Telling the Story Behind the Numbers

Posted October 18, 2010 by Matt Warta | Permalink

My partner, Carl Rossow, is passionate about market research.  He can go on for hours about it.  When I sometimes grant him the 15 minutes to riff on this topic, he always says the same thing.  When he talks to his clients from iModerate and Benenson Strategy Group, they tell him that they want to talk to their customers; they want to communicate with them; and they want to hear the voice of the customer.

Certainly, that sounds like qualitative research, not quantitative research.

Then why is that quantitative research (e.g., online quantitative surveys) dominates the landscape for market research by a factor of 5.7 to 1 (source:  ESOMAR 2009).  There are quite a few reasons which help explain this phenomenon.  The first is projectability.  It is really difficult to project what customers will ultimately do after doing 3 focus groups where you talk to 18-20 people.  The other is cost.  The average cost per respondent of a focus group can be over $500.  Whereas, in a quantitative study, it can be several dollars per completed survey.  Lastly, time is a major factor.  A focus group can take several weeks to field, whereas, you can receive the information you need from a quantitative survey in days especially with online DIY quantitative survey tools like Survey Monkey and Survey Gizmo.

With traditional qualitative methodologies (focus groups, one-on-ones), I suspect qualitative methods will have a tough to time narrowing the spend gap I noted above.  However, there are a new breed of services which are doing there job of addressing the time, cost and projectability issues which qualitative research historically has had.  Services which emphasize social media (e.g., BuzzMetrics), and other more efficient online qualitative techniques like market research online communities (e.g., Communispace) can help narrow that gap and allow marketers and others to have what they really want…the story behind the numbers.

What methods are using to talk to your customers?

Posted in DIY Research | Bookmark Bar

A GAP Logo Analysis

Posted October 8, 2010 by Matt Warta | Permalink

If you haven’t heard by now, the GAP has rolled out a new logo to replace the old logo we know and love as First in our Mind when we think of the GAP. You be the judge.

AdAge has great coverage on the rollout of the logo, the public reaction and what GAP spokeswoman Louise Callagy has to say about all of this. The articles are well worth reading (especially the comments). But what resonates with us from the article is this statement:

Ms. Callagy said the retailer has been surprised by the response to the new logo, which was received well internally.

Received well internally.
Now, if you’re new to the GutCheck blog we’re fans of encouraging folks to get in front of their target customers, BEFORE, something like this happens. It is also not lost on me, nor many of the readers of AdAge, that this similar type of change occurred with Tropicana not to long ago. What was learned from that experience?

Lots of things sound great in an echo chamber, but it’s testing the waters outside of that echo chamber where the real benefit lies. If this is testing the waters, the GAP has certainly made a splash. I’m not sure where the GAP is in the process of updating their external signage and materials, but it’s a good bet that it’s not going to be cheap; and apparently it is not going to be well received by the customers.

Getting a GutCheck
Consistent with our approach, I did a GutCheck on the logo change. Believe it or not, there is still a large amount of the population unaware of the logo change. I created an initial screen to find respondents aware of the GAP, but who had not seen the new logo. I initially chatted with a few infrequent shoppers (3 visits or less in a year) of the GAP, who didn’t like the new logo. A sampling of their gut reactions to seeing the new logo:

The new one is bland. I like the blue background on the old one.

I don’t know. It’s kind of high-tech. It just reminds me of a logo for web technology.

I changed my target customer screening criteria to look for those that shopped more frequently at the GAP in a year. My responses from this cohort were more of a mixed bag.

It’s cool, kind of sleek, and reminds me of a Droid app, kind of. The logo has more of a 22nd Century feel about it, while the older logo seemed to celebrate more bygone times. It reminds me of a Droid app b/c it would make an excellent addition, for routing shoppers directly to Gap promos and such. Innovative.

o.k., I like the old one better. what is the purpose of the blue square in the new one? the old one looks traditional.

i think its cheap looking and not original. The old logo kind of looked cheap as well. There was nothing about the old one or the new one that stands out. It looks like it was created within 5 min on the computer.

