of competitor products, or are we, the consumer, being led into a false sense of security by a set of makeshift claims? In other words, are these findings drawn from designing a study that is biased from the start, intending to flog us a “credible” product backed up by statistics? In the case of our dog or cat person phenomenon, we could use our logic and life experience to assume that this has been clearly born as a by-product of social situations, based on the following premises:
Statistics and previous studies tell us that the majority of people are dog persons and not cat persons. I have to say that following a quick chat amongst my colleagues, this point was supported when only 2 out of 6 of us preferred our feline friends over our canine comrades. For more “concrete” evidence, I decided to review an epidemiological study conducted by the Department Of Veterinary Clinical Science in the University Of Liverpool (2007), which looked at 1,278 households in Cheshire (my local area!) to examine the different profiles of households who own dogs compared to those who don’t. The study indeed supported that dogs are the most popular household pet where 24% of those approached were confirmed as dog-owning out of a total of 52% who owned any type of pet (whilst cats came in at a close second with 22%). But did this yet tell me anything about their choices to own either one or the other? Could I yet attribute any of this to a particular personality trait? Helping to answer this question, the study continued by asking these households what their main reason was for owning a dog, whereby 68% reported that it was for companionship (makes sense – dogs love to remain in the company of their owners versus the ever-wandering cat), whilst 42% reported that they’d always had a dog. The latter statistic brought into question then whether it is actually environmental factors which shape our decisions i.e. nurture, versus an inherent personality disposition i.e. nature. At this stage, my mind boggled more than before and so I eagerly read on…… The report then revealed a staggering statistic; 62% of households who did not own a dog when interviewed had actually owned one at some point previously in their lives! So does being raised with a dog make you less likely to own one? Actually, no. It would appear that social situations change over the lifespan, which is why certain households are more likely to own a dog. To back this up, some of the reasons people stated for not owning a dog included “working or being out all day” (26%) or “not having enough time for a dog” (15%), where evidently a large factor is lifestyle and the practicalities of looking after a pet which demands time rather than a dislike for dogs per se (which incidentally, was the reason reported by only a small 10% of households!) By my reckoning, public opinions do appear to be rooted in everyday observations and conversations – very much like the one which instigated my Thursday Night Insight this week. However, I would argue that we should always be cautious about over-inflating the value we might attach to a standalone statistic without also taking into account some surrounding facts about the topic or area of interest itself. In today’s example, whilst labelling a person as a “Cat Personality” or a “Dog Personality” helps us to more easily (and mentally) pigeon-hole otherwise complex individuals into a certain segment of character traits, we should be able to accept that it is situations and environmental influences which play a significant part in driving behaviours…and that these can potentially change over time. This philosophy, of course, is one which stands true in all B2B markets where, similarly, you are certainly always better placed to make decisions after asking a sample of your target market the right questions, rather than simply second-guessing their thoughts, feelings and opinions based on secondary, or even dated research statistics. In short, a poll conducted today, will not always stand true tomorrow……..and as for The Truth About Cats and Dogs……..I’d argue that your best bet is to ask the owners (the most complex breed of all!) themselves. « Previous Entries |
|
