Using behavioural science to unlock customer opportunities: keeping it SASSY at Leeds Digital Festival

This month Trinity McQueen were delighted to take part in the fourth annual Leeds Digital Festival. Comprising 200+ events over eleven days it’s a great showcase for innovation in the city.

leeds-digital-festival.gif

My presentation focussed on applying behavioural science. It’s something we’re talking to lots of our clients about: it helps us see problems in a new light, and unlocks value for marketers at little cost. We went through seven case studies from work over the past decade covering everything from pensions to breakfast cereal.

One challenge we always face is summarising key principles in a way that makes them stick in your head. Let’s face it: as a topic behavioural science can intimidate. Marketers are busy people and not everyone is comfortable with terms like “heuristics” or “salience”. So when people ask “isn’t this all a bit complicated?” we say “no – it’s SASSY.”

Behavioural Science is SASSY.jpg

We also revealed results from a recent experiment, examining the effectiveness of different behavioural tactics with a nationally representative sample of 2000 UK adults.

Questions afterwards were wide-ranging, thinking about how principles stretch to different domains, whether some tactics become less effective over time and the emerging ethics of nudging.

Thanks to all who attended and contributed, and to iView Leeds for hosting.

 

Advertisements
Posted in Behavioural Economics, Behavioural Science, Conferences, Market Research | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Stick or twist? Supermarket buying patterns from 5 years of Clubcard data

A team of psychologists and data scientists from UCL worked together to interrogate Tesco Clubcard data, exploring hidden patterns in how people buy. It is powerful study because of its:

  • Scale (283,000 people);
  • Scope (longitudinal data covering 5 years, 89 store visits per person on average)
  • Remit (purchase data, as opposed to attitudinal data)

I’m always keen to get a meta-level perspective of buying behaviour, stretching horizons beyond short-term client projects to long-term trends. The study promises a great deal.

The findings are a mixture of the obvious and the new. It’s a reminder that you can throw terabytes of computing power at an ocean of data and end up mostly confirming what we already know. That’s OK – it’s why it is called research.

Clubcard buying patterns

The academic paper is dense and has lots of jargon. The diagram makes the pattern clear. Each dot is a shopping trip: green dots are when people twist and blue dots are when people stick.

Coherency maximising_Clubcard

I find all this stuff useful for a couple of reasons:

A reminder that real-world decision making differs from the lab

The authors describe how lab experiments modelling similar choices often show people are systematic and rational. They exhibit system 2 strategies in these system 2 conditions, relying on objective criteria in comparable trade-off environments.

The real world is full of subjective evaluations (“ooh that looks tasty”) in varied trade-off environments (e.g. stores that change layout or merchandise).

As Professor Dilip Soman put it in his book The Last Mile:

“When you’re in a store, absolutely everything around you could influence what you buy: the display, the price presentation… the presence of crowds… What’s more, these factors could interact with each other… Theory can show us the way but without testing… we risk failure because of something in the background context that trips up the effectiveness of our intervention.”  

Data can only take us so far into the subjective world of human taste. How do you reverse engineer a whim?

Hidden patterns that shoppers may not be aware of  

People like things more the more often they choose them (the authors call this ‘coherency-maximising’). They hypothesise that “people come to like what they purchase, out of a need to “make sense” and explain their choices to themselves and others.”

This aligns with other sources – like Sharp’s How Brands Grow – showing how people bring their attitudes into line with their behaviour. As Sharp writes “…since brands aren’t very important to us, brand buying tends to have a strong effect on our rather weak attitudes.” 

Posted in Big data, Market Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Are people getting wise to the nudge?

Dunoon in February. Not the most glamorous of work trips.

I ate breakfast alone in an empty hotel with just 2 of its 24 rooms occupied. The only other guests were a Spanish couple touring Scotland. It was more “dead season” than low season.

A rearranged interview meant I had to extend my stay. I picked up my phone to book and the hotel booking website showed me nine scarcity and social proof messages on the way to checkout. I was told there were just 2 rooms left, the price was poised to go up and at that very moment people were booking. The picture they painted – a hot property, selling out fast – was very different to the reality I saw in front of me.

