Call it Research? Call it Insights? No. Call it Strategies.
We’ve run across a multitude of research professionals who opine about the future of marketing research. The prevailing feeling it that the industry must change or it will perish. No longer, they say, are marketers interested in thick research reports that in a quickly evolving marketplace are often out of date by the time they are presented. More importantly, they no longer want a research function that is incapable of taking a seat at the table and sharing responsibly for the decisions that are made. So focused is the research industry on changing its image that it can’t even agree what to call itself. To regard a research company as simply a “research company” now suggests doing business with an anachronism. It would seem much safer to contract with an “insights company.” Isn’t that what everyone now wants? Insights! Wrong again. What companies should be seeking are “breakthrough strategies.” The one’s that come as a result of research, insights, deep understanding, vision, perceptiveness, creativity and the courage to take a stand. In today’s hyper-competitive marketplace, there should be little tolerance for research, or even insights, that are devoid of strategic implications. Stake you claim with companies that see research and insights as a means, not an end. Indeed, the traditional research function is fading fast. And the insights function is just a way of rebranding the same old, same old. A new breed is evolving that sees its role as digging deep into consumer behavior and motivation in order to create strategies that make a difference. Let’s call them Strategists. Let’s put them at the table and see what making a difference really means.
Will McDonald’s drink Starbuck’s latte?
Is it any surprise McDonald’s has brewed itself boldly into the coffee business? The McDonald’s menu has evolved dramatically since itsfounding days in the 1950s, back when it was a simple spot to get a burger, fries and a drink. The company has adapted to shifting consumer tastes, wants, and demands, and has become a major player at breakfast, in chicken, in snacks, salads, and more. There have been a few flops along the way, but in the last six years, McDonald’s menu innovations, better service, and improved atmospherics, have pulled in new customers and boosted profits. Now, thanks largely to Starbucks, Americans now crave fancy coffee drinks, and want them for breakfast, in the afternoon, and even after dinner. It’s no surprise McDonald’s is seeking to capture all these newly evolved coffee cravers. McDonald’s mochas, lattes, and cappuccinos have gotten positive buzz; even people who prefer Starbucks have given the McDonald’s drinkspretty high marks. And coffee drinkers who get their caffeine fix at McD’s can pocket the savings over the same drink at Starbucks. In recessionary times, that’s a powerful advantage. One survey found that 60% of consumers will trade to McDonald’s if the coffee drinks are cheaper and made faster. There’s also the convenience factor – you can grab a latte while picking up a happy meal for your kids, in a part of town Starbucks hasn’t yet hit, or on a road trip. Starbucks is fighting back against the McCafe invasion with an ad campaign focusing on quality adherence; they’re also experimenting with a breakfast value menu and one dollar coffee. However, we’re betting plenty of consumers will choose McDonald’s premium coffee along with its iconic food offerings over coffee at Starbucks accompanied by its made-off-premise bakery items and microwaved sandwiches. On the day ...
The camera never lies…
...but lots of people do, especially when they’re talking to researchers or otherwise responding to surveys. A part of it might be attributable to the Lake Wobegon effect, from the mythical town of Garrison Keillor, where it is said all the children are above average. More technically, another driver is social desirability bias. This is where the respondent wants to provide an answer that will be looked at by others as favorable. • A recent poll asked Americans who they voted for in the last election. This poll showed Obama thrashing McCain by more than 20 percentage points -- far greater than the actual Obama margin of victory on Election Day. • When people are asked if they voted in a presidential election, the percentage of self-reported turnout is inevitably 10-20 percent higher than actual turnout. • About 40 percent of Americans say that they attend church regularly. Counting and tracking methodologies used to determine true church attendance found that about half that number can actually be found in the pews. • A number of years ago, a survey found that upwards of five million people claimed to be New Yorker magazine readers—an unlikely number given that circulation was barely above half a million. People want to be on the winning team, and want to look virtuous and smart. So when we ask them to self-report, we often get responses that are wildly inaccurate. Researchers are exploring tools such asanonymous online polling and expressionless computer avatars in order to obtain more accurate survey results. But no matter how sophisticated surveys become, there is no substitute for the careful capture of actual human behavior, as we do with video-enabled behavioral analytics to see into the realities of shoppers in the shopping aisles.
