Tuesday 27 August 2013

ASDA’s Chosen By Kids underlines importance of authentic consumer 
insight



ASDA’s announcement that it is launching a 180-strong children’s food range 
incorporating products taste-tested by children themselves underlines the
importance for both brands and retailers of authentic consumer insights as part
 of the new product development process.



The retailer has announced that its new line, an extension of its existing Chosen By You 
range, had been subjected to extensive independent taste testing by young 
children before their parents gave their own approval.



To get authentic and valuable insights to inform your NPD or marketing
strategies, brands and retailers need to know and understand their audiences to
the extent that they can form proper relationships with them. A qualitative research approach 
particularly when the demographic you are trying to reach is so young can help
 fast-track these insights, by facilitating detailed face to face interaction 
between clients and consumers.

It is important to ensure that products are tested in as natural
 an environment as possible for the consumer and to ensure that different aspects
 of the products being tested are linked to purchase intent. In this way, brands 
will know which dimensions are driving interest and, therefore, which elements
 are the most crucial to get right. For example if the crunchiness of a topping 
is the most important element of a product and is therefore the feature that is 
driving most purchase interest, it is vital that this is absolutely right.


Although younger children particularly can't necessarily tell you too much, how
 much they eat and how willingly remains a good indicator.

However, even though this is a range chosen by kids, ASDA will be aware that parental involvement is also critical, especially with the Mum’s role
 as gatekeeper trying to achieve the balance between what she wants in food for
her child and what the child will actually eat.

This is the age of the informed consumer, who, largely due to the availability
 of social platforms as a way of disseminating views and comparing one brand
 against another, has more power than at any point previously and who is
increasingly unafraid of using it. Whilst a relatively small proportion of
consumers are as yet moved to post regular product reviews, many more look at 
them before buying, whilst a quick glance through the supermarket websites shows
that just about anything is worthy of comment and expectations are high. Nothing 
will get parents talking to their friends more – for better or for worse- than
 the quality of products being sold for their children.

Wednesday 14 August 2013

Neuroscience sounds great but it’s not the panacea for all research ills

There was an interesting piece in Marketing Magazine recently by Mhairi McEwan, chief executive and co-founder of Brand Learning, which discussed the way the world of customer insight is being influenced by two apparently conflicting forces: neuroscience and big data.

In her article, McEwan set out the differences between a neuroscientific approach with its subconscious associations, beliefs and emotional triggers influencing our behaviours, and data, where prediction analytics can be used to predict behaviour. Her view is that “neuroscience explains a quick, more intuitive style, whereas big data can drive a slower, more analytic style”.

As researchers and marketers, we are in the business of understanding why consumers do certain things. This is going to be a mix of rational reasons (which can be accessed by direct questions) and less rational reasons (which can't so easily be accessed by direct questions). The upshot of that is that no one approach used in isolation will give you the rounded findings you need. That's why at Engage we prefer to create bespoke solutions according to the particular brief and then using the tools most to appropriate to that brief, rather than advocating any one tool over another.

There’s no doubt that mention of neuroscientific approaches impresses potential clients. It also gives a clear impression that we as an industry we are progressing, but at present it remains a very small part of research, and actually not used by many. The reality is that the tools at our disposal are only as useful as the questions we ask. The neuroscientific approach is useful in gauging people’s reactions but it does not give any idea of those reactions within any kind of context or if a subsequent conversation with someone else causes you to reappraise your thoughts. The data approach may be lacking in this but it will give you more of a balance view based on the responses of many more people.

We need to achieve some balance and recognise that neuroscience is just another tool if you have access to using it. It is not the holy grail of research, as more than one person has espoused at times "it can tell you what people are thinking even when they can't". As McEwan’s article points out, for most marketers all tools can be useful; no one tool is the panacea. There is no universally conclusive tool for all situations and, as researchers and marketers, we should always keep that in mind.

Ends