Conformity

Solomon Asch conducted the above experiment in 1962. This experiment was repeated in recent times by USF with the same results.

People will agree with others or follow them even when others are wrong. Conformity is everywhere. Government, industry, marketing and advertising. People think they are setting out do something different and yet all they wind up doing is more of the same.

Conformity of the group is the reason great ideas get mauled in research, much like a hapless victim getting mauled by hungry lions in a Roman Colosseum.

'Innovation', is the most powerful word invented to help us live in a state of denial about being conformists in our actions. This is specially true of marketing and advertising. In recent times, I have been to meetings and presentations that I can recall were seen as 'innovative' fifteen years ago. Innovation is used to describe anything from a front-page takeover of a daily to creating a Facebook page. 

I guess, being a conformist must be lucrative. There are a lot of them around.

Out-of-focus groups

(via)

I simply cannot understand the fascination for focus groups. Very rarely does anything good come out of it. If focus groups were all it is portrayed to be why are there so many duds in terms of products, ideas and campaigns? Why do we ignore the collective wisdom that the marketing and agency teams bring to the table? Why do we overlook the wealth of knowledge waiting to be tapped from the war zone like sales, customer care etc? Why do we discount commonsense? And can respondents really be trusted?

I am not alone with my rant. There are many in the business with much stronger concerns about focus groups. I liked this example (via) that just hits the spot.

Years ago, British Airways (BA) decided to introduce a new service for its first class passengers on long haul flights. It was basically a mini fridge full of goodies so that if you woke up in the middle of the night feeling a little hungry, you could get something nice for yourself. The question was: What do we put into this little fridge?

BA dutifully did its market research and assembled several focus groups of first and business class passengers. What would you like, they asked? The response was universal. People wanted fruit or perhaps some light salads. All very good. All very healthy.

On the first flight with the new service an air hostess paused as she noticed the fridge being filled. “What are you doing?” she asked. And the person dutifully explained what was happening. The hostess laughed. “They’re lying!” she said. “They don’t want salads. Listen, I’ve being doing the London to LA route for years, and when they wake up in the middle of the night the last thing on their minds is salads.”

“But the focus groups all said …”

She shook her head and walked away. A couple of minutes later she came back with some chocolates and cakes. “Please put these in as well,” she said. “Trust me. I know my customer.”

And they did put some chocolate and cakes in and when they checked at the end of the flight, they were all gone and nobody had touched the apples or salads.

HA!

Of strawberry jams and the anomalous outcomes in research

If I were to ask you to name three Hollywood action movies that you liked in recent months, your spontaneous answer might be - Inception, Expendables and Salt - in that order. Now if I were to ask you as to why you prefer one film over the other with a detailed questionnaire, your (spontaneous) ranking is likely to be reversed with Salt now becoming your most liked film.

Hard to believe? But it is true.  


Jonah Lehrer, renowned psychologist and author, in this wonderful article (courtesy via Bobulate) talks about the findings of a path-breaking study that was undertaken using various brands of strawberry jam. According to him, thinking too much causes us to focus on variables that do not matter. 


In the research, the respondents could easily pick the brand of strawberry jam that gave them the most pleasure.  


When researchers added extra analysis to the study, asking participants to explain the why of their jam preference and justify their decisions, the “extra analysis seriously warped their jam judgment” – the really lousy jam won.

Why is this so? 


“Thinking too much” about strawberry jam causes us to focus on all sorts of variables that don’t actually matter. Instead of just listening to our instinctive preferences, we start searching for reasons to prefer one jam over another. 


The researchers also showed that the same effect interferes with our choice of posters, jelly beans, cars, IKEA couches and apartments. We assume that more rational analysis leads to better choices but, in many instances, that assumption is exactly backwards. 


These studies represent an important re-evaluation of the human reasoning process. Instead of celebrating our analytical powers, these experiments document our foibles and flaws. 


The implication of this study on the research we do for brands can be profound. We think respondents behave like scientists providing well analyzed, rational answers on the choices they make. It is far from the truth. Respondents are people first, like you and me. Spontaneity and irrationality rules but we do not want to admit that. Now, it stands to reason why the best of ideas are toast in research and why mediocrity triumphs most of the times. Little wonder that over 80% (or is it 90%) of product launches and campaigns fail in the marketplace.


Therefore the most successful marketers and business leaders, according to Dave Trott, are the ones who dare to take the intuitive leap ignoring research and its anomalies. This is best exemplified by this quote from the legendary Akio Morita: 


“The biggest assistance I had, in growing Sony to a worldwide brand, was the total failure of nerve on the part of western businessmen to move without research.” 


Need I say more?

(Dilbert courtesy via)