Design and customer insight are not mutually incompatible

British industrial designer Sir James Dyson, inventor of the dual cyclone bagless vacuum cleaner, was recently quoted as saying: “Steve Jobs has shown you ignore good design at your peril and that breakthrough products come from taking intuitive risks, not from listening to focus groups.”

On first glance this may sound like an obvious statement, that good design emerges from the maverick, creative mind and that research in the market place serves only to stifle that creativity and genius. However, on second reading, it also looks not only a little elitist, but also that the designer or the brand (and in Dyson’s case the two are, of course, inextricably linked) either doesn’t trust or isn’t interested in the judgment of its potential customers.

It will come as no surprise that I don’t agree with this approach. Ultimately research tells you what you set it up to do. You have to ask a question and create sound and effective research to deliver the answer . Framing research properly is key to getting the right result.

But, of course, focus groups are not the only available research tool. An experienced researcher, like my colleagues at Engage Research, will be able to point clients in the right direction. Effective research can either improve or kill off an idea, perhaps saving the brand thousands in development costs. Research will highlight broader market issues maybe can or can’t be addressed but which, either way, would be crucial to success in market. We have all tested a few brilliant products that people really liked, but that quantitative research has showed could not succeed in market and saved their manufacturers a fortune by not launching it as planned.

My colleague saw this in evidence most recently when working on a particular product, where a sample of 800 respondents liked the idea but just wouldn’t buy it due to perceived credibility and price issues. The research was showing that it was a high risk, niche product launch at this time, whilst the manufacturers were arguing it should be launched because one guy in one focus group said he would buy the product.

As well as classic research tools that “test” ideas, we also use techniques and approaches which engage with consumers in the nurturing, development and co-creation of ideas. Consumers, treated with respect and given the appropriate tools, can be just as intuitive as contemporary boffins like James Dyson.

So the message is the focus groups are certainly not the panacea for all evils. However, to go to the opposite extreme and ditch the many sophisticated and subtle customer insight tools now available to brands, is to wander into a market place blind. And who has the available cash to do that in the current economic climate?

Brands & The Cult of Personality – What to learn from Steve Jobs

I started writing this blog before the sad news of Steve Jobs’s death had been announced, though this news, if anything, brings the subject into even sharper focus. I began writing on the back of the perceived lacklustre launch of the iPhone 4s this week and the suggestion that, whilst the media felt new Apple CEO Tim Cook presented well, the whole event lacked the presence and the force of Steve Jobs’s personality.

In truth the disappointment surrounding the iPhone 4s launch had less to do with Steve Jobs and more to do with expectations being raised too high for the product to live up to.

Apple will continue to flourish without Steve Jobs because it has the necessary culture in place to enable it to do so. Big personalities should be able to render themselves redundant once successful.

So how great an asset can the force of one personality be to the prospects for brand success?

In a sense, Apple is something of an anomaly. It used to be all about the tribe, the cult of the creative collective, but latterly has been heavily associated with its cult leader, Steve Jobs.

Other brands, however, are personifications of their owners. A lot of have been grown by the person at the helm and the personalities of the two are intrinsically linked. Although he no longer owns every business, imagine Virgin without Branson, Ryanair without O’Leary, Dyson without Dyson and even Easyjet without Stelios (even though they are in dispute). These personalities have values which people associate with the brand, such that the brand personality becomes an extension of their own over time.

Brands that consumers can clearly associate with something or someone tend to do better in market than woollier ones. Indeed some of the more emotional attributes are the hardest to cement with consumers - which is where a personality can be helpful.

This is not true for all brands, of course. Some brands, like John Lewis, for example, thrive despite the "positive absence of personality". John Lewis benefits from being democratic, there for you, whatever you want us to be sort of feel, rather than a "this is me, take it or leave it" notion of a personality-led brand.

Of course the values of the 'leader' are also often reflected in the employees of the business as well. If you get it right, having a strong character or leader with clear values and a vision can drive a brand faster and stronger than others and carry consumers with it. Brands represent who people are. Buying Apple products has made people feel cool, it has made them feel different and they have bought in to the chilled, relaxed feel that Steve Jobs embodied so well. Maybe Apple will find it tougher than we think without him. Only time will tell.

On the first day of Christmas, the product sold to me....

I'm no Ebenezer Scrooge but I am writing this on a crisp, bright early Autumn day and almost as soon as the leftover Easter eggs have been removed from the shelves, so the supermarkets have aisles dedicated to Christmas.

So the news this week that Air Wick, the Reckitt Benckiser air freshener brand, is launching a £3m Christmas campaign to support of its new colour-changing candle, had me wondering about the changing importance of Christmas in the marketing calendar and how brands can best prepare themselves for it.

The importance of Christmas to certain sectors is undeniable. For example, for the gift confectionary sector, the Yuletide season represents more than half of annual sales.
As researchers, we would usually have to have results ready before Christmas for trade presentations early in the New Year ready for the following December.

