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

Super Bowl Squares: The Secrets to Winning Big

Posted by Jim Garrity

Tue, Jan 28, 2014

Super Bowl 2014 XLVIIAnother Super Bowl weekend is upon us and it’s another year that my team isn’t in it. Worse yet a dear friend (and client) of mine forced me into an early-season wager pitting my poor team against her juggernaut Denver Broncos, to see who would have a better season. Unfortunately, the Pats are out of the Super Bowl, and I am out one lobster dinner. 

Luckily, I’ve got a cunning plan to recoup that loss and I’m happy to share it: your office's Super Bowl Squares. I can hear you already “Jim, Super Bowl Squares have all the strategy of the card game War!" But I’m here to explain how you can get an edge in this classic living-room lottery. So if you are looking to get a leg up on your best friend, 86 year old aunt, or 13 year old nephew you’ve stumbled onto the right blog. 

At CMB we pride ourselves on turning data into actionable decisions. So with that backdrop in mind:

You already know that some combinations are preferred over others (specifically combinations containing zeros, threes, and sevens).  But do you know how much better one combination is than another? Well, assuming you are in one of the pools that pays out quarterly here’s what you need to know:

There are 28 combinations that have a positive expectation. That is, if you had one of these combinations every year, you’d expect to win more money than you lost (of course that assumes you are playing for money, which obviously none of us are!). Anyway, here are the 28 combinations that you should feel pretty good about:

7-0/0-7

0-0

3-0/0-3

7-7

7-4/4-7

7-3/3-7

4-0/0-4

4-1/1-4

3-3

4-3/3-4

7-1/1-7

6-0/0-6

4-4

6-3/3-6

1-0/0-1

7-6/6-7

But what if you don’t have one of those combinations?  Well, this is where the “turning data into actionable decisions” part comes in…There are 5 combinations worth paying a substantial premium for. Yes, that’s right if you aren’t lucky enough to get a good combination you might consider taking action and finding someone who isn’t good at math (or hasn’t read this blog) and buying their combination. Below are the five combinations that each have an expectation of at least 4x. So if you can separate Aunt Millie or little Bobby from one of these squares for anything less than 4 times the per square price, you’ll be doing ok.

7-0/0-7

0-0

3-0/0-3

However, maybe you’ve been lucky enough to land one of these top 5 combinations and you're watching the game with people who overvalue these combinations.  I’ve already told you that you should be willing to pay up to 4x for each, but what if you wanted to sell?  Since only 0-0 has an expectation greater than 7x, try to get someone to pay in excess of 7 times the buy-in for the others. For 0-0, get at least 9x.

Lastly, maybe you are one of those people who like to zig when others zag. Here are two combinations that have a close to even money expectation (actually around .8), but may seem to others to be far worse. Perhaps you could make someone an offer of 50 cents on the dollar for one of these:

3-1/1-3

4-6/6-4

Whatever you do, stay warm, enjoy the game, don’t eat too much, and NEVER drink and drive.  Good luck!

Jim is VP of CMB’s Financial Services practice, he'll be watching the big game on Sunday...and DVRing Downton Abbey.

Topics: television, digital media and entertainment research

CRE Research: Following the Path of Mobile Content

Posted by Chris Neal

Mon, Aug 26, 2013

It’s always exciting when we get the opportunity to conduct research that garners interest from everyone from the guy staring at his tablet on the train to the executives of the largest media companies in the world. We got that chance, when CMB partnered with the Council for Research Excellence to lead a study exploring how mobile media devices (tablets, phones, and laptops) impact overall television viewing behavior.

Highlights of the study include:

  • Mobile TV viewers tend to be younger (mean age 35), higher income professionals with graduate degrees, and reflect more ethnic diversity than non-mobile-TV users;

  • Mobile TV viewers are often heavy overall TV viewers and are more likely than non-mobile-TV viewers to be TV show opinion leaders and to use social media to talk about TV.

  • Viewers are more commonly engaged when watching TV on a mobile device than when watching on a television set: they are less commonly doing unrelated tasks on other devices, and more commonly doing activities related to the show they are watching (e.g., looking up info about the show, posting about the show on social networks, etc.) when on a mobile device.

