Market Research: Emotions Matter

Dennis Stefani, executive vice president, Consumer Inspired & Guided Brand and Innovation Strategy, Added Value (added-value-na.com), cites a book by a neuroscientist, Antonio R. Damasio, that came out in 1994. It is titled Descartes’ Error. As you undoubtedly recall from one of your Philosophy 101 classes, Descartes’ cognito, ergo sum led to a rational view of things. Stefani is not a neuroscientist, nor is he a philosopher. Rather, he works in market research. But he believes that Damasio’s insight is exceedingly important when it comes to product development, especially to the market research that precedes it.

“The biggest problem with most market research,” he says, “is that decisions are pretty much emotional, but market research is practical and superficial.” He explains, “The minute you take the survey out, people become very practical and very rational.” In other words, they are responding to the survey, not to the product of interest. So the typical market research puts people in the rational mode, but their buying is done in an emotional mode. Ever wonder why so many products are ill-conceived or why so many products fail in the market? Maybe that has a little more than something to do with it.

And then there are the products that resonate so well with some people that they are gladly willing to pay a premium for: “Hi, I’m a Mac.”

Stefani is a veteran in product development. He had spent years working in product development at Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, working on projects from the VMAX motorcycle to the WaveRunner. Perhaps working on motorcycles—which are certainly emotional modes of transportation—also contributes to Stefani’s belief that feelings matter. He recalls back in the early- to mid-70s, trying to explain to the Japanese management of Yamaha how one of the reasons why Harley-Davidson is so successful is because people have an emotional relationship with Harleys. “They took their dictionaries out,” he says, as there was a difficulty understanding this relationship.

Arguably, it is no easier for many people to understand more than 30 years later, even if English is their native language.

Stefani says that there are three things that market research should do for a development program. Figure out:
1. Where you should play
2. What’s the right concept
3. What’s the right execution

It is important that the up-front work is key to defining the guiding principles that need to be adhered to throughout the product development program. One of the problems that results in comparatively unsuccessful products is a disconnection between the concept and the execution. “We love to use the Pontiac Aztek as an example,” he says. “The concept was very good. But the execution was pretty bad.” This dichotomy could have been the result of concept drift during the development.

Another example he cites is the Segway. While he acknowledges that it is “great engineering,” he asks, “But what do you look like when you’re riding it?” Who wants to be that person? Apparently, not as many people as had been anticipated.

There are a few things
that Stefani recommends as regards doing research and then packaging that research for use by the designers and developers:

1. Look for peak experiences. What is it that really resonates with the targeted buyer? “Harley guys think about the Daytona trip,” he says, referring to the annual Daytona Bike Week, which draws about 500,000 people. “New purchases are really centered around that.” Even if the Harley buyer may never go to the Daytona bike bacchanal, they probably think in terms of “Maybe . . .”
2. Come up with a major metaphor. This could take the form of anything from an animal
(a product that is supposed to be aggressive could be a lion) to an athlete (he says that in work with Yamaha they differentiated between brute macho—a football player—and finesse macho—
a skier).
3. Build the design brief and use it as a control document.

The third point is essential. He says that this brief should be a “non-numerical description of a target customer, and should include their iconic usage occasion, design taste, emotional buttons, and other attributes.” He says that it is useful to come up with a real person, “an iconic person based on reality, rather than just making someone up.” That becomes the guide for the designers and developers. “It’s like buying a gift for a best friend. You walk into a store, see something, and know that that is exactly what they’d want. But if you have to buy something for a business associate, that’s more difficult.”

(Stefani says that there are some people who are against using the iconic person because it might limit your sales because it is so specific. He thinks that’s not the case. “What limits your sales are crappy products that are over priced, bad dealers . . .”)

The design brief as control document is important. Stefani believes that someone high in the organization needs to use that as a metric throughout the development process, saying throughout, “Remind me of the brief and how you are delivering against it?” Says Stefani: “You have to have a process and you’ve got to stick to it.” Otherwise, someone might go off the reservation at some point . . . and deliver one of those products that leave people scratching their heads and the products sitting on the shelves.