9 behavioural interventions on my booking journey

It’s 10 years since behavioural science became mainstream in marketing. It is a wonderful gift, proven to unlock value at little cost. But are marketers missing the wood for the trees? Behavioural interventions influence customer perceptions of brands beyond individual transactions.

In February 2019 Trinity McQueen examined whether the British public are becoming wise to the nudge. We took a nationally representative sample of 2,000 UK adults and undertook test and control cell evaluation of different behavioural tactics. We also got our sample to reflect on different examples of nudge, shove and sludge. It’s the first study of its kind that we’re aware of.

There’s a lot of material in the study: for this post I’m focusing on just a couple of questions.

Hotel booking websites

  • Two thirds of the British public (66%) interpreted examples of scarcity and social proof claims used by hotel booking websites as sales pressure. Many raised questions about the truth of the claims.
  • The scarcity and social proof messages tested inspired a negative emotional reaction in a third (35%).
  • People see scarcity and social proofing claims frequently, especially online: verbatim feedback from participants show that travel, retail and fashion are common locations.

Sales pressure

What about sludge?

  • There was also negativity towards “sludge” (encouraging self-defeating behaviour). Around half (48%) viewed a de-branded example of an airline defaulting users into buying flight insurance as sales pressure.
  • We expected negativity towards sludge to be greater, given that the example defaulted people into a choice which offered poor value in a heavy-handed way. The example we used involved insurance, weighing up risk around a relatively large amount of money. It is possible this context overrode the behavioural tactics in this example.

What are the implications?

  • Heuristics are rules of thumb: they are subject to learning effects. Repeated exposure to any tactic over time educates people about its likely veracity in that context. Certain tactics (e.g. scarcity claims) in certain situations (e.g. in travel websites) have been over-used. Their power is now diminished in these contexts.
  • Marketers should be aware of this learning feedback loop. Tactics successful at a transaction level (increasing conversion rate) may be a failure at brand level (being interpreted as sales pressure, affecting trust). The scope and timeframe of evaluation should allow for this.
  • Behavioural tactics effective in one context may be ineffective in another. As Todd and Gigerenzer put it: “It is the interaction between a heuristic and its social, institutional, or physical environment that explains behavior… in a coadapting loop between mind and world.”
  • More broadly, marketers should expect – and accept – what Rory Sutherland calls context-sensitive contradictions in human behaviour. Deploying a given tactic is unlikely to result in a simple, linear behavioural effect. The category, its norms, the decision type and the context all interact to create subtle nuances in behaviour which are not easily predicted. For this reason marketers using behavioural tactics should be experimental organisations, testing, learning and collecting data.

Future research

  • Questions for future research include: a) the degree to which heuristics are dynamic rather than static b) the relationship between heuristics (rules of thumb) and biases (patterns of error in decision making).

This is an extract from a larger study. Interested in hearing more? Please drop me a line at s.shaw@trinitymcqueen.com.


Appendix – a note on methodology

  • We took a similar approach to our questionnaire as the Competition and Markets Authority in their recent investigation of hotel booking websites.
  • For the hotel booking claims, we started off with a scenario, showed unbranded claims and asked a open-ended question to gather spontaneous impressions. We then went into an pre-coded emotional response question before getting people to complete the semantic differential question you see in the post.
  • There are limitations to using a survey to explore these issues (priming and order effects); that is traded off against having a robust nat rep sample providing a “helicopter view” evaluation of the issues.
  • In an ideal world I’d love to do a series of test/control experiments using a live hotel booking website, tracking responses over time.
Posted in Behavioural Economics, Behavioural Science, Conferences, Consumer Psychology, Decision Science, Market Research, Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dollar Street: a glimpse into how people live across the world

South Korea.jpg

The Lim family lives in Busan in South Korea on $827 a month 

Dollar Street is a photography project aiming to demystify the daily lives of people who live in other cultures.

Covering more than 30 000 photos in 300 homes across 56 countries, it’s a semiotician’s dream.

In each home the photographer spends a day taking photos of 135 objects, from front doors to shoes to household items. These become a searchable database, allowing you to see the commonalities across cultures, how and where things subtly differ. Crucially you can search by geography and by income. So you can compare “what people dream of buying” or children’s toys or front doors as you wish. It’s addictive.