You can download the report here: TV Untethered: Following the Path of Mobile Content

Watch the presentation here: 

 

Posted by Chris Neal. Chris leads CMB’s Tech Practice. He enjoys spending time with his two kids and rock climbing.

Topics: technology research, mobile, digital media and entertainment research

Did a Movie Move the Market?

Posted by Jonah Lundberg

Tue, Aug 06, 2013

popcorn

In March of 2011 a movie was released in theaters, with all the hallmarks of box office success, it starred a handsome Hollywood newcomer and a seasoned Hollywood veteran, it had an intriguing plot, and it was released during the traditionally uncompetitive winter/spring movie season. So, when the movie, Limitless, debuted at #1, it was no surprise.

Now this sounds like a typical Hollywood hit, but there was something about this movie that made me (self-proclaimed movie buff since age 8) pay a bit more attention. The main plot device was a product: an experimental drug that allows the user to use 100 percent of his brain, and this product played a crucial role in character development and the overall plot. Could this movie increase demand for a similar type of drug in the real world, specifically for a segment of the US population that previously hadn’t been very demanding of that product? In short, could this movie make a target market aware of a need that they didn’t even know they had before?Fired-up about this epiphany like Peter Finch in Network, I boldly predicted to a friend that a certain company might actually run short of supply of the drug, because the movie would uncover previously unknown needs to a large segment of the US population, and that segment would consequently want to start buying like the floor traders at the end of Trading Places. (Yup: two movie references, one sentence.) After all, I had previously seen the effect that movies could have on product demand in the past:

  • Top Gun = approximate 500% increase in the number of Naval aviator applications to the US Navy as well as a 40% increase in sales of Ray-Ban Aviator sunglasses (in a decade that had been decidedly keen on Ray-Ban Wayfarers, which themselves were allegedly given a sales boost after Tom wore them in 1983’s Risky Business)

  • Lord of the Rings = 40% increase in New Zealand tourism from 2001 to 2006

  • Field of Dreams = an isolated cornfield in the middle of Iowa that gets 60,000+(!) visitors per year

  • 300 = sudden spike in GoogleTrends for Mark Twight and his CrossFit-like workouts that made the actors look like Spartan warriors

  • And then of course there is the sad story of what Supersize Me did for the demand of ol’ McDonald’s Big Mac and its friends

So, I had seen this sort of thing before, and – wouldn’t you know it – about three months after opening night, this certain company publicly announced to its stockholders that it did not have enough supply to meet demand for the drug: they were plum out!

Coincidence? I think not! Well, at least I didn’t think so at the time. You see, I wasn’t a market researcher yet, so I didn’t really consider the hundreds of variables that could be involved in the outcome of something (in this case, that “something” being a company’s unexpected shortage of a certain type of product). Besides, it was a pretty bold and insightful prediction, it wouldn’t be the first time a movie drove up demand for something! So, the fact that my prediction actually came true gave credence and justification (at least in my own mind at the time) to the fact that the movie must have had the effect that I predicted it would!

 

Well, now that I have a few market research years under my belt, I see the situation a bit differently. In the article “Advertising Analytics 2.0” from the March 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review, I was happy to see that they DID talk about movies having an effect on product sales…but “cinema” is only one of hundreds of variables that are taken into account and run in a software analytics engine that determines the true weight and importance of each variable. So, the only way to determine whether or not the “movie variable” was actually significant in Limitless would be to get fancy and use some of those new Analytics 2.0 techniques, run an analysis of the effects of all the possible variables – and, after watching CMB’s analytics team in action, I can tell you that this means a lot of variables. Any of which could have played a part in either an increase in demand or a shortage in supply or both happening simultaneously. There are a few possible scenarios that led to a shortage in supply, and a lot of different variables that could’ve caused each of those scenarios to occur.

So, is it crazy to think that movies have the potential to dramatically increase demand for a product, when the right conditions are met within the movie? Well…maybe; for Supersize Me, the effect is obvious, but for Limitless, the effect of drivers is not perfectly clear and the conclusions are obtainable yet less certain. But, what’s important is the fact that sometimes, completely unbeknownst to anybody – there could be an unforeseen variable or set of variables out there, and they could ultimately have a profound effect on your product or industry. It could be a shift in consumer viewing habits, it could be a general economic shift, or maybe, just maybe, it could be a movie. Either way, you won’t know until you start asking the right questions and digging through all the possible variables.