But it is no longer just about the obviously seasonal products. Just look at the shops on Christmas Eve with people panic buying for gifts as well as food, the effort put in to make the house look ready for the big day, new clothes for parties and dare I say it, even seasonal air fresheners. Getting ready for Christmas is a multi-sector pre-occupation.

In terms of timing research, it can be tricky. For all research you want to try and make the situation as typical as you can - so you would avoid the Christmas season itself for a lot of things. However, with a product designed specifically for Christmas, a special effort may be required to make the research situation look and feel a bit Christmassy if you are not able to research in the lead up to an actual festive season.

As with all good marketing, there is a need for brand fit and there are bound to be a few seasonal shockers jumping on the bandwagon and I wonder if brands with apparent "integrity" or "authenticity" are harmed by being all Christmassy or whether uncharacteristic seasonal brand behaviour is forgiven, rather like uncharacteristic seasonal office party indiscretion.

Anyway - as a person that loves Christmas - amid the same old, same old I do notice when a brand goes above and beyond or is just a little bit different! So amid the Christmas clutter it is important to stand out and research can be key to finding ways to achieve such cut-through.

And with that, I'm going sit back and enjoy the Yuletide scent from my mulled wine and cinammon apple air freshener.

Ends.

How to mark “World Awareness of Awareness Days Day”

This is going to be a busy month for me. Not only do I have it in my diary to mark National Organic Month, World Suicide Prevention Day, International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer, International Talk Like A Pirate Day (yes, really), World Reflexology Week and World Alzheimer’s Day, I have also just found out that September is also Oral Health Month.

I know this because of a report that Colgate is launching a £1m campaign this month to drive awareness of dental health care and hygiene. Oral Health Month will, apparently, run throughout September to remind the public about the importance of keeping their teeth and gums healthy.

Whilst improving the oral health of the nation is an important and worthy cause, the fact that Oral Health Month is an annual event created by the Colgate-Palmolive Company itself may raise concerns in some quarters that, at least in part, its creation has a purely commercial imperative behind it. This compares , for example, with National Smile Month, created by the British Dental Health Foundation, the UK's leading independent oral health charity.

There seems to have been a massive proliferation in recent times as brands attempt to cut above the line budgets in favour of “smart” PR/CSR style activity. The risk, of course, is that the sheer number of awareness events gives each of them – even the most worthy – the impact of wallpaper. However if, like any other piece of communications, the event is poorly aligned and badly thought out then the the assumption that just because it’s “Hybrid lawnmower engine Sunday” in your company, consumers will be as gripped, can actively work against the brand.

So normal diligence is the order of the day with research. Good early stage creative development which focuses on connecting the brand and consumer through the idea would be helpful and a resistance to using research to provide part of the story rather than test the story idea. Remember, also, that no matter how many awareness days or events there are, only a few rise to the surface of our consciousness. For instance there are nearly 400 film and TV awards events each year but as a film and TV follower I think most would only recall the Oscars, Golden Globes and the BAFTAs and maybe one or two others.

There are now so many awareness days that brands need to be careful which ones they choose to associate themselves with. Best to associate yourself with an event organised independently and without obvious commercial motive and to do so in a way that fits both the brand proposition and the objectives of the event.

And with that, I’m off to look for a sponsor World Awareness of Awareness Days Day.

TEA & SYMPATHY FOR TWININGS

Tea brand Twinings is facing a high street rebellion, according to The Grocer this week, with apparently “furious” tea drinkers angry at the changing taste of its Earl Grey tea and demanding reinstatement of the original recipe.

More than 150 consumers (not exactly an enormous sample of the tea-drinking public) have expressed their displeasure online after Twinings revamped its Earl Grey earlier this year by adding extra bergamot and citrus and renaming it “The Earl Grey”. And all this despite an increase in sales since the new blend was introduced.

This is not, of course, the first time there has been opposition to a recipe change to a well established product. Probably the most famous example was Coca Cola, whose ‘New Coke’ formula ‘won’ in blind taste tests against Pepsi but the market reaction to which was so poor, that the company revered to its original formula, which it re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", leading to a significant gain in sales. Is this a silver lining for Twinings in the Earl Grey cloud?

So is the message to brands that a dramatic change of recipe to a well-loved product could lead to regular, loyal consumers starting to explore other brands? Is it akin to a form of betrayal from a trusted friend?

There will always be reasons behind such a fundamental product change. Sometimes bringing a revised product to market can be viewed as an exercise in damage limitation to cause as little alienation of current buyers as possible. There can be other reasons though, including a longer term view that the current core buyers are not sustainable. Sometimes, if a brand is deemed to be in long term decline, a decision is taken to target a whole new set of ‘cooler’ and younger core buyers. In this instance, upsetting their current buyers can be acceptable in the interests of longer term sustainability.

