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/

Who says my fellow researchers don’t have something to say when they’re asked some questions? Wow – you all really had A LOT to say about how the past several months have been for you in response to my recent newsletter. Also, you people REALLY like lasagna. I now have no fewer than six new lasagna recipes in my possession.  The past six months have certainly been a trying time for many of us. In reading through your responses to my post, I noticed numerous commonalities:

Webcams dominate. Those of you who are qualitative researchers – and have had some work – report that all of it has been online.  No surprise there.  In addition, very little of it has been online bulletin boards; nearly all has been webcam interviews and groups. You’re also uniformly unenthusiastic about the possibility that online will continue to be nearly 100% of your work indefinitely. I share this feeling; I love face-to-face research, and very much look forward to getting back to it.

Keeping busy is a challenge. Filling the days is a struggle. And yet, at the same time, the days go by with tasks still undone.

Few of us seem to be sleeping well. Many are experiencing some combination of waking up too early, sleeping too late, turning in too late, or just generally sleeping poorly.

There’s a lot of self-described hypochondria out there. Several of you said that every sneeze, sniffle or throat tickle throws you into a panic.

You’ve learned new skills.  Knitting, fly tying, kite-making, tree grafting, tire balancing, and bread making are among the many.  At least one of you has learned to drive!

Everybody seems to be thinking a lot about cooking. However, while some report having gotten better at it, others express frustration at not having improved.

We all seem to be worried about children – our kids specifically. We’re concerned about them going back to school, their overall health, lack of socialization and long-term future. Many of you report seriously rethinking your kids’ diet and exercise regimens.

There’s a lot of political angst out there. Does this surprise anybody? People all over the political spectrum are worried about the future, and fervently express the hope that we’ll all learn how to get along better.

You people want to hit the road. You really want to go someplace. ANYPLACE. None of you seem to be feeling picky. In fact, a few of you mentioned that you’re planning to take some very long car trips soon, something you wouldn’t have considered in the past.

Quite a few of you – at least 20 – have made Rich Family Summer Lasagna to universally positive reviews.  At least one of you has made it twice – I’m looking at YOU, Jeff!. Two of you reported making the Summer Moussaka – also a winner.

I’ve also had a number of good conversations with people about hot- and cold-weather soups. Now that it’s starting to feel like fall here in Central NJ, it’s probably time for mushroom soup. I’ve posted a recipe we like in a link at the end of this post. As we move into the cooler weather, all of these recipes should prove most useful.

Thanks so much to all of you who shared your thoughts. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible in person soon. 

 

Recently, I attended a webinar by a professor at my business school alma mater, Kevin Lane Keller, who literally wrote the book on branding. Professor Keller has probably forgotten more about this topic than most of us will ever know. He spoke about the imperative of tending to your brand in a time of crisis. Of the factors he cited that are crucial to this task, the first was empathy.

I share this point of view. One of the key things qualitative researchers do is help clients stand in the shoes of stakeholders – their users, their consumers, their customers. And that’s empathy: sharing and experiencing the feelings and perceptions of others. This is a challenge under the best of circumstances, but in a time when we must avoid physical proximity, it’s even more difficult.

Empathy is particularly crucial to those running brands. Effective brand marketing is predicated upon seeing a brand’s value proposition from the point of view of those on the receiving end of that proposition, so finding ways to foster empathy is required to build and maintain a strong brand. Pre-COVID there were many effective ways to do this. While approaches centered on online tools and social media were useful, I always found face-to-face methodologies to provide the most value. Having clients observe in-person focus groups or interviews is a highly effective way to get the end user’s perspective. Conducting research in the locations where experiences happen, decisions are made and perceptions formed, such as retail locations, homes, offices, etc., is another. But those approaches aren’t so easily available to us now, while the need for empathy has become only greater.

So, what to do? I’ll confess to not having a perfect solution to this dilemma. However, there are a few things that I’ve done recently that have served as pretty good workarounds:

• I’ve had clients be active participants in webcam focus groups. The consumer participants knew exactly who the client participants were, so everything was fully transparent (for one study we introduced the clients at the beginning as employees of a company in the category, and then revealed the name of the company at the end of the group). This allowed direct conversation between client and end user. But, more importantly, it allowed them to divide into breakout groups to collaborate on creative exercises, such as storytelling, collaging, image sorts and metaphor exploration. Working together in this fashion created an opportunity to develop a high level of mutual understanding.