It was founded by Anna Rosling Rönnlund (Hans Rosling’s Daughter) of Gapminder. Her remit is to address misconceptions about global development through accessibly presented information. Over time she found that presenting global trends data didn’t really convey the reality of life in the developing world. In her words:

“People in other cultures are often portrayed as scary or exotic…This has to change. We want to show how people really live. It seemed natural to use photos as data so people can see for themselves what life looks like on different income levels. Dollar Street lets you visit many, many homes all over the world. Without travelling.”

It’s immediately obvious that it’s a powerful tool for empathy. There is a beguiling mixture of hope, pride and pathos in the images. There’s poetry in the everyday.

toys_dollar street

Posted in Ethnography, Market Research, Qualitative research | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Three ways to think about value: scarcity, context and signalling

Bring to mind someone ordering oysters in a restaurant.

Who are they? What do they look like? What type of restaurant are they in?

I was surprised to learn this week that Oysters were an everyday staple in the Victorian era, so plentiful that they were given away free in pubs. They fell out of fashion in the early 20th century, and thereafter oyster beds declined in UK waters.

Whilst oysters haven’t changed much in the past few generations, our beliefs have; current associations of luxury & decadence would have seemed strange 150 years ago.

This leads to a broader question: what is behind what we value?

I’d argue we value what we believe in, and that belief is largely driven by scarcity, context & signalling. Here’s as brief a summary as I can manage.

1) Scarcity

Natural scarcity

The team at Ogilvy Change subdivide scarcity into rarity, quantity, competition & time. This makes intuitive sense, whether applied to goods (like truffles or blue fin tuna) or services (like front row seats at the theatre).

Artificial scarcity

In business scarcity is just another lever to generate demand, as evidenced everywhere from Disney’s release schedule to your hotel booking website.

2) Context

Value is relative, not absolute

Karl Marx put it best:

“A house may be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small, it satisfies all social demands for a dwelling. But if a palace rises beside the little house, the little house shrinks into a hut.”

Culture

The most popular restaurant I saw whilst on holiday in Thailand was Mont. They sell toast. Toast with butter. Condensed milk. Chocolate spread. But essentially grilled white bread. If I proposed we pop out to a restaurant for toast in the UK, you’d assume I had a brain injury. In Bangkok I’d be on trend.

Mont nom sod Chiang Mai

A very busy Mont outlet in Chiang Mai, and some of their toast (pic: mont-nomsod.com)

Comparison

A wonderful example of anchoring is at the Ferrari museum in Maranello. After you’ve gawped at the wonderful lines of the 812 Superfast (£260,908) and heard the rumble of the naturally aspirated V8 in a 458 Speciale (£208,000), you exit through the gift shop. Here you can buy a single bolt from a 1996 F1 car for £450. Mounted in Perspex with an authentication certificate, it is a potent totem. It isn’t a bolt at all: it embodies belief, and signifies connoisseurship.

Ferrari screw from Schumacher Suzuka1

A bolt or a potent totem? Perhaps both.

Similarly, when you are specifying options on your £90,000 Ranger Rover Sport, Carpathian Grey metallic paint seems reasonable at £1700. This is about £170 a litre.

Brands frame our perceptions

As Barden makes clear in the excellent Decoded, brands frame our experience of goods & services. Framing is why people pay about two grand more for a VW Sharan over a Ford Galaxy, virtually identical cars made on the same production line.

Habituation

The novelty soon wears off a new purchase. Psychologists call this hedonic adaption. Consumption is merely a treadmill.

At a societal level, the Easterlin paradox is apt: as societies get richer there are diminishing returns to happiness. A fascinating study on housing supports this point.

Indeed, as we get richer, the market premiumises existing products to soak up our disposable income, even in unengaging categories. You can buy a “cool” washing machine LG Signature range if you so wish.

3) Signalling

Sign value

Baudrillard described four ways an object has value. I’ll focus on three:

  • Use value – what it does;
  • Exchange value – what you can trade it for;
  • Sign value – how it is perceived in relation to other items & what it implies about the owner.
SMEG & Beko_How cool is your cooling device.png

How cool is your cooling? Pics: SMEG & Beko

A SMEG fridge chills just like a Beko fridge; both cost a portion of your monthly pay; however they both have radically different connotations. Functional differences aside, when you buy a SMEG fridge you are buying into the unwritten, intangible but powerful meaning it conveys.

