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

Josh Fortey

Recent Posts

Fast-Moving, Slow-Thinking: How Friction, Challenges, and Barriers Derail Customer Journeys

Posted by Josh Fortey

Thu, Jun 25, 2020

The modern consumer journey is as fast as it’s ever been. Faster internet and an “always connected” mentality have ushered us into an age where consumers quickly transition through the phases of the consumer journey; an evolution that Google dubs “Impatient Consumers”.

Just this week I was reminded of the hyper-speed at which modern consumer journeys occur as I upgraded my phone, and compared it to the first smartphone I ever bought. It couldn’t have looked anything less like my first journey towards a Blackberry 8800 purchase (a top of the line phone for the time I will add…). My first phone journey involved visits to electronic and phone carrier stores, trialing and testing numerous handsets, and speaking to friends, family and sales associates about the best brands or models. And sure, my most recent phone purchase experience could have looked something like this, but it didn’t. After some googling, watching tech influencers breakdown product, and some final product and price comparisons, my most recent smartphone path-to-purchase was complete within just a few hours.

F_S Thinking Social 2 Photos

Though these two journeys are nothing alike, there are a number of common themes that underpin decision-making. At CMB, we look at this decision-making mentality through a continuum of Fast or Slow Thinking:

FS Thanking Chart

Fast-thinking (i.e. System 1) is the more instinctive, emotional, and impulsive decision-making that is more commonly associated with early-stage consumer journey decisions (e.g., do I pay attention to an ad, do I click on a video review). As we shift into the later stages of the consumer journey, where we evaluate and form purchase criteria, we become more critical and deliberate, shifting into the slow-thinking mindset of addressing concerns or weighing the benefits.

In slow-thinking, the consumer journey can become more challenging and can ultimately derail the entire journey. Our recent self-funded consumer journey research, A Gamer’s Journey, identified three examples of this.

FRICTION:

As consumers shift into the critical and deliberative slow-thinking mindset, they begin to put substantially more effort into weighing the benefits and disadvantages of different options. This increased effort can begin to create points of friction in which challenges are met, and barriers formed. In our gamer journey research we observed both buyers and non-buyers encountering friction, however, it was universal across all gaming categories that the more friction a consumer encountered, the more likely they were to ultimately drop out of the journey:

Friction FS Thinking

To prevent friction-churn, we must focus on making the consumer journey as seamless as possible; this involves isolating and remedying any challenges consumers may face.

CHALLENGES:

Challenges are the components of the consumer journey that make it difficult to learn, evaluate, and inform decision-making; they lead to hesitation or barriers that could cost your brand. We found that those who felt more intense friction experienced almost 2.5 times more challenges through the consumer journey than those who felt less friction. For cloud gaming, some of these slow-thinking challenges were more heavily related to trusting customer reviews, comparing service providers, but importantly (especially for an emerging category), finding product roadmaps and updates. Potential cloud gamers still indicated some hesitancy about whether developers will remain dedicated to advancing the technology, and if game studios will begin developing or porting games to the platform.

Challenges FS Thinking

PURCHASE BARRIERS:

In any consumer journey there is a critical juncture where a final decision gets made. It’s at this point where the consumer has either overcome any (or enough of) the rational fears that cause hesitation and purchase, or they encounter a significant enough barrier that prevents their purchase or results in a competitor winning. Slow-thinking occurs in both of these scenarios: either you’ve succeeded or failed at rationally persuading consumers enough to overcome their barriers.

Revisiting cloud gaming again, the top barrier to adoption within this category is indecision. Consumers remain skeptical about the future of the technology and question the performance benefits or effectiveness of current solutions. The positive for cloud gaming is that many gamers aren’t completely rejecting it, rather, they’re waiting for the tech to prove itself, and/or for more compelling arguments to emerge, and convince them of purchasing.

