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?
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Thursday 6 October 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)