Communicating status

Social distinction is the shadow motive behind much consumer behaviour. We have such a profound need to signal identity that the normal rules of supply and demand don’t always apply: increasing prices can increase demand because of exclusivity. As Clarkson said about SUVs:

“Admit it. You want a big SUV because it’s part of today’s uniform. It tells people that you have a second home in the country and that you shoot. It says that money’s not a worry. All of this is human nature. It’s silly but it’s how we are.”

So many choices only make sense from the perspective of evolutionary biology, the signalling value they offer. Rory Sutherland makes a similar point about cheese:

“…middle-class rules now require that every dinner party cheeseboard must contain at least two cheeses which aren’t very nice… I was baffled by this for a long time, until I realised that these cheeses are not bought to be eaten, but to signal the sophistication of the occasion…There are many forms of consumption today where — dress it up all you like — it is obvious the main value lies not in the intrinsic value of the thing itself but in signalling the refinement of your taste. This increasingly creates a kind of feedback loop where people are driven to absurd lengths to gain competitive bragging rights.”

Absurd lengths? The Silicon Valley elite’s latest status symbol: keeping chickens. As the Washington post report:

“..egg-laying chickens are now a trendy, eco-conscious humblebrag on par with driving a Tesla…Being able to say you have chickens says, ‘I have a back yard,’ and having a back yard says, ‘I have space.’ And having space means you have money, especially when it comes to Silicon Valley real estate.”

Signalling is useful lens for consumption as it allows us to consider underlying motives. In the western world experiences, knowledge and connoisseurship are new markers of status. In California buying SUV might serve a similar purpose to buying a live chicken.

Belief is a trick we play on ourselves

Blind taste testing is often a waste of time; I’ve seen budget supermarkets win taste tests blind, then lose them branded. Research by Stanford neuro-economist Baba Shiv shows our expectations overcome our sense impressions. You taste what you believe. It’s a variant of the placebo effect.

In summary?

  • What you believe in, you value.
  • Value is subjective and relative, not objective and absolute.
  • Value is dynamic, ever changing.
  • Value is dependent on context and culture.
  • Brands frame our experiences.
  • Brands act as carriers of belief.
  • Expectations increase over time. There is no end point.
Posted in Behavioural Economics, Market Research, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

APG Noisy Thinking: a planning surgery with Les Binet and Sarah Carter

The APG brought together Les Binet and Sarah Carter for a Q&A at Google HQ yesterday evening, the latest in their Noisy Thinking series. Billed as a “planning surgery” it was an opportunity to pose questions to and discuss the finer points of marketing strategy in a confidential environment.

It’s been a busy year for the APG: 2 books, a conference and a multiplicity of events. Members are getting their money’s worth.

Here’s 7 themes from the evening:

Binet & Carter How Not To Plan APG

#1 Don’t worry about alienating existing users when trying to get new ones

  • We discussed the hardy perennial of comms briefs: the aim of appealing to new buyers “without alienating existing buyers”
  • Their evidence shows this never happens: they have never seen any ad have a negative influence on sales
  • Alienation as an idea is flawed, based on 2 false premises:
    • Brands are important to people (they aren’t);
    • People who buy you are “your customers” (as Andrew Ehrenberg put it “Your customers are the customers of other brands who occasionally buy you”)
  • The violent re-positioning of Super Noodles – taking it from kids’ tea time treat to blokes post-pub grub – had the effect of increasing sales to all users. That’s how ads work.
  • Badly designed research will means provocative new ideas tend to be rejected. When you make an ad, people often end up liking it.
  • Research also underestimates herd effects. When people experience others really enjoying an ad this builds momentum.
  • Takeaway: Worry less. Build new brands through bold executions.

