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.

I once heard a historian remark that maps are like campfires: everybody gathers around them because they bring simplicity to the complex, and show us how to get where we’re going.

There’s no shortage of wisdom on the basics of qualitative research guides, but there are a few concepts that rarely get discussed. Regardless of the type of qualitative being conducted, ‘the guide’ is the roadmap. Depending on the methodology, it goes by different names: moderator’s guide, discussion guide, topic guide, interview guide, or activity guide. No matter—the same principles apply. So here are a few little-thought-of, but crucially important, ideas that must be understood and kept in mind when creating effective guides.  Keeping them in mind can lead you to breakthrough insights.

The guide must allow key topics to surface organically. I once conducted research for a new brand in an existing medication category that wanted to address the problem of needing water when taking tablets. The ad agency proposed starting the focus groups with the advertising prototypes created for the research, with no time spent discussing the participants’ category experiences and attitudes. The research team pushed back, believing that some initial discussion around category pain points could be enlightening. Fortunately, that’s what we did, because the big finding from that part of the discussion was that needing water never came up on its own. When I finally prompted for it most participants agreed it was a bit of an issue, but that was as far as they were willing to go. Ultimately, the client realized that their upcoming marketing program was oriented around a problem that barely existed, and they were able to revise their approach.

The point is that when and how discussion points arise can be some of the most valuable learning gained from qualitative. So it’s good practice to allow things to come up on their own whenever possible. This will allow you to observe when something arose, whether it did so with or without prompting, and, if unprompted, what led to the topic arising. What vocabulary did the participants use when bringing it up? If it had to be brought up by the moderator, do the participants have any thoughts as to why? Clearly identifying topics in the guide that will not be prompted will allow these conversations to happen, leading to key insights.

The guide must be created collaboratively. The purpose of market research is to mitigate business risk and to guide decisions. To do that effectively, all stakeholders must be involved in designing that research. This could include internal and external researchers, the brand team, R&D, various creative agencies and senior management. All stakeholders must fully buy into the research objectives and approach, meaning they must have input into the guide. The creation of a guide is often an iterative process in which the researcher gains understanding while clients are able to focus and refine their thinking. Sometimes clients go into research with a fairly good idea of what they want to do, but it’s not fully fleshed out. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the process of collaborating with the moderator to write the guide is the perfect opportunity to figure all that out. The irony here is that, if this process is fully collaborative, by the time the research arrives, everybody knows the guide so well that nobody, client or moderator, needs to look at it very much.

The guide must be adaptable. As researchers have been saying since the beginning of time, ‘it’s a guide, not a script.’ This means more than simply that the moderator isn’t going to read every question exactly as written, and in the order presented. While the guide must include all of the issues to be explored and provide a rough plan for how that will be accomplished, it must also allow for a good deal of flexibility. Topics will not necessarily come up in the expected order, some questions will fall flat or confuse the participants, some exercises will not be successful and unexpectedly interesting new topics might surface. Therefore, the guide should provide a variety of potential approaches for the discussion, not all of which might be used, and should allow the researcher to adjust depending on the flow of the discussion. It should also provide alternate orders for the various guide sections.

So, to sum up, if you want maximize the possibility of uncovering groundbreaking insights, make your guides organic, collaborative and flexible.

Note:  If you would like to read about even more basics on creating effective guides, a comprehensive list can be downloaded in the article contained at the link below.

Thanksgiving this year is going to be memorable, whether we like it or not.

I noticed the other day in the New York Times food section an article about making Thanksgiving dinner for two. Who saw that coming a year ago? I certainly didn’t. Just last week, I was conducting a webcam focus group, and during the introductions, all three participants agreed that they’re not really looking forward to Turkey Day. In another group, before the conversation started, a couple of participants glumly shared thoughts on making Thanksgiving for one. This all made me a bit sad, but I can’t say it was surprising.

Almost nobody is going to have the kind of Thanksgiving in 2020 they would have wished for. The thing to remember, though, is that it also will be a Thanksgiving we’ll never forget. So, it’s up to us – being that we’re going to remember this Thanksgiving vividly no matter what – we can make the best of it or we can wallow in self-pity. Having spent a fair amount of time feeling sorry for myself this year, that’s not something I recommend.

Also, it’s important to remember that, no matter how difficult circumstances might be right now, the list of things for which we can be thankful probably hasn’t gotten much shorter.

