WELCOME TO OUR BLOG!

The posts here represent the opinions of CMB employees and guests—not necessarily the company as a whole. 

Subscribe to Email Updates

BROWSE BY TAG

see all

Relatability, Desirability and Finding the Perfect Match

Posted by Dr. Jay Weiner

Tue, Feb 13, 2018

hearts-cropped-1.jpg

Dear Dr. Jay:

It’s Valentine’s Day, how do I find the one ones that are right for me?

-Allison N.


Dear Allison,

In our pursuit of love, we’re often reminded to keep an open mind and that looks aren’t everything.

This axiom also applies to lovestruck marketers looking for the perfect customer. Often, we focus on consumer demographics, but let’s see what happens when we dig below the surface.

For example, let’s consider two men who:

  • Were born in 1948
  • Grew up in England
  • Are on their Second Marriage
  • Have 2 children
  • Are Successful in Business
  • Are Wealthy
  • Live in a Castle
  • Winter in the Alps
  • Like Dogs

On paper these men sound like they’d have very similar tastes in products and services–they are the same age, nationality, and have common interests. But when you learn who these men are, you might think differently.

The men I profiled are the Prince of Darkness, Ozzy Osbourne, and Prince Charles of Wales. While both men sport regal titles and an affinity for canines, they are very different individuals.

Now let’s consider two restaurants. Based on proprietary self-funded research, we discovered that both restaurants’ typical customers are considered Sporty, Athletic, Confident, Self-assured, Social, Outgoing, Funny, Entertaining, Relaxed, Easy-going, Fun-loving, and Joyful. Their top interests include: Entertainment (e.g., movies, TV) and dining out. Demographically their customers are predominately single, middle-aged men.

One is Buffalo Wild Wings, the other, Hooters. Both seem to appeal to the same group of consumers and would potentially be good candidates for cross-promotions—maybe even an acquisition.

What could we have done to help distinguish between them? Perhaps a more robust attitudinal battery of items or interests would have helped. 

Or, we could look through a social identity lens.

We found that in addition to assessing customer clarity, measuring relatability and desirability can help differentiate brands:

  • Relatability: How much do you have in common with the kind of person who typically uses Brand X?
  • Social Desirability: How interested would you be in making friends with the kind of person who typically uses Brand X?

When we looked at the scores on these two dimensions, we saw that Buffalo Wild Wings scores higher than Hooters:BWW vs hooters1.png

Meaning, while the typical Buffalo Wild Wings customer is demographically like a typical Hooters customer, the typical Hooters customer is less relatable and socially desirable.  This isn’t necessarily bad news for Hooters–it simply means that it has a more targeted niche appeal than Buffalo Wild Wings. 

The main point is that it helps to look beyond demographics and understand identity—who finds you relatable and desirable. As we see in the Buffalo Wild Wings and Hooters example, digging deeper into the dimensions of social identity can uncover more nuanced niches within a target audience—potentially uncovering your “perfect match”. 

Topics: Dear Dr. Jay, Identity, consumer psychology

The Anchoring Effect—Avoiding Bias in Market Research

Posted by Hannah Russell

Thu, Feb 08, 2018

anchor.jpeg

Consider the following questions:

  1. Did Thomas Edison patent more or fewer than 7,000 inventions?
  2. To the best of your ability, estimate the number of inventions patented by Edison.

Unless you retained your 7th grade social studies knowledge, you’d probably have a tough time answering. But based on the context given in question 1, you may guess somewhere in the several thousand range. Why is that?

As Nobel Prize winning author Daniel Kahneman explains, this is an example of the anchoring effect—a cognitive bias in which humans tend to rely on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. The detail (e.g. number) we automatically “anchor” to then influences subsequent decisions.

So, in the Edison example, according to the anchoring effect, the “7,000” in the first question impacted your answer to the second question.

Consider then, if instead the first question had been: “Did Thomas Edison patent more or fewer than 100 inventions?” Your answer to the second question would likely be a lot less than what it had been in the first scenario.

Our perceptions are often influenced by the stimuli we are exposed to—both consciously and subconsciously. Sometimes, though, this information is useless in helping us make correct judgements (such as the number 7,000 in the example above). Even if we’re aware of an external influence, it can be hard to discount.

As market researchers, we have an obligation to manage and mitigate this type of bias to preserve the integrity of our data.

When creating a survey, we try to avoid anchoring respondents in a particular number (or other pieces of information) and are careful in the way that we order questions. If we’re exposing respondents to various numbers (which is often the case in pricing research), we rely heavily on analytical techniques that ensure randomization and exposure to multiple scenarios.

Ultimately, we can’t avoid priming effects altogether—there is no such thing has 100% unbiased data. But, we need to keep these psychological biases in mind when designing, implementing and presenting data. By recognizing the downstream consequences of something like the anchoring effect, we’re better positioned to find truthful and actionable insights for clients.

Hannah Russell is a Project Manager at CMB who indeed retained her seventh grade social studies knowledge. Thomas Edison accumulated 2,232 patents worldwide, 1,093 of which were in the US.”

Topics: consumer insights, research design, consumer psychology