#2 Put communications LAST

  • We discussed a failed loyalty campaign, based on downloading an app to get a discount. The critique? An expensive way to reach a small amount of people, preaching to the converted, cannibalising existing sales, selling them at a lower margin. It got commissioned because it was a “cool idea.”
  • Put comms LAST not first: start with your business objectives:
    • How much you want to sell, at what margin?
    • Think about what behaviours want to elicit to get there (e.g. penetration vs. loyalty)
  • Advertising is a numbers game. John Lewis speak to most people in Britain multiple times at Xmas, investing in something like 800m impressions. A million impressions is a “rounding error” for a national brand campaign.
  • Takeaway: Marketing is about all 4Ps: get away from “1P marketing”.
  • Takeaway: recognise when the audience for any activity is the marketing community itself: “cool ideas” smack of empire building to me.

#3 Something is better than nothing: the mere exposure effect

  • You can think yourself into inaction, executional paralysis.
  • The biggest sin is not doing anything: 2 years off air is enough to kill a brand.
  • Consider the mere exposure effect: just putting a logo out there will have some effect; investing in 40m exposures even more. Move into the realm of great creative work and you’ll be 10x more effective.
  • Takeaway: check your ego and act.

#4 Ads don’t have to make sense

  • Changing the shape of Tetley teabags to make them round made them market leaders within 3 months. This was despite PG Tips’ iconic and long running Chimps campaign.
  • There is no rational defence: it was the same tea, people just quite liked the change. It felt cosy, the bags fitted in a mug. PG inevitably retaliated with the pyramid bag…
  • It’s a reminder that we live in a system 1 world: mints with holes and meerkats that speak Russian are not bounded in cost benefit analyses.
  • Takeaway: The magic of advertising is in the little things that don’t make sense. Fight to hang on to random illogical things that make people feel something.

Binet & Carter How Not To Plan APG 1#5 Think about “functional alibis”

  • Advertising works beyond the linear message > response paradigm it is often reduced to.
  • The Rowan Atkinson Barclaycard campaign used humourous vignettes involving things like burning carpets to illustrate functional benefits like purchase insurance. These “functional alibis” are just jumping off points for creatives to guide the execution – which actually work through swagger & humour.

#6 Stop worrying about maximising efficiency and ROI: worry about effectiveness

  • In 2011 the AA cut ATL brand spending – putting all their investment into DM, email & paid search. This was an offers-based strategy: hook people, then increase prices.
  • Highly efficient & profitable in the short-term, brand metrics went into free-fall. This led to commoditisation as people searched for the category not the brand. Discounts had to be deeper and existing customers lent upon harder; churn increased etc.
  • Analysis showed the brand would be insolvent within 5 years if the strategy continued.
  • Investment in a heavyweight ATL brand campaign reversed the decline (pic).

Binet & Carter How Not To Plan APG 2.jpg#7 Quant pretesting needs a rethink

  • Most quant pretesting methods work on a rational, linear, message-response model.
  • The best you can say for it is that it gets rid of the worst performers, lifting the floor.
  • The critique is that it lowers the ceiling: it dulls the lustre of anything original.
  • MAJOR VENDOR X state they get the same result from an animatic as a finished ad. Question: how can this be anything other than literally testing a message?
  • It is hard enough working out why successful ads work after they are live. The thought experiment of how successful ads might fare in pretesting makes the argument clearer. Example: the Hamlet photo booth ad (worth rewatching BTW) cannot be rationalised: the comedy is in the nuance, comic timing and casting.
  • Question: do we end up not doing humour if pretesting can’t allow it through its maw?
  • Question: what are we pretesting for? If it is executional guidance, isn’t skilled qualitative research best for this kind of nuance?
  • Takeaway: get a grip researchers.

A thought provoking evening. Thanks to Les Binet & Sarah Carter, Google for hosting and compere Matt Tanter from the APG.

 

Posted in Advertising, Market Research, Marketing Research, Methods, Planning, Qualitative research | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Digital Darwinism by Tom Goodwin: book review

Digital Darwinism by Tom Goodwin

Digital Darwinism was published in April to some acclaim. Goodwin is Head of Innovation for Zenith Media, a master of the pithy aphorism and a twitter-era contrarian. My question on picking up the book was whether there would be depth behind the soundbites.

I’m pleased to say there is. It’s packed full of ideas to help us think about business in these ‘accelerated times’. Goodwin contextualises 2018’s digital world by looking at the past, drawing learnings from the adoption of previous ‘new’ technologies like electricity.