Jonah is a Senior Associate Researcher, he’s been a movie buff since he saw India Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark when he was 8 years old. (If you ever need a “movie guy” on your trivia team, he’s your man.)

Planning on joining us in Nashville for TMRE?
Use our discount code for 25% off admission.

TMRE 2013

Topics: advanced analytics, marketing science, digital media and entertainment research

TV Untethered: The Majority of Mobile TV Viewing is Happening at Home

Posted by Kristen Garvey

Wed, Jun 05, 2013

CRE Logo

This weekend, my 10 year old Jack sat on our comfy couch with a big screen TV just feet way, but he chose to curl up with the iPad to watch his episode of Star Wars.  In just a few clicks of the remote he could have watched it in HD on a beautiful big screen. I found myself wondering why. Was it a few clicks too many to reach On Demand?  Was it just more convenient to pick up the iPad and watch his show in a few taps? There’s no doubt consumer behavior is changing when it comes to how we watch TV and the big screen doesn’t always win.

This week the Council for Research Excellence (CRE) released a study they commissioned Chadwick Martin Bailey to run to understand the impact of mobile media devices on overall TV viewing behavior. Next week Chris Neal, leader of CMB’s Technology and Telecom practice will be joining Laura Cowan, research director at LIN Media and co-chair of the CRE’s Media Consumption and Engagement Committee at the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) Audience Measurement 8.0 conference to present the results. The conference takes place June 10-11, 2013 in New York City.

This study indicates that Jack is not alone in choosing the iPad over the big screen. In fact the study found the majority of “mobile” TV viewing occasions happen at home—82%  of tablet TV viewing occasions happen in-home and even 64% of smartphone viewing occasions happen here.  One of the key drivers of that choice is simply convenience:  it’s easy, the television set might be in use by someone else, and/or some consumers don’t have the same online streaming capabilities to their TV that they have on mobile devices. Check out more results of the study here.

“Much of the TV being watched on mobile devices is currently being distributed by online subscription services (e.g., Netflix, Hulu),” according to Neal. “There are opportunities for networks, pay TV providers (e.g., cable, satellite, fiber) and content owners to boost their libraries available via mobile devices and make their mobile apps more compelling so they don’t lose audience share as consumer viewing habits change.”

New Age of TV

 

Interested in learning more? Check out the ARF Audience Measurement conference next week in New York and download CMB’s self-funded research on this New Age of Television

 

 

Kristen is CMB's VP of Marketing, a mom of two, and enjoys streaming content through Amazon Prime on the rare occasion she can get her iPad from Jack. Follow her on Twitter: @KristenGarvey

Topics: mobile, Consumer Pulse, television, digital media and entertainment research

The 2013 Boston Red Sox: Building Brand Loyalty off the Field

Posted by Jen Golden

Tue, May 07, 2013

Fenway ParkWhen the 820 consecutive home game sell-out streak ended on April 10th at Fenway Park (just two games into the 2013 season), the Boston Red Sox found themselves in a unique situation…Red Sox brand loyalty was no longer just a guaranteed thing.Since the Red Sox won the World Series in ’04 and again in ‘07, brand loyalty has come easy to the team – the fans were just there, happy to support their world champions.  But after a rocky end to the 2011 season and a weak 2012, loyalty has waned and the organization actually needs to re-build that loyalty again.

So where do they start?  Obviously on the field actions play tremendously into brand loyalty of any professional sports team. If the team is winning, fans will come to cheer them on and if the Red Sox continue their already hot start to the 2013 season that may help to re-build the loyalty all in itself.  But besides just winning games and acquiring new and exciting players to drive fans into the ballpark - what have the Sox done to keep Red Sox Nation committed and coming back to the brand?

  • Commitment to the brand’s heaviest users:  A new loyalty program has been put in place for the brand’s repeat purchasers (i.e., the devoted season ticket holders who come to game after game). Enrolled into a tiered loyalty program, they can earn points towards rewards (such as throwing out the first pitch at a game) every time they scan their loyalty card at the ball park or make a purchase at a concession stand. By committing to their heaviest users and brand advocates, the Red Sox are aiming to keep their best customers happy. 

