Kyle Nel
Time and time again in multiple organisations I have seen “good but not great” research results that lead to business decisions that do not move the proverbial needle for the retailer/brand/organisation.
Why? If people like “it”, and say that they would likely buy/do whatever it is we asked in the research, why would they fail to do so in the real world? Simply put: people/consumers/customers have more good choices than they have ever had in the history of mankind. People do not have to buy things they just like; they can opt to spend their precious resources on things they love. Liking something won’t necessarily change behaviour, but the emotional responses of love and hate will.
In the post WWII USA, just about whatever was produced by food CPG companies was consumed. The consumer demand was so high that even feeling ok about a product would more than get the sales needed to sustain a business. As time passed and manufacturing capacity dramatically increased the inverse happened to demand. Consumers became choosier—because they could. There were, and are, more and more products competing for the same relative number of consumers. As a result those products that were better than—those products/services that consumers actually liked—did far better than the “ok” alternative. Darwinian product selection is now at a point where consumers have chosen to consume/purchase/patronize only brands they love, and the remaining “ok” brands have died out.
In this new world of love, why do we still focus so much on metrics of “like”? I think the answer lies within a legacy of methodology and process. We are doing what has always been done because it works. We may be reaching a point where “like” won’t work anymore. If anything, we should spend more time understanding the things people really hate so that we can solve those problems for people, thus turning hate into love.
The simple truth is that most ideas will not be superstars. Most ideas will fall into the “ok” or “like” buckets. By the very definition of extraordinary, those ideas/products/concepts that truly break through will be rare. It is my firm belief that just because these are rare doesn’t mean we should settle for anything less.
What are some solutions? New methodologies are breaking through. BrainJuicer, for example, as the veritable standard bearer for the new MR revolution, is turning old notions and methodologies on their head, and buyers of MR are joining its ranks—because these new methods work.
Am I off base? What do you think? What do you see as the future of MR?
Kyle Nel is Head of International and Multicultural Research for Lowe’s Home Improvement in USA
12 comments
[…] /2012/01/17/why-i-hate-like/ […]
Great article by Kyle Nel. Market researchers must really examine the emotions behind propensity to buy. Is it likeability or loveability or something else at play that an ordinary survey question won’t be able to extract out? Too many researchers rely on this outdated “like” metric and I’ve personally so many new and promising concepts fall by the wayside because likeability was the sole criterion. I agree with Kyle that identifying the “hate” touchpoints may reveal the true “love” touchpoints among consumers.
[…] /2012/01/17/why-i-hate-like/ Gostar disso:GostoSeja o primeiro a gostar disso post. CategoriasDashboard Comentários (0) Trackbacks (0) Deixe um comentário Trackback […]
Hi Kyle, the article by Richard Wilk: Richard R. Wilk, A Critique of Desire: Distaste and Dislike in Consumer Behavior (in: Consumption Markets & Culture, 2000, Vol 1 nr. 2 p. 175-196)
Yes, I absolutely agree that MR should spend more time understanding the things people really hate or dislike. Not because to solve those problems for people, and turning hate into love, but because dislike is a much stronger and more reliable emotion than like. Furthermore, like or dislike do not form simple, complementary pairs. Based on a long term study Wilk (2000) argues that what people do not want to consume is often as personally and socially more important than what they desire. Survey data show that distastes, aversions, and dislikes are much more socially diagnostic than positive desires. Wilk state that dislikes and distastes are not the mirror images of tastes and desire, but instead provide very different ways for people to express identity and difference, to create senses of self, space, and personal and social time. We developed a new evolutionary psychology based methodology for consumer motivation research based on dislike and experience that the results are very reliable and consistent.
Thank you for your commecnt Marie-Anne. What was the name of the paper published by Wilk? It sounds like it is just what I have been looking for. Thanks!
Liking is just the beginning of a very complex journey. Remember we liked so many cute girls or cool hunks in college but did we marry all of them or worse any of them. Most cases the answer in a big “NO”. Likewise Consumers are exposed to clutters of advertisement which are sometimes nerve shattering. Making your target consumer like a commercial is just like successfully setting up the base camp before climbing the mighty Everest. Liking can generate awareness that’s for sure but soon after this comes the thousand dollar question of “consideration”. Did she consider the product or she just enjoyed a free show over a bowl of pop corn?? Highly recalled ads sometimes make less money for the advertiser & more for the models.
Thank you for your comment. I am going to use your superb quote “Highly recalled ads sometimes make less money for the advertiser & more for the models” at least 3 times this week! Thanks!
Rightfully said, but the “Like” metric may not be right one but concentrating on the extremes Hate vs Love usually drive insights indeed. Very much like in customer satisfaction research, where understanding dissatisfaction rather than “satisfaction” only usually drives insights.
I think you are bang on, but where do the inertia buyers who don’t appear to respond to anything fit in – even like and OK don’t register with them? I’m working on involvement with the product – as an emotional measure – and looking at using this as a segementation tool so differing marketing messages can be targetted based on the level on their involvement
Thank you for your comment. I would love to learn more about your segmentation model. Let me know when it is ready.
Thank you for your comment. Do you have any suggestions for gathering better negative or dis-satisfaction feedback from customers?