What is Digital Darwinism?

The core idea is that technology changed the parameters for business success:

  • The mass adoption of networked computing has supercharged competition: it’s never been easier to try a new provider in any category.
  • Companies are designed to evolve slowly over time, but the speed of technology means the background for business changes faster than any company can.
  • New players, defined by their tech-enabled customer centricity are like invasive species, quickly coming to dominate once stable ecosystems.
  • To survive, established players shouldn’t aim for incremental change, slowly breeding-in hybrid vigor. They need to look further ahead and get used to reinventing and re-reinventing what they offer.

Natural agility is not enough

Incumbents too often tinker around the edges, sprinkling a layer of tech on top of old problems (‘hey, let’s do something with chatbots’) rather than starting at the root of the issue, user needs. Indeed, when it comes to innovation incumbents are at a double-disadvantage. The incentives are misaligned. With success comes complacency:

“We live in the age of insurgents, who use last mover advantage to deploy the latest, best and cheapest tech and who take advantage of new behaviours… The insurgent isn’t bogged down with expertise. What in theory should allow dominant players to win easily often acts against them… you are so invested in the old paradigm, that you actively seek to combat change. Sony made too much money from selling music. Kodak from selling photo products.” 

Asking the questions no-one else is asking

Digital Darwinism is a mindset. The mega-cap tech firms re-imagined established categories by asking questions no-one else was asking, changing parameters of the design process. Goodwin cites the Tesla Model S by example: with fewer than 20 moving components compared to 1500 in a standard car, it takes a sixth of the time to assemble. We’re urged to learn from this audacity. Forget how you currently operate & consider what your company would be like if you started from scratch. Be hard on yourself. Would you do the same things?

Value is different in the digital age

We’re so overburdened with choice in every conceivable category that managing abundance and aiding discovery is what people really need. The consequence? The content gateway is more important than the provider. Examples abound. I shudder to say it, but I know people who know which playlists they like, but not which artists.

“Value is different in the digital age. I use a slower more expensive train to visit my parents because it has wifi and plug sockets. My time is most valuable.”

He’s particularly good on trends

In his view business success emanates from empathy and human understanding, not technology.  

“Innovation has always been misunderstood to mean more. We thought that Nokia was innovative because they made 72 handsets a year, until Apple made a single one and it changed the world. The collective goal of companies has to shift from doing extra, to work hard on doing less, better.”

Indeed, Goodwin urges us to think harder as we look forward. He is scathing about much trend prediction which he dismisses as chartism – the mindless extrapolation of existing trend lines. Assuming you are right because you have a lot of data is absurd:

“We think data will light the way but increasingly it is blinding us…”

“If you ask people about something that doesn’t yet exist, you get something worse than useless – you get something damagingly misleading…”

“Data does an excellent job of mapping the past and the current, but a terrible job for those who need to look ahead…”

I really liked his material on second & third order effects, which make the dance and interplay of trend and counter-trend much clearer. Craft beer makes sense when all the mass market wants to give you is Bud Light; farmers markets make sense in the era of stack it high, sell it cheap retail.

But… winners may not remain winners

The missing element may be a recognition that winners may not remain winners. Volatility is baked-into networked capitalism. As David Karpf writes in WiredIn the rush to identify the next industry that will be disrupted by the digital revolution, we underrate how fragile the business models of the disruptors themselves tend to be.”

Taking the long view from my research, in 2007 Bebo was the teen’s social network of choice; in 2017 the teens I researched only talked about Instagram. Facebook occupied the middle years. Envisage a world where Facebook’s success ebbs away because young people see it as something “for old people – like mum or dad…”

Overall

Goodwin comes across as a frustrated idealist, wanting us to do better. It’s an enjoyable read, and provides helpful context to think more clearly about the parameters of business success in 2018. But don’t expect a blueprint. Goodwin helps us map the terrain. The route we’ll have to plot for ourselves.

