How we see ourselves is central to how we decide among alternatives.

Last summer I wrote a post about my Utility Tradeoff Model. Since then, quite a few of you have asked me to say more about the various tradeoff currencies. In particular, people really want more information about self-esteem. This makes sense, as qualitative research is indispensable to understanding self-image issues, and has been since its beginning. Remember the Betty Crocker cake mix story in that Utility Tradeoff Model piece? This is often where qualitative researchers earn their pay.

I’ve identified nine specific factors that seem to drive self-esteem and influence decision-making, and have trained myself to listen for them when conducting research.

Knowledge and skills. The things we know and can do are fundamental to how we see ourselves. If you know how to bake a cake from scratch, buying a cake mix could compromise your ability to activate and demonstrate that skill.

Possessions and wealth. I know, it’s shallow. But nobody is immune to seeing themselves through the lens of their stuff. If you just built an expensive new kitchen, you’re going to want to have people over for dinner instead of eating in a restaurant. Maybe you’ll even bake a cake.

Affiliation. We all want to be like Mike. The people, places and brands we associate ourselves with matter a great deal. There’s a reason GEICO pays that adorable little lizard so much money every year.

Altruism. Acts of sacrifice tend to make us feel good about ourselves. That’s why we’re so eager to pay a premium for eco-friendly products, and why nonprofits routinely publicize their donor lists. We also love to suffer for our children, despite how much we complain about it (and how ungrateful they are).

Nurturing. Much like sacrifice, the desire to feed, protect and care for those who depend upon us is hard-wired into our emotional makeup and profoundly influences our self-image—you can’t fight 60 million years of primate evolution. The impulse to nurture is as powerful as any human beings have. That’s why so many brands promise that using their products will make you a better parent.

Morality. Our moral code defines us as much as anything, and the morality mindset is probably the dominant lens through which we see the world and ourselves. For more about morality, read this recent blog post.

Control. We all want to exert influence, whether over ourselves, our circumstances or our environment. That’s one of the fundamental appeals of smart devices. It’s also why so many consumers prefer to buy multiple, separate OTC cough and cold products rather purchasing a single multi-symptom remedy.

Uniqueness/individuality. We all want to feel special, despite our crushing ordinariness. We particularly want to believe our children are unique. This is often at the heart of the appeal of home décor services, fashion consultation services, tutoring services and highly customizable products.

Ability to add value. Just about every premium haircare brand offers a full line of products to meet all of its consumers’ needs. However, only a very small percentage of a brand’s consumers use that one brand’s products to cover all their haircare needs. And why do jarred pasta sauce users insist on doctoring the product instead of serving it as-is? Because, by creating a customized product or array of products, users become part of the creation of the product’s benefits, thus generating additional value over and above the value provided by the products themselves. This act fosters considerable pride. If you’ve ever heard enthusiastic cooks describe the process by which they curated their collection of knives, you’ll know what I mean.

Obviously, this is my self-esteem checklist, based upon my own experiences as a researcher and a human. I’ve found it to be an indispensable tool, particularly when analyzing research results. However, I’d love to get the perspective of others on this topic. How do you look at self-esteem when conducting and analyzing research? What trends and consistencies have you noticed? What techniques do you use to spark discussion of self-image? Please get in touch and let me know.

How to be a human lie detector.

Several years ago, my friend Jack, who’s an FBI agent, described himself as a ‘human polygraph.’ When I asked him how he did it, he said, “there’s no magic. I just pretend I have a terrible memory.”

It’s easy to over-focus on getting truthful responses from research participants. Not to say that truth isn’t important, but it’s good to remember that sometimes it’s valuable to let people lie to you. When they provide dishonest answers to your questions – whether deliberately or unintentionally – instead of describing the world as it is, they’re describing the world as they would like it to be, or telling you how they would like to see themselves.

This is particularly valuable learning when dealing with sensitive topics. People can be reluctant to tell you how they really feel about things, and instead tell you what they think you want to hear or what they think is socially acceptable. In other words, they’re providing clues about what embarrasses them, or compromises their self-esteem, or makes them uncomfortable. This can be key to uncovering hidden motivations.

So, when conducting research and analyzing your data, it’s important to be able to distinguish truth from falsehood. Over the course of my career, I’ve identified three invaluable techniques to tell if research participants are being honest. To be clear, these methods aren’t perfect, but I’ve found them to be pretty reliable

1)  Ask the same question repeatedly.

This is the one I learned from G-Man Jack. To determine how truthful an answer is, ask the question multiple times and in a variety of ways. When people are telling the truth, they have no difficulty sticking to their story. But when they’re dissembling, their replies can be inconsistent, and the story tends to wander closer to the truth the more you press them.

Sometimes I’ll ask the question exactly as I asked it in the past, sometimes slightly differently. Such as:

• Why do you use Tide?

• What are your reasons for using Tide?

• Why do you think so many people use Tide?

• Why don’t you use Gain?

• Why do you love Tide?

• What is the best thing about Tide?

• What are three things you like about Tide?