And, here’s something of a blessing in disguise. Thanksgiving this year will afford us even more opportunities than usual to devote at least a part of the day to sharing our blessings with others. No more than 30 seconds of Google research will provide pages and pages of opportunities in your area to help those who are desperately in need. Aside from being an essential thing we should all be doing, these experiences can create precious memories that will last a lifetime.

As for your Thanksgiving dinner – whatever it turns out to be – embrace it. Eat too much. Have another slice of pie. Break open that 25-year-old bottle of port. Tell the people you love how important they are to you, whether they’re right there with you or someplace else. And talk with your mouth full. Because life is short, and time really is precious.

There’s no skill more underrated than that of being able to work with difficult people, particularly when it comes to qualitative research.

Years ago, when I worked in CPG brand management, I witnessed this exchange between a brand manager, whom I’ll call Bill, and the SVP who ran our division —let’s call him John:

Bill: “We need a different R&D manager assigned to our brand.”

John: “What’s the problem with Jakub?”

Bill: “He’s just really difficult to work with.”

John: “How well does he do his job?”

Bill: “Fine. His technical skills are excellent. But we can’t stand the guy.”

John: “I just want to be sure I understand exactly what’s going on here; is Jakub doing anything inappropriate? I mean, should HR be involved in this conversation?”

Bill: “No, nothing like that, he’s just really disagreeable. Every conversation with him has a way of turning into an argument.”

John: “Then, no. Sorry. Jakub’s your R&D guy, and it’s your job to work with him. The fact that you personally dislike him doesn’t matter to me, and shouldn’t matter to you either. Get past that and do your job.”

Bill:  Grumble, grumble, grumble.

I remember this exchange as clearly as if it had just happened because this experience made a huge impression on me. I resolved – at that moment – that I would strive to work with anybody, no matter how difficult they were.

It would be great if we liked everybody we worked with, but that’s not how things generally go. Some people we encounter are very different from us, and it’s hard to find common ground. Some are just grouchy and unhappy. Some might suffer from a challenge like anxiety or depression or be on the autism spectrum. Regardless of the root cause, we don’t always get to choose the people we encounter professionally—and we have to work with them regardless of whether we like them or not.

This is certainly true for qualitative researchers. The research participants with whom we interact are not always pleasant. I’ve particularly noticed this when conducting healthcare research among patients—people who suffer from chronic, debilitating conditions can (understandably) be grumpy. But it’s my job to talk to them no matter what, and I have to meet them where they are. And I’ve always been wary of recruiting participants who are especially cooperative and communicative, as that carries the risk of skewing the findings in unpredictable ways.

But, if you merely grit your teeth and endure working with difficult people, you’re missing out on the larger opportunity. You must embrace and relish the challenge. The ability to work with anybody is an invaluable skill, and a key factor to success. In the course of my career, some of the most competent and gifted people I’ve encountered have also been some of the most contentious. The fact that I managed to work with them enabled me to achieve results that otherwise might have been unattainable.

So here’s my philosophy on this issue in a nutshell.

• Seek out the exasperating people. They might be the ones who have exceptional skills, extraordinary knowledge and an inspiring level of passion for what they do. They may enable you to do things you didn’t think possible. Make them your secret weapon.

• People you don’t mesh with might have a very different outlook on life and the world. This difference in perspectives is part of that thing we call diversity, and diversity is a key to success.

• Approach these individuals from a place of compassion, remembering that adage attributed to Ian Maclaren: “be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about.”

• Learn to love people for their idiosyncrasies, not despite them.

Every brilliant diamond starts as a rough stone that doesn’t look like much. Likewise, amazing people sometimes come wrapped in a prickly exterior. Learning to look beneath that surface will enable you to realize that they’re worth the trouble.

Morality is always a factor in perceptions and decisions. But people often don’t talk about it.

I’ve written in the past about mindset models. Morality, however, is the mother of all mindsets.  It’s constantly operative, constantly influencing our perceptions and constantly informing our decision making. So, it’s essential that researchers always be aware of it.

You’ll also find links to the other posts I’ve written on mindset models at the end of this blog.

For example, a few years ago, I was conducting research on medication non-compliance. We interviewed people with a variety of chronic conditions, including: obesity, hypertension and diabetes. They had struggled with these conditions for decades, and had been steadily losing ground. And yet, their compliance rate for taking their medications was very low. Why? While a few mentioned things like safety and side effects, most explained by saying something like ‘it’s too easy.’  Ultimately, they felt that medicating these conditions was somehow wrong. Or, in other words, it was immoral.

