Report this comment to a moderator

Truth, lies and market research

I find it a little offensive to see respondents as not telling the truth and think we do ourselves a disservice by perpetuating this view. The problem is actually the artificiality of the research process and the failure to recognise how people think and act in real life - or how they would think and act if branding and advertising didn't distort their normal behaviour. In the examples given, prospective buyers of MP3 players (and many other products) may well feel, in the early stages of their decision making and while learning about and weighing up alternatives, that model a is superior, no hang on model b's got some other useful feature and model c has some other advantage, then when they finally commit to a decision that model d is the one they want. That's how things happen in real life and is what the group discussion process should ideally replicate. It shouldn't be seen as a problem. Decisions are often not made in a linear or logical fashion and the buying process often involves changes of mind. It's our job to oberve this, not to judge it. In the second example, the notion that allying oneself to an aspirational brand indicates bias is surely missing the point - the whole purpose of aspirational brands is to make people aspire to them. If someone who shops at Tesco says 'I'm Jaguar', then all that tells you is that Jaguar's advertising works. We (the marketing/advertising/research industry) have created a situation in which we have synthesised demand, aspirations and an excess of choice. We expose people to product offerings and communications whose very purpose is to tweak their emotions and undermine rational thought, to create insecurities. In other words, to create stress. So isn't it then a bit rude to patronise people for not being rational or predictable? Especially when they're trying to be helpful by taking part in research.

23-Jul-2009

9:50 am