  • In-Game Promotions:  To show fans they are valued and appreciated, the Red Sox put promotions in place at food stands around the ballpark for the start of the season, including Kids Eat Free and $5 Beers. Even with high ticket prices, these promotions might drive both new and old fans into the ballpark and provide them with a great customer experience once they are in the door of friendly Fenway Park.

  • Rebuilding brand trust:  Maybe most importantly, the red sox faithRed Sox have campaigned to bring trust back to its fans. The Red Sox have always had brand loyalty— even in the 86 year stretch without a World Series win – but trust kept those fans believing that soon their suffering would be over. After the 2012 season, many fans were left feeling that the team had quit on them and weren’t committed to winning.  To combat this mentality in 2013, commercial, print advertisements and billboards showcase players with the message that “What’s Broken Can Be Fixed” and “162 Ways to Restore the Faith.” New manager John Farrell has also promised to do everything he can to help the team win.  However, while this assurance and transparency with the fans is reassuring off the field, the team now must follow through with this commitment on the field to truly gain back the trust.  

Professional sport teams are a unique brand; sometimes no matter how much loyalty the Red Sox organization might try to create – advertising, loyalty programs, promotions, none of it will matter without a competitive team on the field.  However, it’s times like this when the Red Sox can show their dedicated fans they really are valued. They must maintain their brand advocates and deliver on their promise of a committed ball club in order to keep Red Sox Nation faithful even when the League Standings on the Green Monster might show the Red Sox slipping a few games behind the dreaded Yankees. 

Jen Golden is a Senior Associate Researcher at CMB. She’ll never forget the first time her Dad took her to her first Sox game and she saw the Green Monster for the first time – her brand loyalty for the team has never wavered since.

Interested in joining our team? We're hiring, check out the opportunities here on our Career page.

Topics: brand health and positioning, customer experience and loyalty, digital media and entertainment research

How to Catch a Catfish: Secrets of a Qualitative Researcher

Posted by Anne Hooper

Tue, Mar 12, 2013

catch a catfish

Those who know me understand that I am not afraid to admit I love reality TV.  Combine that love with an interest in pop culture (generally), and a passion for understanding what people do and WHY they do it, and you have a match made in heaven. So obviously Catfish—the MTV series —is right up my alley.

Talk of "Catfishing" seems to be everywhere these days, but for the uninitiated, I’ll give you the quick (Wikipedia) definition: “A Catfish is a person who creates fake profiles online and pretends to be someone they are not by using someone else’s pictures and information.”  Put simply:  Catfishing is a relationship built on deception.

So what does Catfishing have to do with online qual?

As a qualitative researcher, I have to build “relationships” with strangers all the time, both online and in-person.  I can guarantee you that these relationships are genuine, authentic and honest—at least from my end.  My ultimate goal is to better understand research participants as human beings—how they live, what they value, what makes them ‘tick’, etc.  Most of the time, I truly feel that those I’m spending time with (both online and offline) are also being authentic and honest with me. Notice I said most of the time

Though it doesn’t happen often, it IS possible to come across a phony (AKA “Catfish”) in an in-person setting.  There are some pretty savvy people out there who seem to know how to make their way into a focus group for some extra cash.  Thankfully it’s rare—and most of the time these folks get weeded out before they even enter the room.  Online qualitative research, on the other hand, is ripe for Catfish.  Unless we are conducting video web-based research, there aren’t any visual clues to help us validate identities.  Therefore, we can’t be 100% sure that the person we THINK we are talking to is really that person.

The good news is that as researchers, we can take measures to protect ourselves from these Catfish participants online—it just takes a little effort and creativity.  Here are a few methods I’ve used successfully in the past:  

  • Demographics:  If you have a participant that has an annual income of $50K and claims to spend an average of $10K a year on vacation, you’ve got yourself a red flag.  Taking the time to cross reference demographics with online responses can be extremely helpful in getting to the truth.

  • Common sense:  Individual responses don’t stand alone, but pulled together they create a story.  At the end of the day you either have a story that makes sense or you don’t, and a story that doesn’t make sense is another red flag.  Just as one would do when moderating an in-person group, there are times when you must revisit what someone said earlier, and if necessary, request clarification.  (In the immortal words of Judge Judy: “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true.”) 