So, what do I mean by the term ‘morality?’ There’s no shortage of definitions, but here are a few I find useful:

Morality is our intuitive sense of right and wrong. People make moral judgements quickly and instinctively, much the same way we make aesthetic judgements. We might not always be able to explain precisely what moral or immoral behavior is, but we know it when we see it.

Social psychologists have described morality as a means of balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of the group. The fact that humans are able to act cooperatively and altruistically is what has enabled us to organize ourselves into groups (tribes), and is fully dependent on an ability to think in moral terms.

Another useful way to think about morality is that it is an evolved trait, directly linked to our species’ extremely large brain. Our exceptional cognitive ability allows us to think deeply about our actions, and our ability to control our own behavior makes us responsible for their consequences. Therefore, our ability to exercise free will is intrinsic to morality.

But ultimately, morality is a mindset—a lens through which we see the world. Difficult-to-understand or seemingly irrational behavior in others becomes clear when we view it through the operative moral mindset, which is why it’s such an important topic for researchers.

Morality is intrinsic to nearly all marketing issues. It’s an important component in branding. Brand personality and brand equity usually have a moral element, and brands and their competitors are often associated with specific virtues and sins.

Consider two brands from Seattle that have often come up in my research studies: Starbucks is often associated with fairness, while Amazon tends to be associated with rapaciousness. Morality is also key to segmentation— different consumer segments often are motivated by different moral imperatives.

Because morality is so fundamental to marketing, qualitative researchers must always be aware of it. Research participants talk about, or indirectly refer to, moral considerations frequently. Sometimes they do so overtly, but more often in coded language. Much of our sense of morality is intuitive, so we are often not consciously aware that we’re thinking this way. So, what do people talk about when they’re actually talking about morality? Here are some of the words, phrases and ideas that I hear frequently from research participants that might signal they’re talking about moral issues:

Choice—remember, morality is closely tied to the idea of free will.  When people are describing an action as a choice, they may be referencing this concept.

Self-sacrifice or the greater good—because morality is a mechanism for balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of the group, this often requires virtuous, altruistic behavior.

Self reliance – this is part of what I call ‘the morality of freedom,’ a particularly American construct. When you hear people talking about attending to one’s own responsibilities, or invoking the term ‘bootstraps,’ they’re probably referring to the virtue of not depending on others.  

Things being too easy—many models of morality, particularly religious ones, place great value on hard work, suffering and self-denial.

Fairness—social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has identified several foundations of morality, and fairness, equality and reciprocity make up one of them.

Purity or sacredness—this is another of Haidt’s foundations.  Cleanliness and sanctity are important moral virtues.

Respect for authority—yet another one from Haidt. Groups are unlikely to function efficiently without hierarchy, so it makes sense that respect for authority should be seen as virtuous.

Consistency—the ability to ‘stand firm’ in the face of change is often associated with strength of character.

Also, keep in mind that if respondents are having difficulty articulating why they feel as they do about something, morality might be lurking beneath the surface.

And then there’s the question of how to get people to speak openly about moral considerations. First, understand that you’re going to have to work for it.  Clearly, this is not something that tends to come up on its own, so some digging will be required. I’ve also found that these exercises and techniques can be helpful in drawing people out about moral considerations:

The third person: Instead of asking participants to explain why they feel a certain way about something, ask them to speculate as to why others feel that way. Distancing themselves from their own comments may enable more candor.

Picture sorts: Allowing participants to select from a set of evocative images to explain their feelings about something may help initiate a conversation about morality.  

Storytelling: Asking participants to tell a story about the topic in question that includes a hero and a villain can really be effective. Heroes and villains are both figures defined by morality, and so this can be a good way to start a dialogue about morality.

Mock political ads: Most political advertising is oriented around a candidate’s virtues or moral failings. So, by asking research participants to write a political ad about users or non-users of a brand, they have an opportunity to show how they think about the moral implications of those behaviors.

Morality really is like the elephant in the room: it’s always there, it’s absolutely huge, and it’s rarely spoken of. But it’s often a dominant factor in crucial marketing issues.

Links to other Mindset blog posts:

https://thomasmrich.com/2020/01/09/the-most-important-research-tool-youre-probably-not-using/

https://thomasmrich.com/2019/11/13/when-you-dont-know-what-you-want/

https://thomasmrich.com/2019/09/25/why-being-poor-is-so-expensive/

https://thomasmrich.com/2019/08/21/when-good-enough-is-good-enough-2/