This week I did some reading on marketing research that was particularly valuable. The articles that I read, “Turn Customer Input into Innovation” by Anthony Ulwick, “Metaphorically Speaking” by Gerald Zaltman and “Kenna’s Dilemma” by Malcolm Gladwell; all challenge the notion that the “customer is always right”. Maybe I am biased from the countless summers that I spent working in the restaurant business while in school, but I took issue with this notion as it was first introduced.
I began with Gladwell’s article, which made for an ideal starting point since it was replete with examples of how customers have led marketing executives astray. I must admit; I have a lot more respect for Coke after hearing about the extensive customer taste testing and research that went into the launch of the “New Coke”. Prior to reading this article, I would have considered that launch one of the most ill advised new product releases in history. However, Gladwell changed my mind as he described the panic of Coke marketers as customers repeatedly picked Pepsi over Coke in blind taste tests as their competitor continued to gain market share. I now empathize with those who believed something had to be done.
The moral of the Coke story hit me hard and I believe that it is a lesson to all of us involved in customer insights. What customers say and do may not always be aligned. While New Coke prevailed in blind test tastes by impressive margins, it was a complete failure in the market. The reality is baffling until completely digesting Gladwell’s maxim: “Customers do not consume beverages blindly.” This insight is invaluable in new product development. In order to understand how customers truly feel about a product, marketers must simulate as natural of a trial experience as possible. People must me permitted to bring the product into their homes and integrate it into the course of their loves in order to evaluate it properly. I find this thesis particularly compelling and will attempt to keep this concept in the back of my mind, as I imagine that I would regret the day that I forget the lessons from Coke.
While Gladwell’s argument for simulating reality in product trials resonated well with me, I was less convinced by Zaltman’s case for greater customer abstraction. After some convincing by Gladwell, I was able to buy into Zaltman’s assumption that consumers have a difficult time articulating what they truly want or need. I was right there with him as he posited that most social communication is nonverbal as well. His argument fell apart for me when he suggested that having interviewees make a photomontage of a research topic would allow researchers to tap into consumers’ deeper thought processes. In my opinion, it is dangerous to assume that individuals will spend six hours thinking about this assignment prior to the marketing interview. Further, I would expect that individuals would be frustrated as they search for relevant images to no avail. One’s propensity for creativity must certainly affect the quality of the materials produced in the process. While there may be some value in moving the customer toward a more abstract way of thinking, my limited time and budget as a marketer will be spent exploring the product usage process more deeply.
I was drawn to Ulwick’s article since he takes particularly outcome-oriented approach toward market research. Ulwick recognizes customers’ adeptness in highlighting small improvements or missing features for existing products, but posits that customers are not able to stretch much further to give game changing insight. Ulwick is probably accurate in this assessment. Intuitively, it seems reasonable that customers will not know that they want something that does not already exist. Nevertheless, customers are aware of the results that they want from a certain product, whether it be greater comfort, increased ease of use, better accuracy, etc. Rather than asking customers what features they want to achieve these goals, it seems logical to leave the product design up to professionals that are aware of the product attributes that are most likely to achieve the desired results.
Overall, these articles won me over with the argument that the customer is not always right, or at least not in the papal, infallible sense of the expression. Customers know what they like and don’t like, but may not always be able to properly articulate what aspects of the product lead them to making that evaluation. That is where experts must fill the void in designing and assessing products. Customer involvement in the development process remains critical, but the generally accepted way that marketers interpret customer insights must be modified in order to create truly innovative product offerings.
No comments:
Post a Comment