Consumerology: The Truth About Consumers and the Psychology of Shopping by Graves Philip

Author:Graves, Philip [Graves, Philip]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Business
ISBN: 9781857885767
Google: i5jSNrCYpEwC
Amazon: 1857885767
Barnesnoble: 1857885767
Goodreads: 14520097
Publisher: Nicholas Brealey Publishing
Published: 2010-11-16T00:00:00+00:00

7 Artificially reinforcing existing opinions

A few years ago I had the opportunity to watch a research agency that specialized in packaging design research moderating some focus groups for a drinks company. At the outset, the person running the group spent a large amount of time facilitating a discussion about how the respondents currently used the brand concerned. Essentially, the group conducted a mini brainstorm and eventually dredged up a large number of brand references from advertising and packaging. Among these was the shape of the bottle and the occasion on which they purchased the product.

The brand’s big problem was that people only bought it once a year at Christmas. Unfortunately, the upshot of a process that forced people to appreciate that they only bought this particular product, in its particular bottle, at one time of year, was that the respondents consciously appreciated what they currently did unconsciously and therefore constructed justifications for why that would be the case. Consequently, when a series of innovative packaging designs was introduced for consideration, respondents were heavily (and unnaturally) sensitized to their existing behavior and were quick to dismiss something new; to have done so would have been to suggest that how they currently purchased the product was somehow “wrong,” when they had just rehearsed with themselves and each other why it was “right.” While there were numerous other reasons for this particular research approach being flawed, the fundamental problem was that the questions asked at the start of the interview had inadvertently set the tone for subsequent answers.

Most qualitative researchers conduct a “warm-up” exercise at the start of research (be it individual interviews or group discussions) to establish rapport and encourage the respondent(s) to talk openly. Unfortunately, this apparently unrelated exercise will prime people to bring particular thoughts or experiences to mind, which then color responses to subsequent questions.

Imagine that you’re taking part in research and are asked: “Where did you buy your last pair of shoes?” and “Why did you buy them from the place you did?” You’ve just publically declared some no doubt sensible reasons for buying your shoes from wherever you bought them, a shoe shop for instance. I’m sure you could talk about your shoe purchase easily (assuming it was reasonably recent) and that, having started talking in my presence, you will feel inclined to continue doing so, even if I start to ask slightly more challenging questions. Leaving aside the previously highlighted issue that your answers will be erroneous conscious post-rationalizations of what was probably a partially unconscious experience, I’ve just sensitized you to a process that was almost certainly not consciously constructed in this way when it originally occurred. If I now introduce a whole new concept of shoe buying, how likely would you be to embrace it? After all, we’ve both just heard your very sensible reasons for using the shop you chose (and probably both for the first time, too).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.