Barriers FS Thinking

MAKE FAST-MOVING, SLOW-THINKING AN ADVANTAGE

No matter the speed or channel(s) at which today’s journey happens, consumers will always be faced with making decisions. Challenges exist at both ends of the fast and slow thinking spectrum: capturing attention and driving consideration when consumers are thinking fast, and overcoming fears, pain points and barriers when consumers are thinking slow. Brands that comprehend and tackle both of these, are the brands that will win the consumer journey. To learn more about integrating a Fast+Slow Thinking framework in your consumer journey work, contact us here.


Josh ForteyJosh Fortey is an Account Director at CMB, and avid gamer.

Follow CMB on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter for the latest news and updates. Also, read "Expanding Possibilities in Path to Purchase Research" to know what to consider in the new path to purchase.

Don't forget to immerse yourself in our latest gaming research: A Gamer's Journey | The Virtual Reality Edition. And stayed tuned for more of our findings--VR and beyond.

Explore A Gamer's Journey

Sample provided by Dynata

Topics: technology research, path to purchase, consumer insights, Consumer Pulse, Market research, consumer psychology, Gaming, consumer journey, Fast+Slow Thinking

Crossing the Chasm: Is VR Gaming Finally on the Precipice of Adoption?

Posted by Josh Fortey

Thu, May 14, 2020

Blog Opener

You’ve heard it countless times: “this is the year for VR,” “2020 is finally the year that VR will break through,” “the VR revolution is upon us.” These messages have consistently reverberated over the past 5 years, but virtual reality (VR) headsets have never quite managed to abandon the hype train. There are three reasons that help to explain why VR has stuttered:

  • Hardware has often been clunky or uncomfortable
  • High cost to entry has detracted many potential adopters
  • A lack of AAA or blockbuster games, experiences, and content

While head-mounted VR displays have existed since the late 1960’s, modern VR headsets as we know them can be more definitively traced back to Palmer Luckey and the initial Oculus Rift prototype. After a $2.4 million kickstart campaign, the company would be purchased in 2014 by Facebook for $2 billion.  Since then, the market has proliferated with offerings from Google, HTC, Samsung, Sony, and Windows Mixed Reality. Despite these heavy hitters pushing the market forward, VR hasn’t quite managed to advance beyond the initial phase of the disruption cycle: “emergence.”

Copy of Crossing the Chasm VR Social Media Micrographic

Now, more than ever, we may have legitimate reason to believe that VR could finally be advancing into the second phase of disruption: “evolution.” In this phase, technology begins to gain more mainstream traction after initial bouts of early adoption and new features, capabilities and advancements begin to proliferate. Here are some reasons to feel renewed optimism about VR’s ability to cross the chasm into mainstream appeal:

Increased dedication to AAA quality content:

VR’s struggle with content has been a huge initial barrier. A VR headset is a significant investment, typically ranging anywhere between $500 to $1000. Compare that to the price of current-gen consoles retailing under $500 or a gaming PC (which on the lower-end may cost you anywhere from $600 to $1,000), and with the more consistent stream of blockbuster AAA and low-budget indie content, it’s no surprise that a console and/or gaming PC purchase might be deemed a safer bet. The high cost to entry for limited content makes VR a niche purchase for those with the appetite and means.

But there is currently an increasing flow of AAA content helping to drive device sales. The announcement of Half-Life: Alyx garnered so much intrigue that it led to global shortages of the higher-end Valve Index device in November (that retails at $999 for the full VR kit). Even now, device shortages mean you’ll need to wait 8 weeks for shipment of the Valve Index. In its 2020 State of the Game Industry report, GDC offers even more hope that game developers are increasingly tantalized by VR. While only 15% of surveyed game developers had stated to have developed their last game for VR (lagging PC on 54% and mobile on 40%), VR as a platform is piquing interest. 27% of game developers claimed to be interested in VR as a platform; this exceeded interest for Xbox’s next-gen device (albeit, at a time when few details were available and it was simply known as “Project Scarlett”), as well as Google’s emerging cloud gaming platform Stadia. 2020 also marks the year where over 100 VR games have hit at least $1 million in revenue, suggesting appealing content is beginning to proliferate.

Device evolution and access democratization

VR headset manufacturers have also remained dedicated to device improvement and innovation. Screen resolutions have dramatically improved; headsets have become smaller and more agile; fields of view have expanded, and more powerful processing units embedded. One of the more pivotal innovations in VR, however, was the release of the Oculus Quest—helping to untether VR headsets from the PC, while maintaining significantly more power than weaker mobile VR headset alternatives. The untethering of the high-end VR device was a critical moment, helping to democratize VR gaming beyond those with VR-ready gaming PCs, a significantly lower price point of $400 also lowered the cost to entry. Sales of the Oculus Quest bear this out, the device is consistently sold out and incredibly difficult to find.

Gamer interest is starting to peak

In our recent self-funded research Pulse, A Gamer’s Journey, we also observed signs of optimism for VR gaming. When asked to rate interest in different emerging gaming technologies, VR trailed only next-gen consoles in interest. The youngest gamers (14-17 years old) interest in VR is almost twice that of the interest that cloud gaming or subscription-based gaming models have.

Emerging Game Tech Interest Social Media Micrographic

While the youngest gamers demonstrated the strongest interest, we observed strong overall latent demand for VR. Of the 4,000 gamers interviewed, 23% have actively considered a VR device, but there are still some hesitations inhibiting VR purchase. The upside is that many of these barriers feel actionable to overcome. Price remains a continued challenge, even for the more affordable standalone devices. But as the market matures, manufacturers achieve greater economies of scale and competitors potentially begin pushing prices lowers, VR should become more affordable. Increasing the prevalence of opportunities to experience VR (such as in VR arenas, albeit, a significantly more challenging feat in the current lockdown environments), and continued investment in content will help overcome the big barrier of uncertainty, which is also currently blocking growth.

Copy of Gamers Journey VR Micrographic (1)

The reality of it all

As we all continue to adjust to the new reality of isolation, now more than ever, the promise of escapism that VR offers could be as compelling a proposition as it ever has been. Increasingly more high-profile content is being delivered, more headsets are entering the market, and usage statistics from services like Steam are all pointing towards a positive direction. Yet, despite this all, the potential of VR remains divisive: an exchange in Forbes perfectly exemplifies this with a May 4th article proclaiming “VR Headers Are Dying A Lonely Death,” yet on May 5th an impassioned rebuttal rejected the notion that “Virtual Reality is Dying.” While hurdles and barriers exist, this gamer remains cautiously optimistic.


Josh ForteyJosh Fortey is an Account Director at CMB, and avid gamer.

Follow CMB on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter for the latest news and updates.

Don't forget to immerse yourself in our latest gaming research: A Gamer's Journey | The Virtual Reality Edition. And stayed tuned for more of our findings--VR and beyond.

Explore A Gamer's Journey
Sample provided by Dynata

Topics: path to purchase, Consumer Pulse, growth and innovation, technology, Gaming, AR/VR, Next-Gen Gaming, consumer journey

The Inner Battle Royale: Who Is The Fortnite Fan?

Posted by Josh Fortey

Mon, Dec 16, 2019

Sirens ring out across Dusty Depot. As the ground begins to shake, a rocket erupts from beneath, its pace intensifying as it scars the horizon. Suddenly, the sky cracks and blue rifts appear, rockets raining down; a meteor ruptures the sky, hurtling to the ground. The impact devastates the island as a black rift emerges, engulfing everything that surrounds it. Nothing is left but darkness­­—is this the end?

It is not the end, nor is it a Hollywood movie or HBO fantasy drama. This is Fortnite Battle Royale, the highly disruptive online video game that serves as a barometer for success in this gaming genre. This much-hyped seasonal event attracted a peak 1.6 million viewers on Twitch and a peak 4 million viewers on YouTube. The success of this event is a positive development for the game following recent reports of a 52% decline in in-game spending, lagging viewership figures and general dissatisfaction with the state of its most recent season. Live content spectacles help renew focus away from the all-too-familiar proclamations of a dying game or a dying and oversaturated Battle Royale genre, but Fortnite has a bigger problem that may ultimately destabilize growth: the image of the typical Fortnite player.

In our recent BrandFx 2.0 research, CMB interviewed thousands of gamers regarding more than 30 media, entertainment and gaming brands on this very topic. We found that for players of a game, the most important driver of recommendation is how well the most recent gaming session elicits positive emotion. For non-players, however, the most important driver of considering a game is their perception of that games’ typical player. We also found that for gamers’ who don’t play Fortnite, perceptions of the typical Fortnite player were considerably more negative than perceptions of the typical brand user for prospects of other media brands.

Fortnite_NonUserPerceptionsTypicalUser_Final_JPG

Takeaway #1: The Battle of Divisive Emotions

Among the users and non-users of any of the 33 media brands we tested (and particularly among other gaming brands such as Nintendo, Pokémon and Mario), some of the starkest differences were between how Fortnite players perceive the typical Fortnite player and how non-Fortnite players perceive the typical Fortnite player. This in spite of what is a relatively cohesive perception of audience demographics (i.e. both Fortnite players and non-players perceive the typical Fortnite player as younger male teens).

 Takeaway #2: A Middle School Dance: Fortnite On One Side, Non-Fornite On the Other

Non-Fortnite players are also more likely to view themselves as “very different” to the typical Fortnite player, “very disinterested” in making friends with them and more likely to “really disrespect” the typical Fortnite player. Only two other brands come close to this level of consistent negative perception among non-brand users across all three categories (The Simpsons and Pokémon are the other two).

Fortnite_NonUserRelationshipWithTypicalUser_Final_JPG

Takeaway #3: Converting Non-Fortnite Players

Ultimately, it could be these typical player perceptions that feed into the negative emotional association to Fortnite among non-players, in turn potentially hindering future player growth.  When asked how they imagine it would feel to play Fortnite, the non-Fortnite gamers are among the strongest of the tested brands to state that they expect the experience to be more "bad" than "good" (35%: +15% vs. media average).

While Fortnite continues to defy critics claims of the game’s death, and hold off fierce competition from the likes of Apex Legends and PUBG, its continued success may hinge on changing the substantial negative perceptions of its user base.


Josh ForteyJosh Fortey is an Account Director at CMB, and avid gamer.

Follow CMB on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter for the latest news and updates.

Topics: Chadwick Martin Bailey, consumer insights, Consumer Pulse, digital media and entertainment research, Market research, Identity, emotion, technology, Gaming

Don’t get ganked! What the rise of esports can teach us about building products that survive

Posted by Josh Fortey

Tue, Mar 14, 2017

video game controller.jpg

PAX East just left town and if you don’t know what esports is—let alone what “ganked” means—you’re missing out. While traditional team sports continue to rule the roost in the American sports landscape, esports have become the fastest growing spectator sport.

To put this into perspective, the 2016 NBA championship finals game garnered 31 million viewers, the highest count of a NBA finals on both ABC and ESPN in over 10 years. Yet more people—36 million in 2015 and 43 million in 2016— tuned in to watch some of the world’s best League of Legends teams battle it out across the Summoners Rift for the world championship crown. But these remarkable figures aren’t unique to League of Legends. Twitch, the world’s largest gaming-orientated streaming platform, clocked in 95 million hours of esports streaming across the top 10 esports titles in January 2017 alone. And that 95 million hours of esports streaming is just one third of all the streaming that happened in January for these top ten esports titles. In addition to these staggering numbers, esports has effectively carved out a niche of digitally-engaged younger gamers; approximately 1-in-5 of all Millennials are now regularly watching esports online.

Based on this strong viewership, it’s no surprise that the esports category is estimated to surpass the $1.5 billion mark by 2020. But looking beyond these remarkable numbers, esports serves as an excellent example of an industry—comprised of brands, publishers, and developers—that continues to successfully deliver on rapidly changing consumer needs despite being in a constant state of adaptation, progression, and evolution. These factors are all important in understanding the meteoric rise of esports, but they also serve up a number of lessons about listening to your customers. Lessons that brands, marketers, and product innovators must learn if they want to develop products that stand the test of time:

  • Deliver meaningful experiences. The esports graveyard is littered with failed games that sent the right message to consumers and appeared to have the “winning formula”, but ultimately just didn’t cut it. Let’s look at Infinite Crisis. Infinite Crisis launched with all the makings of "the next big thing” in esports gaming: development by Turbine, the reputable gaming studio owned by Warner Bros., financial backing from a major IP in DC Comics, a spin on the hugely popular multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) genre, an extensive beta testing phase, and a highly accessible free-to-play business model. But despite these attributes, just two months after launch, development of Infinite Crisis ended. Why? Because its makers failed to nurture a critical mass of consumers across a generic gaming audience and ignored users’ complaints of unbalanced gameplay. Infinite Crisis serves as an example of what can happen when a brand doesn’t consider what its community of users/customers is telling them about their experience.
  • Nurture your community. The Infinite Crisis example also emphasizes the importance of nurturing and listening to your community. The growth of esports is largely driven by its engaged users, and so fostering these communities is key. Fostering a community is mutually beneficial to the brand and the user—the brand enjoys increased user retention while its customers have the satisfaction of knowing they are valued.
  • Community interactivity and engagement. Brands committed to their customer communities enjoy a more genuine dialogue with their users—ultimately helping strengthen customer loyalty. Strong brands recognize this as a cornerstone to a successful esports game. Take gaming giant Blizzard and its wildly successful game Overwatch. Overwatch developers pay close attention to feedback provided on their forums (underscores the importance of my first point, too), updates users on product developments, enhancements, and innovations (or product patches), and provide detailed product roadmaps. In the world of gaming, players aren’t just customers; they’re fans, loyalists, and advocates who deserve to be engaged and updated.
  • Embed consumers in product development. When gaming companies foster a community, they open up the possibility of embedding consumers into the early stages of product development. Across many of the most successful competitive gaming titles, publishers rely on the customer voice to formulate and enhance the brand experience from early alpha testing to open public test environments. Dota 2, a successful MOBA title, takes an innovative approach to embedding customers into its esports product strategy by crowdsourcing and crowdfunding. For example, the proceeds from players’ in-game cosmetic (items that don’t affect gameplay) purchases are partially donated to its competitive tournaments prize pools. Users can also create their own cosmetic items that can be sold through an online marketplace. Both initiatives resulted in Dota 2 customers amassing a staggering $20 million in prize money for its 2016 world championship tournament, The International—the largest overall prize pool in esports history.

Esports and competitive gaming are gleaming examples of how an industry has successfully used its customers’ voice to create sustainable and attractive products/experiences. It also demonstrates the perils of ignoring customer needs. Infinite Crisis is just one example among myriad others, including Dawngate, Battleborn and Minions. If there’s an overarching lesson to be learned from the explosive success of esports, it’s that brands should first and foremost prioritize the needs of its customers.

Josh Fortey is a Project Manager at CMB who is all too familiar with the feeling of being “ganked”.

Topics: product development, customer experience and loyalty, digital media and entertainment research, growth and innovation, Gaming

Will the Sun Set on British Brands?

Posted by Josh Fortey

Thu, Feb 04, 2016

British-brands.pngAdele, One Direction, Burberry, Downton Abbey, Kate Middleton, the Royal Family, and, of course, myself… the British are once again invading the shores of the U.S.

