Voices: the CMB Blog

My kid is passionate about math, and based on every quantitative indication, he excels at it.  So you can imagine our surprise when he didn’t qualify for next year’s advanced math program. Apparently he barely missed the cut-off score - a compilation of two quantitative sources of data and one qualitative source.  Given this injustice, I dug into the school’s evaluation method (hold off your sympathy for the school administration just yet).

Undoubtedly, the best way to get a comprehensive view of a situation is to consider both quantitative and qualitative information from a variety of sources.  By using this multi-method approach, you are more likely to get an accurate view of the problem at hand and are better able to make an informed decision.  Sometimes it makes sense to combine data from different sources into a “score” or “index.”  This provides the decision-maker with a shorthand way of comparing something – a brand, a person, or how something changes over time.

These compilation scores or indices are widely used and can be quite useful, but their validity depends on the sources used and how they are combined.   In the case of the math evaluation, there were two sources of quantitative and one qualitative source.  The quantitative sources were the results of a math test conducted by the school (CTP4) and a statewide standardized test (MCAS).  The qualitative was based on the teacher’s observations of the child across ten variables, rated on a 3 point scale.  For the most part, I don’t have a problem with these data sources.  The problem was in the weighting of these scores.

I’m not suggesting that the quantitative data is totally bias-free but at least the kids are evaluated on a level playing field.  They either get the right answer or they don’t.  In the case of the teacher evaluation, many more biases can impact the score (such as the teacher’s preference for certain personality types or the kids of colleagues or teacher’s aides).  The qualitative component was given a 39% weight – equal to the CTP4 (“for balance”) and greater than the MCAS (weighted at 22%).  This puts a great deal of influence in the hands of one person.  In this case, it was enough to override the superior quantitative scores and disqualify my kid.

Before you think this is just the rant of a miffed parent with love blinders on, think of this evaluation process as if it were a corporate decision that had millions of dollars at stake.  Would you be comfortable with this evaluation system?

In my opinion, a fairer evaluation process would have been qualification of the students based on the quantitative data (especially since there were two sources available) and then for those on the “borderline” use the qualitative data to make a decision about qualification.  Qualitative data is rarely combined with quantitative data in an index.  Its purpose is to explore a topic before quantification or to bring “color” to the quantitative results.  As you can imagine, I have voiced this opinion to the school administration but am unlikely to be able to reverse the decision. 

What’s the takeaway for you?  Be careful of how you create or evaluate indices or “scores.” They are only as good as what goes into them.

Posted by Cathy Harrison.  Cathy is a client services executive at CMB and has a passion for strategic market research, social media, and music.  You can follow Cathy on Twitter at @virtualMR     

I heard great things about the Shopper Insights conference in Chicago a few weeks ago. While I couldn’t attend, others from CMB said the conference had a great vibe, and was filled with excitement and information about the latest trends in the shopping experience. One of the major takeaways was that the combination of customers’ shopping preferences and new technologies continues to drive change in the retail shopping experience.  We’ve seen this first hand in our Consumer Pulse detailing how smartphones are changing the retail experience.

Appropriately enough, and just in time for the conference in Chicago, I read an article in Marketing Daily about Walgreens new “Pick Up Today” service rolling out in Chicago. We have seen this multichannel trend in other retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy and at many grocery stores, but this is the first I have seen for a pharmacy. This really caught my eye as my focus is on the healthcare industry and we recently looked at consumer digital communications trends in the healthcare market.

Walgreens is timing things right - our research shows one-third of consumers are already communicating with their pharmacy digitally (through websites, email, portals, or mobile apps). And it’s not just the young, 36% of those over the age of 50 say they’re communicating with their pharmacy digitally. For now most are simply refilling a prescription or asking a question, but this is another opportunity for a customer touch point. While 31% of consumers say they are currently communicating digitally with their pharmacy, 76% say they expect to communicate digitally with their pharmacy in the future.  

With only 16% of consumers saying they would never communicate digitally with their pharmacy, health insurer, or provider, the trend is clear.  Consumers have certain expectations with regard to digital communications based on what they’ve done in other industries.  It seems like there is a lot of potential here for pharmacies and other healthcare companies (e.g., insurers, providers) and security is really not an issue for consumers even with topics such as prescription drugs and health-related issues. 

So I ask those healthcare companies out there….are you prepared for what consumers expect to be able to do digitally in the future?

Download the CMB Consumer Pulse report sharing the consumers' perspective around digital communications with their healthcare providers. Download the report.

Posted by Amy Modini. Amy is an Account Director for CMB’s Healthcare Practice and enjoys spending time at the beach and trying to keep up with her almost two year old son.

Introducing “John’s Corner”

Many times the people we think of as “Thought Leaders” seem unapproachable or intimidating, especially when they’re the Chairman of the company. Here at CMB we’re lucky to have Dr. John Martin, Chairman of CMB, Co-founder of South Street Strategy, innovator, professor, mentor, and a very approachable (and often shoeless) guy.

This month we’re kicking off “John’s Corner,” a series of articles sharing John’s 30+ years of experience in research and strategy, with a conversation with Kristen, CMB’s VP of Marketing and John about the challenges researchers face in defining goals and needs.

Distinguishing Between Goals and Needs

Kristen: Often in research we try to identify and most importantly prioritize what actually motivates people to make certain decisions. Why do some choose one product or service over another? John, tell us what you see as the biggest challenge researchers face in helping companies distinguish between goals and needs?

John: I think it starts with the language we use; the language used in market research is surprisingly messy.  For example we use terms like “needs” and “wants.”  However, “needs” are often used broadly to represent several types of motivational dimensions.  Then we have related terms such as “demand,” “preferences,” “value,” and ”value drivers,” “decision criteria,” evaluation criteria,” “goals,” and “requirements.”  We need to be more precise because this lack of precision leads to poor measurement and consequently mistakes when interpreting research findings to make precise recommendations.

Kristen: Interesting, this is what I love about our conversations. I can see this is a “hot button” for you. So I can see where there might be confusion and a danger of using some of these terms interchangeably. What can we as researchers do about it?

John: Well I think we all need to commit to “greater preciseness” and be more deliberate in our choice of language when talking about goals and motivators. This starts by distinguishing between what people aim to achieve (goals) and what will enable those goals to be achieved (needs). This requires agreement on a definition for goals which I consider to be extremely important.

Kristen: I’d like to talk a little more about the nature of business goals. Now that we have agreement around goals being the primary motivator, what’s next?

John: Accepting goals as the primary motivator positions companies as providing what people “need” in order to achieve their goals.   This allows companies to take a more objective look at criteria used to gauge value or how much a proposed solution or offer will enable them to achieve their goals. So, since goals are the primary motivator we can expect a company's core brand promise or vision to reflect the goals of their target market members in order to provide the basis for engagement.

Kristen: When you say “How much an offer will enable ‘them’ to achieve their goals.” Do you mean the customer? Sounds like this approach is very customer-centric and requires companies to have an intimate understanding of customers' needs.

John: Yes that’s just it. See, the benefit of this approach will be felt by all when a company enables customers to meet their goals while enabling them to be successful (goal alignment).  A focus on goals encourages companies to adopt a proactive and forward looking perspective as they establish what best they can do to help people achieve their goals. 

Kristen: Going back a bit to what you said about engagement, you've just published an article in Quirks outlining the special challenges for measuring loyalty in low engagement industries like insurance. How can insurance carriers with little end consumer contact identify customer goals and position themselves to address customer needs?

John: The customers' goal is peace of mind—to sleep well at night, knowing they and their family have coverage. But historically the industry has set up barriers to engagement, by adding complex language, limiting access to information, and expecting blind trust from the customer. Changes in the marketplace mean companies are removing barriers—engaging in social media, dealing directly with customers, letting them access information on the web etc. Enabling engagement and recognizing they have to meet customer needs through understanding their goals is only going to increase.

So what do you think?  Are goals on top of the motivational pile?  If goals are on the top, how does understanding goals help us identify and meet consumer needs?

Can you foster customer loyalty in a low-engagement industry like insurance?

Creating customer loyalty is a challenge for every company and has never been more important. Over the last few years, a plethora of loyalty programs have emerged to build cross-selling, retention and up-selling across a variety of industries. Customer cards, frequent-shopper programs and reward programs all work toward achieving these business outcomes. However, one industry that has had a greater challenge with creating customer loyalty is insurance, specifically personal protection. Read the whole article here. 

I’ve settled back into my routine at the office, and I've been reflecting on what I got from the recent Shopper Insights Conference in Chicago.  I re-connected with old colleagues, and made new connections; so that makes the conference a success in my mind.  But there were also some definite standouts I want to share:

• A Group Lunch with former P&G CEO A.G. Lafley – I was fortunate enough to be invited to a lunch with A.G. Lafley.  I was struck by his approachability, easy conversation style, and seemingly simple approach to leadership and innovation.  I asked him about timelines for innovation and after a great deal of sincere reflection said we could talk all day on the topic (he didn’t accept my offer to do so)!  We considered the difference between trends, which must be timely, and innovation, which requires experimentation, engineering, design, research, re-engineering, re-designing, etc. Ultimately, innovation isn’t trendy, it’s methodical, collaborative, and it takes time (up to six years for a new Pampers product)!  I saw one as proxy for the other, but now understand how different they are.

• Path to Purchase – There was a lot of insightful discussion of Consumer Insights vs. Shopper Insights.  Same person, different roles.  It reminded me of when a Director at a large corporation said ‘I know beer drinkers really well, but I hardly know anything about shopping for beer’.  This is a great distinction and great focus for the industry.

• Overheard – “I feel like I’m in the 50’s.”   My first reaction was “huh?” But then I considered there might be some truth there.  On one hand, I listened to keynote speakers talk about advancements in neuroscience and its relationship to decision making.  On the other hand, several presenters recommended tried and true methods of research, e.g. virtual reality doesn’t trump ethnography.  As I stood in line to buy a hard copy book and have my charge card run through a manual card imprinter, I thought back to that 50’s comment. CPG and Retail have innovated tremendously, bringing us a steady stream of exciting new products and store formats.  So why is there still lingering doubt about embracing new methods of research?  I think the answer may lie with respect, respect for an industry that is innovative if not trendy.  It’s easy to throw innovation into a mission statement or corporate report, but embedding it into a methodical, engineered, and collaborative process is very hard to achieve.  For every new product out there, and every creative new store design, there is a history of smart people working together to bring it to market.  Innovation is in the wings, together with R&D, but it is not absent.

• Holistic approach for a Win-Win – One of my favorite sessions (besides CMB’s presentation with Electronic Arts!), was presented by Bob Goodpaster from Hershey.  He showed how they are partnering with retailers to bring useable insights to their retail partners, often in the candy department, but also beyond.  Their broad scope, analytic team and collaborative approach were impressive.

Weigh in?  What did you take away?  I’d love to hear from you!

Are you planning on going to TMRE? CMB is an event sponsor and presenter at the conference. Feel free to use the code: TMRE11CMB when you register for a discounted price. We hope to see you there. Learn more about the conference here.

Posted by Kathy Ofsthun.  Kathy is an Account Director at CMB.   She is training for a late summer triathlon and likes to hike in the Green Mountains of Vermont!

Here at CMB we do quite a bit of work around customer satisfaction programs. In fact, we recently released a CMB Consumer Pulse on the topic. It’s one of my favorite topics because it’s so easy to relate to as a consumer and as a marketer I have a real appreciation for those “stand out” experiences.

After a long weekend basking in the Nantucket sun, a few friends and I decided to take a break from the Cape Cod traffic and stop for some dinner at Not Your Average Joes. After a delicious meal and way too much bread and oil dip, we asked for the check. To our surprise, not only did we receive the check, but it was given to us on a miniature cutting board with an iPod touch attached to it! No, we didn’t win a prize for best customers, (although if such a prize existed, it definitely would have been ours) but what we did receive was a survey via iPod touch. Instantly, all of our attention was switched over from the bill to the survey (good job Joe’s!). As we huddled around the iPod touch and went through the ten question survey together, it was amazing how much we were all enjoying the experience, dare I say even having fun with it. We are all used to seeing surveys in our daily life, but for some reason seeing one so conveniently displayed to us on an iPod touch-embellished cutting board was somehow more exciting.

Think of how many times you receive a survey at the bottom of a receipt, and if you’re like me, more times than not that receipt never makes it out of my pocket or purse. This survey experience was so different. It got me thinking how having a great customer experience from beginning to end is so important.  Not only did we have a great meal, but we finished the meal having a positive interaction with the brand while completing a survey…crazy right?! 

Not Your Average Joe's rolled this Survey on the Spot system out to all of its stores in January 2011 and since then, in the words of their CEO “it has changed the way we do business”. In an interview with Stephen Silverstein, CEO of Not Your Average Joe's, he mentioned their success:  "We're probably getting about 400 surveys per week per store on this system,” and "About a third of the people taking the survey join the e-mail club, the surveys have helped us be more aware of every single table, in every single restaurant”.

With all the technology available today,it is refreshing to see a restaurant that is utilizing it in new creative ways and, in turn, helping their brand look more appealing. I left thinking that Not Your Average Joe’s was a smart, savvy, cutting edge restaurant that I wanted to spread the word about. And what’s better than some good ol' word of mouth? Not Your Average Joe’s has embraced technology and gained a few more customers along the way…including me!

Our Consumer Pulse study: Customer Satisfaction Programs: The opportunity to engage, interact and improve takes a closer look at Download here.

Posted by Stephanie Kimball. Stephanie is CMB’s Marketing Operations Manager and loves any and all sports, the beach, traveling, marketing, being challenged, good food, nightlife, and Saturday afternoon naps. You can follow her on twitter @SKBalls