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

Why We Still Use Facebook Despite Privacy Concerns

Posted by Kate Zilla-Ba

Wed, May 23, 2018

facebook (cropped)

The kids are on Insta and Snapchat, and even as those are a bit dated at this point, the question for Facebook seems to be how to stay relevant. But recent revelations about how Facebook had been using customer data have led to less of a backlash than might be expected. Why?

Complacency.

We humans tend to normalize things. What was scandalous the first time it came around, is less so over time, until we just expect it.

Why are we so complacent about Facebook? Well, for starters, we live on it. How many posts are things the poster could google, but instead, feels the need to ask the town group—when is the next trash pickup, or how do they get rid of the dead squirrel in front of their house, or… the list goes on. Facebook has become part of nearly 1.5 billion peoples’ daily lives around the world, suggesting most people have become okay (complacent) about how social media might be collecting, sharing and using our information.

And this shouldn’t be that surprising. Back in 2010 (and likely earlier) Mark Zuckerberg was clear that he felt privacy was no longer a social norm, saying, “People have gotten really comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people.”

We’ve come to expect less and less privacy, which is directly associated with the continued growth of Facebook usage—despite what happened with Cambridge Analytica.

We still care about privacy. Just not as much. Maybe if what happened with Cambridge Analytica felt individually targeted and less of a mass invasion of privacy, we’d care more. But it happened to a lot us, so what’s a user to do? Keep posting and sharing seems to be the net answer. Probably even in the EU, where strong consumer concerns about privacy has the EU setting standards for the world with GDPR.

Understanding consumers' psychology, such as Facebook users, is core to market research. What are they seeking to achieve? How do they express that in attitudes and actions? What barriers exist and what catalysts motivate them?

In addition to the normalization of information-sharing, users continue to use Facebook because of the functional, emotional, and identity benefits the brand provides. Facebook is a space where users can feel connected to other people (social identity), can find and share content that animates them (emotion) and is a convenient tool for things like selling your couch or getting recommendations for a reliable plumber (functional). Facebook has done an incredible job providing the right balance of these three benefits, which we know are key drivers of customer loyalty and advocacy.

Knowing all we know, we still use Facebook. We’ve normalized making public details about our lives we would’ve considered “private” 10 years ago—and that doesn’t look like it’s going to change anytime soon. For most of us, the benefits Facebook provides outweigh privacy concerns.

Will you share this when I post it? Like it? Love it? (No sad faces please!)

Kate is a FB user who loves to keep up with old friends and family but rarely posts. Her research background helps keep her eyes wide open (or so she thinks), to the privacy she has given away.

Topics: data privacy, social media, consumer psychology, big data, consumer insights

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: Identity, Dear Dr. Jay, 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: research design, consumer insights, consumer psychology