  • Consistency:  A lack of consistency can be another red flag.  If a participant says one thing, but contradicts themselves sometime later, there might be a problem.  Here’s an example:  in a recent “vacation” detective magnifying glassstudy we had a participant who changed her dates of a travel a few times (not unusual).  She later confirmed purchasing a package (air, hotel, car) for a family of 5 one week prior to departure (somewhat fishy … especially for someone who was very price sensitive).  Her “confirmed” travel dates were from the 25th-30th of the month—and when she hadn’t checked in, as requested during that time, we reached out to her to find out that she was “already home” on the 29th.  Suspicious?  Very.  This lack of consistency—along with several other red flags—confirmed our suspicions that she was not being truthful and she was pulled from the study.  Again, to quote Judge Judy, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory.”

  • Engagement:  There are always going to be participants who choose to do the bare minimum in order to get their incentive.  However, a lack of engagement and openness—coupled with any additional red flags—requires some investigation.  Is the participant just taking the easy way out by answering questions in as few words as possible, or are they skipping key questions altogether?  Skipping key questions (e.g., “Tell us what you like best about product X”) could be a sign that they really don’t use product X after all.  Again, it’s important for the moderator to probe accordingly and if the probes go ignored … you guessed it … another red flag.

With online research (and plenty of Catfish) here to stay, we need to continue to be vigilant in crossing our T’s and dotting our i’s.  I, for one, am ready to catch them … hook, line and sinker.

Anne is CMB’s Qualitative Research Director.  She enjoys travel and thanks to DVR, never misses an episode of Judge Judy. Anne especially loves being able to truly “connect” with her research participants—it’s in her Midwestern blood.   

Learn more about Anne and her Qualitative Research team here.

Topics: qualitative research, television, digital media and entertainment research

Does Steven Spielberg Have What it Takes to be a Market Researcher?

Posted by Heather Magaw

Thu, Feb 21, 2013

By Heather Magaw

oscarsIt's Oscar week, time for me to reveal a few of the lesser-known parallels between two glamorous industries—Hollywood and Market Research.

Just as the Academy is abuzz about Lincoln and Argo, market researchers can't get enough of two topics: 1) Big Data and 2) Storytelling. You can’t go to a conference or read a blog without hearing at least 5 new takes on both concepts. For us, figuring out how to tell a compelling story with massive amounts of data is exciting stuff. Maybe we should recruit some big-name, box-office talent, like Steven Spielberg, to join the CMB ranks for our next Blockbuster client project.

What? You’re not convinced Mr. Spielberg is cut out for the life of a market researcher? Movie producers and directors sift through mountains of footage, leaving the vast majority of it on describe the imagethe cutting room floor; an extensive team effort transforms hundreds of hours of film into 90 minutes of entertainment. Really, it’s very similar to what we do every day at CMB: analyze mountains of complex data, synthesize it into a focused story, ultimately crafting a business decision focused research report.

At first blush, you may think that research reports don’t stack up to a movie for entertainment value, but for our research junkie clients and information needy executives, a well-written research report that helps them tackle their most difficult business challenges is often even more compelling than the latest blockbuster flick. The art of storytelling in a research report is just as important as it is to movies. Just as audiences would never willingly sit through hours upon hours of raw footage, business leaders have little appetite for sifting through reams of data tables.    

So, I ask, why shouldn’t we be recruiting Steven Spielberg as our next great Practice Leader or Senior Consultant at Chadwick Martin Bailey? As my colleague Athena mentioned last week, our neighborhood has served as a backdrop for a number of well-known movies, he might feel right at home.

Heather is VP of Client Services and always makes a point to read and finish the book before viewing movie adaptations.

suntrustlogo
Can't get enough excitement? Register for our upcoming webinar, February 28th at noon: Segmentation as a Strategic Change Agent, with Jeff VanDeVelde of SunTrust Bank.

Topics: Chadwick Martin Bailey, storytelling, digital media and entertainment research

Super Bowl Squares: Increase Your Odds of Winning

Posted by Jim Garrity

Fri, Feb 01, 2013

As we prepare for Super Bowl XLVII we thought we'd share, once again, Jim Garrity's tips for picking Super Bowl Squares. Originally published 4/4/2011.