==

Addendum: other books worth reading about tech-enabled business  

Zero to One by Peter Thiel

Thiel was co-founder of Paypal and is now a venture capitalist, famous for being the first outsider to invest in Facebook. He’s from what you might call the muscular individualist school of capitalism. Depending what you read he may also be a genius suffering from survivor bias and a lack of empathy. Zero to One is slim, crisp and highly readable. Like Goodwin he is no fan of incrementalism. The sections on how Paypal succeeded, power laws and his four scenarios for the future are all highly thought-provoking.

The Inevitable by Kevin Kelly

Idealist, hippie sage Kelly takes us through 12 technological forces which will shape the future. Written in 2014 it feels slightly optimistic in the era of bot-created fake news, but his commentary on AI, “flows” and how screens affect our behaviour is superb.

Posted in Books, Marketing Research, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Market research and technology: the future

shutterstock_762465823This post was originally published on insightplatforms.com

===========

We live in the era of Artificial Intelligence.

The payoff? Tech can free us up to think, not do. The future is about automating tasks, not jobs. You don’t need to be a techno-utopian to envision a future where drudge work is reduced and we have more time to reflect on our data and what it means.

The challenge? Our skillset needs to evolve to fit this new ecosystem

The World Economic Forum’s report The Future of Jobs highlighted the 3 skills most prized in modern workers: cognitive flexibility, critical thinking and creativity. In the future when inspiration strikes on the train to a briefing meeting you’ll be able to use a free AI tool to generate some hypotheses from a “big dataset”, then bang the results into software to create an animated visualisation of your viewpoint… all without breaking a sweat.

Good researchers will be specialists who have an understanding of related disciplines. Much has been written about “T-shaped people” – rightly so, because it’s a vivid metaphor. In my experience, clients want business solutions and trust you to combine the right tools and techniques to get there. I’m never going to grasp the finer points of algorithm design or boolean logic. But I might sit across the office from someone who does and chat with them over lunch. And they might provide a breakthrough on my project. Your collective mind works a lot faster.

Good researchers will be hyper-aware when automation starts to erode their skills. Because when systems fail, a skilful response is required. We should be conductors harmonising an orchestra of tech, unintimidated if required to turn our hand to different instruments. In the future I will set my research AI going to facilitate my desk research the day I am commissioned on a project. It will collate and theme sources, but if it fails I have the skills to explore not just Google, but my library, and can call in favours from my peers ahead of the deadline.

Good researchers will be stretched by the advent of AI. It has been 21 years since IBM’s Deep Blue first beat Garry Kasparov. As Kevin Kelly writes “The advent of AI didn’t diminish the performance of purely human chess players. Quite the opposite. Cheap, supersmart chess programs inspired more people than ever to play chess, at more tournaments than ever, and the players got better than ever. There are more than twice as many grand masters now as there were when Deep Blue first beat Kasparov.” Similarly the world’s best medical diagnostician is not a computer or a doctor, but a team of both. There’s a mutuality and complementarity here. Machines have unrivalled processing power. But lateral thinking and eureka effects do not reside in binary code.

Insight is a deeply human act

Human interpretation is art as well as science. Consider body language (like when a participant leans forward and their eyes light-up) cultural nuance (knowing the subtext when an Englishman says “I’m fine. Thanks.”) empathy (your niece’s crocodile tears sounding different to real tears) common sense (thinking ‘hang on a minute’ when Facebook claimed it reached more UK 15-24 year olds than actually exist) or even hard-won knowledge (having a feel for causality when considering feedback loops).

The upshot? Insight is a creative process. Your AI <> big data interface can explore ten thousand data runs a day, but it can’t and won’t tell you what it means, how to combine it with human data, or what to do next. Gut-feel, wisdom and working with clients to inspire cultural change aren’t going to be automated anytime soon.

Insight is a deeply human act. Or to put it another way, a hard AI problem.

Maybe that’s the same thing?

So in summary:

  • Let’s look forward to a future where we automate boring tasks, to focus on interpretation and meaning;
  • Researchers will be conductors of an orchestra of tech, weaving together a symphony of platforms in real time to create harmony;
  • Clients will be our patrons, commissioning each opus to their needs and preferences;
  • A data rich world requires more human contact – not less;
  • We’ll need to adapt our skillsets but we should relish this challenge.

 

 

 

Posted in Market Research, Marketing Research, Technology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment