Testing New Poll Software

Please help us test a new software we are considering by answering the following question:

“What online service (that does not exist today) do you need the most?”

Text CAST 568 and your answer to 41411

Thanks for your participation.

Filed under: Market Research , Market Research, Polls, Technology

We might be seeing with our ears and hearing with our eyes

Researchers have discovered that primates can “see” with their ears and “hear” with their eyes. Essentially, neurons responsible for “forwarding” visual or auditory information can send information to either the visual or auditory processing systems depending upon the circumstances. This gives the brain an edge in situations requiring a very fast response or in situations where one or the other sense has been compromised (or is absent).

Of course, we’re not normally aware of this happening. This is yet another example of how much we still have to learn about how the brain processes information, and how counter-intuitive some of the recent finds are. Another interesting example of this paradox is the recent research suggesting that people who self-identify as being undecided on political issues have, in fact, often already made up their minds; they are just not consciously aware of it yet.

We’ve written previously about how market research will advance as we understand more about how the brain works and how the “mind” makes decisions. Although a few companies are building business around this nascent field, I think it’s inevitable that qualitative research will become more empirical as our understanding of our internal and largely unconscious processes grows. The challenge is going to be boosting the signal to noise ratio so clients will understand what kind of research is valuable – and what is not.

Filed under: Science , Market Research, Science

Peugeot 888: Shape-shifting and green

[From dvice.com]: The Peugeot 888 is billed as the “personal vehicle for the future Metropolis.” For designer Oskar Johansen from Norway, that means a car with space for two with room for luggage, as well as a nifty shape-shifting body. On the highway, the Peugeot 888 stretches itself out flat so that it’s stable and aerodynamic. In the city, however, it scrunches up for easier parking and taking up less of the road in general.

Just to make sure it’ll fit in with the eco-minded future, the 888 is powered by electric motors in each of its wheels, runs off of an array of lithium-ion batteries stored in the trunk, which, in turn, is covered with solar panels.

Filed under: Automotive , Automotive, Cars, Design

Open Source Market Research

An oxymoron, non? Actually, people have tried to monetize this concept, but I’m not talking about reselling old, sometimes public domain, market research reports or traditional syndicated research. Moreover, when I think of open source, monetization is not top of mind. In fact, I’m not even thinking of giving people access to actual market research reports. What I am considering is this: is it possible to construct a type of searchable database containing non-proprietary outputs (and ideally meta-outputs; more on that later) from actual industry quantitative and qualitative research?

Let’s say, for example, that your company has a new product, Liquid X. Your industrial design people (or more likely some ambitious brand manager) wants to put Liquid X into an “upside down” container that stands on its cap. You’ve seen this done many times with toothpaste, ketchup, shampoo, etc, but your company has never done it. What are the basic parameters and constraints that affect usability? How best to handle copy? Should the new upside down packaging cannibalize the existing line?

Now imagine that you are in charge of doing the market research for Liquid X, except that you can log onto a site that will let you search for pieces of market research that someone else has already conducted on upside down packaging. You might be able to see right away that height is a limiting factor, for example, or that there is a particular consumer segment who just won’t buy anything upside down-ish. You would not be looking at full market reports – only discrete bits of them that you can use to jump start your research, to narrow the parameters of what you need do research and save you time and money. Naturally, you might be able to find some of this information through traditional syndicated research, but that process is itself often difficult and time consuming. I’m imagining a Google-like, or perhaps Del.icio.us-like front end serving up extensible results.

There are, of course, a couple of big problems with the idea of Open Source Market Research: how would it actually work and how could you participate without giving away your competitive or trade secrets?

The first problem is actually more difficult than the second one. Thinking about open source and this system, something wikipedia-esque is top of mind. But obviously, that would require far, far too much work on the part of those who could contribute; they would have to scrub or anonymize their own data and possibly edit the format itself (e.g., extract bullets from PowerPoint slides). Perhaps a better idea would be some kind of industry or foundation operated site (perhaps also supported in part by ad revenue) to whom you could submit reports. This organization would scrub and anonymize the data, index and tag it, and provide the search engine front end. In this scenario, you might have to find a way to incentivize companies to part with their dearly bought research, perhaps by offering ads or referrals. Naturally, the hope is the inherent benefits of open source will be enough to sway doubtful IP holders.

The other – surprisingly simple – problem is competition. Simple, but with one big caveat: whomever is anonymizing and scrubbing must be trusted beyond reproach and some research might be too topical or too sensitive to share for a period of time, no matter how well anonymized and scrubbed. Competition, in general, wouldn’t be an issue with such a system, as the results are analogous to Lego building bricks rather than to someone’s fully built model. Moreover, as everyone has access to the same building bricks, competitive advantage lies in how you assemble them, not in “possessing” the bricks. This is, essentially, the ethos of the open source movement

Less abstractly, except in the case of highly proprietary processes or data, you can argue that increasing overall awareness of different types and outputs of market research will increase demand for market research.  A system like this one would effectively grow the pot for everyone involved in MR.

Finally, one far-off but potentially interesting benefit from open source market research would be in allowing average Joe or Jane market researchers to construct their own MR meta studies a la the healthcare industry to gauge the effectiveness of their own MR initiatives and processes.

Filed under: Information, Marketing, Uncategorized , Market Research, Open Source

The Urge to Splurge

Retail stores map out your shopping experience and nudge you toward that cash register.

Putty-colored mannequins and quaint window displays are so 1950s. Today’s retail stores map out the shopping experience with a precision that starts the moment you walk through those double glass doors.

Can’t help but reach for one of those V-neck sweaters so neatly stacked in the middle of The Gap? PT investigates how retailers nudge you toward that cash register.

Filed under: Marketing, Science , Consciousness, Consumer, Psychology, Retail

Goliath Enlists David (But Doesn’t Eat Him)

The Relationship between Fortune 500 Companies and Small Consultants Evolves

Can big companies and small consultants work together in ways that are positive for both parties… and ultimately the consumer?

Small, fast-on-their-feet consulting firms bring a host of benefits to the table beyond simply monetary ones.

These small firms are born out of a perceived market need. They are close to their customers, and respond to clients needs with an efficiency and speed that larger firms simply can’t do. Small entrepreneurial organizations are not beholden to the “usual” way of doing things, and make their own rules, spurring innovation. This makes them enticing targets for acquisition by their larger clients.

But, like a greasy cheeseburger that tasted wonderful going down, sometimes these acquisitions cause heartburn and regret later.

Beginning in the 1970’s, large firms began to look to small, entrepreneurial consultants for unique advice, design capabilities, products, and/or talents. More often than not, what started out as a partnership of non-equals ended with the absorption of the smaller company by the Fortune 500.

An example: From its birth in the late 80s, a small, entrepreneurial software company was doing groundbreaking work as a third-party vendor to several Fortune 500s. One of the companies became concerned that the small company’s work was available to the highest bidder and purchased the little company and its talent pool, thereby ensuring that only they had the cool new ideas and technologies.

But, the executives at the Fortune 500 soon became uncomfortable with the processes by which this new group worked — processes radically different from their own. They had no experience with software life-cycles, yet they increased their oversight year after year, saddling the software team with rules, procedures, and managers whose task it was to bring the “rogue” group into confluence with the core business of the mother company. As a result, the company-within-a-company was, at length, unable to do anything groundbreaking. Viewed as a failure, it was “downsized”, its staff laid off, and its work outsourced to — you may have guessed — a third party vendor.

This scenario has been repeated again and again by any number of large corporations and small independents. Lamentably, these mergers most often failed, sucking the vitality out of the resources absorbed from the smaller firm, and resulting in their loss. Often the larger company suffered damage as well, in the form of unmet customer requirements, missed opportunities, and squandered investment.

Why does this happen? Largely it’s a function of the differences between the ways small, entrepreneurial firms and large corporate entities are run.

Large entities often become victims of their own hierarchy — the top execs no longer dabble in the creative process of research and design, nor do they court new ideas from within their own company. Ideas generated at lower levels of the hierarchy rarely work their way up through successive levels of management and “group-think” that occurs when underlings are afraid of offending those higher up with “radical” ideas.

A small firm, on the other hand, has a flatter management structure, and the company’s executives are involved with gathering customer requirements, designing means of meeting them, implementing them, and engaging in a continuing dialogue with the customer as they are rolled out.

In the newly emerging model, David and Goliath work together as separate partners. This allows David to maintain his autonomy and quickness, while Goliath doesn’t have to pay for the overhead inherent in design and development — staff salaries, software and hardware, and the like.

Filed under: Uncategorized , Consulting, Partnerships

In the series: We want one of these….

Filed under: Uncategorized , Cars