• How would you describe people who love Tide?

• What do Gain users not understand about Tide?

• What don’t you like about Gain?

• How do users of Tide differ from users of Gain?

• And so forth. (I can do this all day.)

Don’t be uncomfortable asking a question multiple times. If a participant calls you on it, own up … “yup – you caught me!’” Then explain that asking a question multiple times is a common research practice.

Pro-tip: Put your question variations in your moderator’s guide. It’s also a good idea to manage the expectations of your client: make sure they know that you’re going to use this probing tactic. Otherwise, they might think you’re not paying attention to the participants’ answers.

2) Pretend to forget.

Deliberately misremember what respondents have told you earlier in the conversation. This gives them the opportunity to correct you.

“You mentioned earlier that you don’t care for Tide. Does that mean you prefer Gain?”

If the participant doesn’t correct you, you just learned something. If they do, apologize and ask them to remind you of their previous answer, and see how closely this answer matches the earlier one.

3) Biometrics

A few years ago, I was conducting research among endocrinologists, exploring the idea of active patient involvement in treatment decisions. When we showed the doctors concepts for tools to increase patient participation, nearly all said they were highly interested in the idea.

However, we didn’t just have to take their word for it. We were also capturing biometric data during the interview. Specifically, galvanic skin response and facial coding. For some of the participants, the GSR showed a surprisingly strong physiological responses to the descriptions, and the facial coding showed a stew of negative emotions—specifically anger, fear and contempt. So the biometric data was in stark contrast to what those participants were saying. The big insight: while some doctors might dislike the idea of patient involvement in medical decisions, they may not feel it’s socially acceptable to say so. This led the client to take a decidedly different approach to marketing the patient involvement tools.

One additional thought—you can use these techniques in your personal life as well. Significant others particularly enjoy being questioned this way.  And your kids will love it too, although they might resist being wired up to biometric equipment.

Continue reading→

The Underrated Power of Oversimplification. 

When I left consumer packaged goods brand management and started working in qualitative research, I received a crucial piece of advice from my uncle. He had asked me about my plans. I gave a detailed explanation of the kind work I planned to do and the type of client I intended to pursue. He nodded and said, “that sounds great. But you need to come up with something much shorter if it’s going to make an impression.” “How short?” I asked. “Ten words,” he replied. I pushed back, saying that such a short description wouldn’t do justice to my abilities. He replied that this was unimportant. What mattered was giving people an explanation that they could easily understand, remember, and see as relevant to themselves. “So what if it’s oversimplified? That’s your problem, not theirs.” In fact, he added, if it’s not oversimplified, it’s probably too long and too complicated to be effective.

So, taking my uncle’s words to heart, these are some overly simple ways I describe myself to people outside the world of marketing or market research:

“I get people to talk to me about stuff.”

“I help clients see their business through their customers’ eyes.”

Here’s another thing I’ve learned; it’s a good idea to describe yourself in comparison to ‘something familiar. People need to be able to categorize you easily—put you in a box—even if you don’t precisely fit into that category. You have to let them think about you in terms that are relevant to them, not you. With that in mind, here are some oversimplified ways I describe myself to people inside the world of marketing and market research:

“I’m a focus group moderator.”

“I’m a qualitative researcher.”

These descriptions go directly to concepts that are familiar to this audience. While my expertise with qualitative research tools goes well past just conducting focus groups, ‘focus group moderator’ is a convenient shorthand that’s often used to describe my profession. Similarly, while I certainly am a qualitative researcher, the type of expertise and insight I provide to my clients goes far beyond just qualitative research skills. But, again, ‘qualitative researcher’ is a well-understood frame of reference, and so it’s a good place to start.

So, the point here is that mere simplicity, while laudable, may not be sufficient by itself. Over-simplification might be necessary to make messages memorable and effective.

This principle also applies to branding and marketing challenges. It’s common to encounter product concepts or advertising prototypes that are overly complicated, and it’s no secret as to why they test poorly. But I’ve tested research stimuli that were simple and straightforward and still didn’t resonate. Only when we oversimplified the message did the respondents react positively. For instance, I once tested concepts for a new high-fat baking chocolate. The first concepts – which were fairly brief but fully accurate descriptions of the product – were greeted with confusion; the participants couldn’t grasp the idea. However, when we showed a concept that said “it’s like chocolate mixed with butter,” the respondents became extremely interested. This really wasn’t an accurate description of the product at all, but it offered the participants a familiar and appealing frame of reference, which made them want to learn more. The oversimplified description was the one that resonated.

Something that makes this principle of oversimplification challenging is the fact that marketers and market researchers tend to be highly rigorous thinkers, and oversimplified messages make us uneasy. So, embracing this concept may require you to go against your nature.

One more thing: an emotional component to a message is crucial to engagement and memorability.  The simpler a communication is, the less people have to work to understand it, and the easier it is to find an emotional hook. In other words, the less you have to think, the more you can feel.

So, go ahead—put yourself in a box. Get comfortable with over-simplification. It’s often the path to the most effective messages.