Turn Customer Input into Innovation
Ulwick’s approach is so interesting. He and some of his partners adjusted an already existing methodology; it is not like they created this from scratch and came up with it themselves. It is based on the common knowledge of market research with certain tweaks here and there that make the methodology so revealing and interesting.
I think it makes so much sense to ask your customers, “what do they want the product to achieve for them”, instead of asking “what they want”. This simple question changes the whole approach of how to interview a customer and how to gather the right information. The methodology also contains similar market research ingredients, as defining the target market, analyzing quantitative data and identifying opportunities but I’m actually impressed with Ulwick’s article, his approach and methodology have been really enlightening. In my line of work I haven’t gotten involved with many market research studies and especially from an innovation or design perspective. I have limited knowledge on this subject but it makes much more sense to structure the research in this way. Customer-needs being the top priority, instead of customer-wants.
Metaphorically Speaking
The ZMET methodology of Zaltman is a little bit more complicated to understand and I feel that a person who gets involved with this kind of market research needs to be more of a psychologist or sociologist than a sales person or customer research agent. This seems to be a more specialized kind of research with a longer time frame of preparation. Customers need to pay more attention and think more seriously about what they really think with the 12 images they need to take to the interview process. Even though the interview process is one-on-one, it seems that metaphors of how they feel of the images, what they think of an expansion of the pictures or what they see or smell with the picture makes me realize that research could be really accurate and could actually help understand what a customer feels and thinks from a brand or a product.
All these specifications might make this research more expensive and not simple to understand for upper management. Whoever is conducting the research needs to be really assertive concise with the results gathered from the interview.
ZMET is tough but very interesting and revealing, more of a display of images and understanding of feelings, it could be really insightful!
Ulwick’s approach is so interesting. He and some of his partners adjusted an already existing methodology; it is not like they created this from scratch and came up with it themselves. It is based on the common knowledge of market research with certain tweaks here and there that make the methodology so revealing and interesting.
I think it makes so much sense to ask your customers, “what do they want the product to achieve for them”, instead of asking “what they want”. This simple question changes the whole approach of how to interview a customer and how to gather the right information. The methodology also contains similar market research ingredients, as defining the target market, analyzing quantitative data and identifying opportunities but I’m actually impressed with Ulwick’s article, his approach and methodology have been really enlightening. In my line of work I haven’t gotten involved with many market research studies and especially from an innovation or design perspective. I have limited knowledge on this subject but it makes much more sense to structure the research in this way. Customer-needs being the top priority, instead of customer-wants.
Metaphorically Speaking
The ZMET methodology of Zaltman is a little bit more complicated to understand and I feel that a person who gets involved with this kind of market research needs to be more of a psychologist or sociologist than a sales person or customer research agent. This seems to be a more specialized kind of research with a longer time frame of preparation. Customers need to pay more attention and think more seriously about what they really think with the 12 images they need to take to the interview process. Even though the interview process is one-on-one, it seems that metaphors of how they feel of the images, what they think of an expansion of the pictures or what they see or smell with the picture makes me realize that research could be really accurate and could actually help understand what a customer feels and thinks from a brand or a product.
All these specifications might make this research more expensive and not simple to understand for upper management. Whoever is conducting the research needs to be really assertive concise with the results gathered from the interview.
ZMET is tough but very interesting and revealing, more of a display of images and understanding of feelings, it could be really insightful!
Kenna’s Dilemma
It is interesting to read that focus groups are not necessarily effective, especially since they have been a “useful” or “commonly used” technique in the past. I’m not really sure I agree with Blink in this article. It would be more interesting to check more data on real exercises vs. focus groups results. I do agree with him that a person who is locked in a “test” is more subtle to say whatever the product or brand wants to hear. In a discussion for the Strategic Management class, we were discussing how the Pepsi Challenge was biased because Pepsi products have more sugar and therefore, since it was only a taste and not the whole can, many customers preferred Pepsi because our taste glands are more sensitive to a “sugarish” feeling. Also customers were in a controlled environment where you can’t sit down and watch TV or have something to eat.
I do believe that Kenna’s dilemma is an issued, and a probable solution to this problem could be to have real focus groups in a restaurant or a bar when a person asks for the product. I know this idea could be really hard to implement, but it could be a solution to this problem. Interesting but doubtful. I guess I need more data!
It is interesting to read that focus groups are not necessarily effective, especially since they have been a “useful” or “commonly used” technique in the past. I’m not really sure I agree with Blink in this article. It would be more interesting to check more data on real exercises vs. focus groups results. I do agree with him that a person who is locked in a “test” is more subtle to say whatever the product or brand wants to hear. In a discussion for the Strategic Management class, we were discussing how the Pepsi Challenge was biased because Pepsi products have more sugar and therefore, since it was only a taste and not the whole can, many customers preferred Pepsi because our taste glands are more sensitive to a “sugarish” feeling. Also customers were in a controlled environment where you can’t sit down and watch TV or have something to eat.
I do believe that Kenna’s dilemma is an issued, and a probable solution to this problem could be to have real focus groups in a restaurant or a bar when a person asks for the product. I know this idea could be really hard to implement, but it could be a solution to this problem. Interesting but doubtful. I guess I need more data!
Fernando - The length is right at the minimum guideline, but somehow the content feels light - or maybe a bit superficial. You definitely make some good points, but it feels like you were rushing through each of the 3 articles. I'd like to see a little more synthesis across the various sources. I know I read several sentences a few times trying to figure out exactly what you meant.
ReplyDelete