Super Bowl XLVII 011 resized 600Super Bowl weekend is upon us and if you are like most Americans you’ll gather with friends/family to watch the game on Sunday evening whether you have a rooting interest or not.  Maybe you’re a football fan, maybe you’re simply a sports fan, or maybe you’re a fan of commercials.  Even if you’re not a fan of any of it, there are always Super Bowl squares to keep your interest focused on the game.  Ah yes, the classic “gamble” of Super Bowl squares contains all the strategy of the card game War, truly leveling the playing field.  But maybe you’re looking increase your odds of winning…some way to get a leg up on your best friend, 86 year old aunt or 13 year old nephew.  Well, if you are one of THOSE people you’ve stumbled onto the right blog.  At CMB we pride ourselves on turning data into actionable decisions.  So with that backdrop in mind...

You already know that some combinations are preferred over others (specifically combinations containing zeros, threes, and sevens).  But do you know how much better one combination is than another?  Well, assuming you are in one the pools that pays out quarterly here’s what you need to know:

There are 28 combinations that have a positive expectation.  That is, if you had one of these combinations every year, you’d expect to win more money than you lost (of course that assumes you are playing for money, which obviously none of us are!).  Anyway, here are the 28 combinations that you should feel pretty good about:

7-0/0-7

0-0

3-0/0-3

7-7

7-4/4-7

7-3/3-7

4-0/0-4

4-1/1-4

3-3

4-3/3-4

7-1/1-7

6-0/0-6

4-4

6-3/3-6

1-0/0-1

7-6/6-7

But what if you don’t have one of those combinations?  Well, this is where the “turning data into actionable decisions” part comes in… There are 5 combinations worth paying a substantial premium for.  Yes, that’s right if you aren’t lucky enough to get a good combination you might consider taking action and finding someone who isn’t good at math (or hasn’t read this blog) and buying their combination.  Below are the five combinations that each have an expectation of at least 4x.  So if you can separate Aunt Millie or little Bobby from one of these squares for anything less than 4 times the per square price, you’ll be doing ok.

7-0/0-7

0-0

3-0/0-3

However, maybe you’ve been lucky enough to land one of these top 5 combinations and you are watching the game with people who overvalue these combinations.  I’ve already told you that you should be willing to pay up to 4x for each, but what if you wanted to sell?  Since only 0-0 has an expectation greater than 7x, try to get someone to pay in excess of 7 times the buy-in for the others.  For 0-0, get at least 9x.

Lastly, maybe you are one of those people who like to zig when others zag.  Here are two combinations that have a close to even money expectation (actually around .8), but may seem to others to be far worse.   Perhaps you could make someone an offer of 50 cents on the dollar for one of these:

3-1/1-3

4-6/6-4

Whatever you do, stay warm, enjoy the game, don’t eat too much, and NEVER drink and drive.  Good luck!

Posted by Jim Garrity. Jim is VP of CMB’s Financial Services practice, never wears blue jeans to work, and is getting ready to make Aunt Millie an offer she can’t refuse…unless of course she reads this blog post

Topics: television, digital media and entertainment research

Belichick, Brady and the Patriot Way: A Culture that Breeds Success

Posted by Kristen Garvey

Thu, Jan 17, 2013

If you’re a Patriots fan you know there’s one thing that’s more consistent than Bill Belichick’s one word answers, it’s his mantra: Do your job. We’ve heard it a hundred times, and while it sounds simple, that kind of focus and trust in your team takes not only a special kind of leadership and management, but a clear understanding of the difference between the two.

 

As we move into this weekend with the highly anticipated match-up between the Ravens and the Patriots it’s clear success runs deep at Gillette Stadium; both rich in history and woven into the very fabric of the “Patriot Way”. It’s about leadership, management, mentoring and culture, but at its core the foundation of the Patriot Way is built on the trust that everyone on the team will “do their job”.

The Patriot Way resized 600

 

As Tom Brady says in the interview the message is simple: “You do your job so that everyone around you can do their job and when people trust each other you can play with anticipation and confidence.” That’s a pretty powerful statement, both on and off the football field. It speaks to their ability to focus and not worry about what everyone else is doing. There’s a lot that can be learned from the way the Patriots not only lead, but manage their success.