From a research standpoint, you need to ensure you understand both the change to the product and the strategy for its introduction, and structure the research accordingly. There is no single answer to the best way to run this type of research – you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. For example, will you tell people it’s a new and improved taste or hope to slip it in under the radar? This would certainly influence how you introduce the product when testing.

This, of course, is not just any old product. There is likely to be more risk attached to ‘tampering’ with a cherished institution like Earl Grey tea than with a lot of other projects. So research should not only focus on innovation but on “conservation” too. This is where semiotics in research can be so important, having an inherent and detailed understanding of category rules, which are sacrosanct and which could survive or even thrive with reinvention.

If the product is changing and offering a tangible benefit which you will communicate – lower salt or fat or sugar ... etc. it is wise to let people know so that they can evaluate the product and the message as a bundle. Or are you changing to make the product appeal to a wider audience or is retention of current buyers a key objective? This would impact on who you would want as respondents to your research.

Change isn’t always dangerous and isn’t always bad, provided you factor in from the outset what you are trying to achieve. If retaining core customers is still the objective, changing both the recipe and the name at the same time might be too much for a devoted consumer. And they are the ones who would be hardest to get back once they leave.

Could corporates really bring brands to market as quickly as The Apprentice?

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece about my sense of disappointment at the quality of business ideas offered up by all four of the finalists in the UK’s version of The Apprentice. This was based on their startling lack of originality and the sense of let down that, if this was supposed to be the cream of the UK’s entrepreneurial talent (which we know it isn’t), it didn’t offer a spectacular return on Lord Sugar’s investment in time and energy.

But now, just a few weeks later, comes the news that Talkback Thames, the makers of the BBC reality show, are preparing to make two food brands, created in the tasks in this year's series, real-world businesses.
British pie brand MyPy and biscuit brand Special Stars have been trademarked by the programme's creators in preparation for bringing them to market. MyPy, which was invented by eventual winner Tom Pellereau and runner up Helen Milligan, focused on British ingredients.
Special Stars, created by Helen and her team in an earlier episode, was a children's biscuit brand, with the slogan "any time is treat time". Special Stars received an Apprentice record order of 800,000 units from one supermarket outlet.

The issue this raises in my mind, however, is not whether these businesses will fly or whether we’ll all be eating pies by the end of the year, but how easy it is for entrepreneurial ideas to win out in many of our larger organisations.

Save for Talkback Thames and the profile boost it received via The Apprentice, would an idea like Special Stars actually stand a chance of coming to fruition? Or would the forensic examination the idea would receive from every department in a cautious corporate – from marketing to manufacturing – render the idea still-born? I know where my money lies. Either way, the speed with which ideas like this are being brought to market are a world away from the months, even years it can take in a larger corporate organisation.

And that’s a shame. In a market that is already suppressed, we want our brands to be bold, to create stand-out and deliver imaginative and innovative brand and product concepts that excite our interests as consumers. We want them to follow the business fundamentals that are needed to successfully bring a brand to market, and we want the brand to embody all of the entrepreneurial qualities that went into its creation. Because if it does, it will capture our imaginations as consumers, we are more likely to purchase, which will allow money to flow and will again help drag us all towards more optimistic pastures.

A matter of convenience

If you tuned in to ITV2 this week for Gordon Ramsay’s new series of Hells Kitchen USA you will have noticed that the The English Provender Company has done the deal to sponsor the series with its Very Lazy ingredients brand.

Their marketing manager, Karen Fowler, is quoted as saying that the sponsorship is being used to promote the speed and ease of using the products, thereby tapping into the growing prevalence of time poor, convenience-driven consumers.

In this context, the sponsorship makes perfect sense. After all, identifying and then aligning yourself with emerging consumer trends is fundamental to long term brand success. Increasingly our eating patterns are being forced to fit around our busy lifestyles. Research has shown that because we are hectic and time poor more and more of us are actively looking to reduce the time we spend preparing meals. But balance this with the economic downturn and more consumers are also cooking at home in order to conserve cash. This is one reason why many of us are opting to buy in fully or part-prepared meals, but also one reason why we are looking for products that enable us to prepare healthy food, more quickly at home.

The popularity of new television concepts like “Come Dine With Me” and “Dinner Date” are testament to our growing interest in eating at home, and are perfect partners for convenience ingredients products.

What is clear, as well, is that although consumers are cutting back on the amount they spend eating out, the convenience of good value restaurants remain a substantial pull. Restaurants are already targeting the time poor, cash strapped consumer. Two for one offers on main meals and sharing platters in some restaurants are beginning to re-define the eating out experience for some, whilst ‘formalising’ a new lower cost route to eating out. Similarly, take-out food, whilst under pressure because of the economy, is also seen by many as a way to continue enjoying the eating-out experience without the costs attached to restaurant dining.

These trends are increasingly reflected in the briefs that clients are bringing to us. There is an increase in the mood for price vs value–based promotions and a growth in the number of innovations that are being considered in the area of convenient but still “good” food. It’s a trend that is unlikely to fall away any time soon.