Young British musicians continue to take the American music industry by storm—in 2012, four out of five of the top five selling albums in the U.S. were from British artists. Just last December, approximately 10 million fans fought over 750,000 tickets for Adele’s upcoming 2016 tour. The entertainment industry is not the only one seeing dollar signs with this British Invasion. Coffee shop and fast food chain, Pret a Manger, plans further U.S. expansion after successful stints in Boston, New York, Washington DC, and Chicago, building on its brand of fresh, prepared products.

It’s clear that Britain as a brand has been riding a positive wave in the U.S. in recent years with the London Olympics and the birth of the Royal Prince and Princess acting as potential catalysts. The allure of international expansion into the American market, therefore, seems the most logical step for British brands looking for the next stage of growth. According to a Barclays study in 2013, the U.S. was considered the top current market for sales growth for British retailers, but it was also considered the toughest overseas market to break. British supermarket chain Tesco found out firsthand the difficulty of attempting to break the American market. Pre-packaged, fast-food meals have been a staple product on the shelves of British grocery chains for years, and the research, Tesco believed, seemed to suggest this could work among U.S. consumers. However, a lack of familiarity with this style of eating, the onset of the 2007 depression when Tesco’s “Fresh & Easy” chain launched, and the higher associated costs in comparison to buying fresh produce ultimately resulted in a failed $1.8 billion gamble when Tesco withdrew from the market in 2013.

The notable failure of Tesco is a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls for British retailers looking to expand into the U.S. market. While there is clear admiration for the quality and culture of British brands, any decision a British business makes in deciding to jump over the Atlantic should be highly researched and strategized. Any brand looking to break into a new international market should build their decision on a solid foundation of research, with some key research criteria identified below:

  • Identify a target market: The world is a big place. With over 200 possible markets, identifying the correct target market is critical. How have previous brands fared when venturing into new potential markets? How do exports fair? What are the current economic conditions, and do these favor new entries into the market?
  • Market conditions: GDP growth, birth rate, employment rate, and inflation rate—all of these are among a variety of macro-level economic indicators that can help gauge market condition.
  • Opportunity: Is there identifiable demand for your product in the market, and do consumers have a familiarity with your offering? Is the market existing and mature, or is it in its infancy?
  • Consumer preferences: While consumers can appear to share certain elements of cultural identity, this does not necessarily mean that they share the same purchase and consumption culture. Pret a Manger has understood this, adapting its style of service and menu for the U.S., where its coffee is self-serve, unlike the Barista approach taken in Britain.  
  • Competitive situation and positioning: Understanding the competitive situation and brand positioning of competitors can help you gauge how to uniquely position your brand to acquire market share. British brands seeking to enter the U.S., for example, can leverage perceptions of heritage and quality to command a greater price premium, but must emphasize its position and point of difference in ways that meet consumer needs.
  • Market sizing and growth potential: Have we identified our target market? Are we confident there is an opportunity? Do we have an idea of the kind of consumer we could attract and where our brand sits? Do we understand the current competitive landscape and current levels of competitor usage? Knowing the answers to these questions when entering a new market requires a market sizing task to understand the financial opportunity or return on investment. 

There has been a lot of buzz in the CMB office recently around the Boston debut of low-priced fashion retailer Primark (which is only about a half mile walk from the office). This is a hugely successful and cult brand in the U.K., but time will tell if the Irish retailer has effectively researched and gauged its ability to seduce the American consumer with its own brand of discount fashion, or whether, like many before it, they have underestimated the difficulty of breaking the U.S. market.

Josh is a Project Manager at CMB. Having recently entered the U.S. market himself, he is hoping his own brand of British fares better than Tesco’s.

We recently did a webinar on research we conducted with venture capital firm Foundation Capital on Millennials and investing. Insights include a Millennial segmentation, specific financial habits, and a look into the attitudinal drivers behind Millennials' investing preferences. 

Watch Here!

Topics: international research, brand health and positioning, market strategy and segmentation, retail research, growth and innovation