The Kraft family and Bill Belichick have built a culture that not only values leadership and management, but understands the differences between the two.  In a recent HBR Blog Management Is (Still) Not Leadership, Dr. John Kotter discusses this very point. Leadership is not something that is for those at the top of an organization; leadership should be fostered and cultivated throughout an organization. One could argue Belichick is not about leadership (and certainly not about charisma), but more about process, focus and management. He operationalizes success through having the team focus on doing their job. While leadership is something that must start at the top, no organization can afford to have it stay at the top. Listening to that clip it’s clear the Patriots have a deep bench when it comes to leadership.

Since we are Market Researchers and everyone loves numbers to back up observations, here are some numbers to chew on:

10 AFC East titles since Belichick became coach in 2000

5 Super Bowl appearances

3 Super Bowl Championships

To put this into perspective in the previous 40 years before he became coach the Patriots won the AFC East 4 times and lost in their 2 Super Bowl appearances. How’s that for doing your job! Go Pats!

Kristen is CMB's VP of Marketing, a mom of two, loves the Patriots, and is focused on doing her job. Follow her on Twitter: @KristenGarvey

Topics: consumer insights, digital media and entertainment research

Predicting Championship Weekend-Segmentation Style

Posted by Sean Kearney

Tue, Jan 15, 2013

After 19 weeks, we’re finally ready to see which two teams will meet on Super Bowl Sunday, battling it out to determine the NFL’s best. I'm really looking forward to February 3rd, because I love football, and because I've got a new take on looking at the teams. After 3 years at CMB, it’s not surprising that a market research perspective has crept into a few areas of my non-work life. Case in point, I found myself thinking about how the NFL season compared to deciding on a segmentation scheme.

I got my first experience with a segmentation project last year, and I found the process of evaluating the different schemes particularly interesting. The schemes that move past the initial round of evaluation often have a few things in common, but there is usually a differentiating factor that makes each scheme unique. In the end, the winning scheme will be the overall strongest of the bunch based on how it supports key business decisions like audience prioritization, messaging and targeting. Evaluation in the NFL is simpler— more points wins.

In the NFL, the 12 teams that make it to the playoffs also have a few things in common. A team usually needs strong (or at least competent) quarterback play to make it to the playoffs, as well as strong coaching. As of this week, we have four teams that definitely have those two factors, but there are distinguishing factors as well:

 

Atlanta Falcons

 

Atlanta Falcons
The Falcons have a dynamic passing attack led by a quarterback who seems to be reaching his full potential this year, along with two Pro Bowl caliber receivers and a Hall of Fame tight end.  This gives the offense the ability to go downfield with ease, which helps to open up running lanes for Michael Turner and Jaquizz Rodgers.

 

 

San Francisco 49ers
San Francisco 49ers

The 49ers spent Saturday night putting the rest of the NFL on notice; they finally have an explosive offense to match their bruising defense. With Colin Kaepernick at quarterback, the 49ers have the ability to make big plays on the ground or through the air. They have arguably the best offensive line in the league, with a coach who is a creative offensive mind that takes advantage of this strength.

 

 

Baltimore RavensBaltimore Ravens
The Ravens have a reputation of being a strong defensive team that does enough on offense to win. This year has been kind of a change of pace, with the offense carrying a number of games. The defense is as healthy as it’s been all year, but I would say the offense is still the better of the two units on this team. Joe Flacco has the ability to throw the ball down the field and is a proven playoff performer, and they have a strong running game with Ray Rice.

 

 

New England PatriotsNew England Patriots
No other team can score like the Patriots. Just last weekend they showed they have guys on the bench, like Shane Vereen, who can come into the game and make plays. They have the best quarterback (by far) of the remaining four teams, and enough offensive personnel to run any number of different formations and plays. The scary part about this team is how well their defense is playing. With that combination of two strong units, this team doesn’t have any glaring flaws to point out.

 

Taking a look at these four teams, I think two stand out. If I were picking my ideal team/scheme I would want to use the Patriots or the 49ers models for victory. If I’m right these two teams will meet in the Super Bowl, which would make for a great game.

Sean is a Senior Associate Researcher at CMB. His lackluster high school football career, spent mostly on the sidelines, led him to the hobby of amateur football analysis. He is a lifelong 49ers fan, but this bias barely affected his prediction.  

Learn more about our proven approach to Segmentation Research.

Topics: television, market strategy and segmentation, digital media and entertainment research