I like the old one better this looks like something for a tech company. its (the older one) more classy.

The GutCheck research indicated that the new logo didn’t impact the target customers propensity to increase their shopping behavior at the GAP. Though when asked why the GAP would have changed their logo, a few indicated it’s a move to gain interest of a different audience:

because they’re net sales aren’t doing well and they’ve been losing market share. They’re trying to recapture the market while breaking into a younger demographic.

maybe to reach a different target group

Now I don’t know where the GAP is going with all this…maybe they do know or thought they did. It’s clear that the vocal external audience isn’t happy with the path they are going down. More feedback from an external audience may have gone a long way.

You can’t talk about GAP without thinking of those commercials:

Also, a quick hat tip to @denverdahl for tweeting this, and thus getting my attention to the change.

How do you or your organization handle brand change planning? Are you getting outside customer feedback?

Posted in Checkin' It Out | Bookmark Bar

GutCheck Demo – See for Yourself

Posted October 1, 2010 by Matt Warta | Permalink

Hi friends, supporters and web visitors!

Like Matt has been talking about in his most recent posts, the demos we’ve been giving to marketers, agencies and anyone else who will listen have been met with excitement and anticipation in getting their insight and feedback research projects started with us. We’re still accepting sign ups for the Beta version, you can take part by completing the sign up form here.

Today, we have our first demo of the GutCheck app. While we are still in Beta mode this is the workflow and UI that many you have been using and seeing in the demos. This will only get better in the next couple of weeks.

First off – a great big hat tip to the development team who have continued to keep GutCheck development moving while simultaneously stomping on the Bugs that are in the system.

This is GutCheck!

Feel free to leave thoughts and questions in the Comments section below.

*Please note, in some instances during this demo I’ve edited the question typing as you all don’t need to sit and watch me type a question to completion….for effect, I’ve sped up those sections. Trust me, you get it….you type in a question and it saves.

Posted in DIY Research | Bookmark Bar

Love Letter to Marketers and Agencies

Posted by Matt Warta | Permalink

As an entrepreneur with a company which frankly most folks haven’t heard of (yet), one would think I would have trouble getting people to sign up to use our product.  Well, that isn’t even close to being the case.  I am often on the road these days meeting with marketers and agencies whose feedback I value, and frankly, whose pocket books I cherish.  I have been amazed how gracious these folks have been with their valuable time, awesome feedback after using our application, and their overall assistance with building our company.

As I write this, I am returning from Cincinnati, the marketer and market research mecca.  One of the groups I met with is Coho Creative which was founded by an awesome guy named Jon Shapiro.  I met Jon through a friend of a friend.  However, Jon has been willing to help me as if I’ve known him forever.

We sat in his conference room where I provided a live demo to him and his team.  After which, Coho showered me with some feedback goodness.  Here are just a few examples (I paraphrase below…these guys speak much more intelligently than I write):

Value proposition – Yeah, the thing is affordable and timely, but the flexibility of being able to change things (e.g., the demographic and psychographic screener, interview guide, media) on the fly is a biggie compared to other traditional methodologies.  No more being stuck at a focus group facility where your interview guide is off, you recruited the wrong folks, and/or your concept is off.

Getting the MR group on our side – There is a lot of debate in the market research community about products like ours and their value in the research ecosystem.  Coho’s take is this tool gives the MR department (especially a smaller one) the ability to get the voice of the customer where in the past they would have had to go without it because of budget and time.  They can also get in front of the research project by controlling the interview guide development and the screening criteria, and then have marketing field it.

Other groups we ought to consider targeting – I have been in several meetings where the “innovation” title was brought up.  These are the folks who come up with all the new, cool products at companies.  Unfortunately, a lot of these folks don’t have the budget the marketing folks have to test out their early stage concepts in front of the customers.  Gutcheck can be their low cost, easy way of doing this.

We covered a lot of other ground, but this is the kind of help I am getting on a day-to-day basis, and I love it.

Thanks to Jon and the many other folks like him who are making GutCheck a reality.

Posted in DIY Research | Bookmark Bar