• I’ve conducted webcam and telephone interviews with a single consumer in which a client took the lead during part or most of the conversation. This required me to provide some training to the client beforehand, and I also stepped in here and there during the conversation to probe, follow up or clarify a point. Allowing the client to conduct a large part of the interview engendered a level of connection between client and consumer that would have been unavailable simply by observing a webcam interview or listening in on a phone conversation.

Hopefully my experience with these techniques will inspire others to try similar approaches.  Please let me know how you’re approaching the challenge of fostering empathy these days.  I’d love to know.

I’ve been thinking recently about my world since March 21, the day Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey told us to stay home. Perhaps the August heat has me in a reflective mood.

Along with so many of my qualitative colleagues, I’ve had to adjust and reinvent. These 4+ months have been a time like no other. All planned business and recreational travel got cancelled. We’ve lost some people we loved. Our adult daughter moved home (temporarily, she keeps reminding us) and we’ve only recently been able to visit our adult son. But, our lives have been altered profoundly in other ways as well.

Business for me has been good; I feel fortunate for that. Healthcare, which was always a big part of my practice, has been my dominant source of work. And, while I’d regularly conducted research online over the past decade, it’s now 100% of what I do. I haven’t yet talked with clients about resuming face-to-face research, but I imagine those conversations will come in due course.

Some other things worthy of note:   

Life is just slower. I’ve been forced to relax more, something I’ve never been particularly good at. My dentist reports that I’m grinding my teeth less, so there’s that. 

We’ve created grilled summer analogs of winter comfort foods. Let me know if you’d like to learn how to make Summer Lasagna, Summer Chicken Parmigiana, or Summer Moussaka.

We’ve also invented some lovely new cocktails, and are happy to share the recipes for Liquid Brunch and the Thai One On.

Because we can’t hang out in coffee shops – a favorite Rich family activity – I’ve finally learned to make decent coffee. As a result, I seem to be drinking a lot more of that glorious beverage.

Most importantly, I still adore my wife, and she still (for the most part) tolerates me.

So, how has your life changed? I’d love to hear about what’s different for you.  Send me an email  with some examples, and I might include them in an upcoming post.  And if you’d like those summer recipes, just click the ‘Download’ button below for a PDF file of our culinary creations.

 

We’ve been facing tradeoffs since the Garden of Eden, and they shape all of our decisions.

There are a lot of good frameworks for thinking about consumer decision-making, but Tradeoff Analysis is one of my favorites. Often, much of the assessment individuals engage in when evaluating alternatives involves weighing what they are giving up against what they’re getting in return. Utility, a term from the field of economics, refers to the ability of something to satisfy needs and wants. Realizing this, and using my Utility Tradeoff Model, provides valuable opportunities for smartly designing, conducting and analyzing qualitative research.

Why are tradeoffs so important? Consider General Mills during the early 1950s. They had introduced Betty Crocker cake mixes in 1947. Sales, originally brisk, plateaued a few years later. This made little sense given the selling proposition – pay a small premium over the cost of the component ingredients in exchange for convenience. That offering seemed like a winner in a postwar America focused on time- and labor-saving innovations. After conducting focus groups, the company realized that what they thought was a simple tradeoff was actually more complex. It became clear that the product was actually TOO easy to use; all that was required was a box of mix, some water, and a few common kitchen implements.  But, because it asked so little of a 1950s American housewife, it made her feel that she wasn’t giving enough of herself in preparing the cake. The solution: eliminate the powdered egg in the mix and have the user add her own fresh ones. Problem solved! The lesson learned: because the product was too easy, the user wasn’t just paying an economic price, she was also paying a price in self-esteem, and that became too much to pay in exchange for convenience.

Why recount this case? It’s about tradeoffs! Here was a situation in which the company understood what their consumer was getting, but didn’t fully understand what she was giving up. And that’s why tradeoff analysis is such a useful tool. It provides a framework for looking at both sides of the value proposition– the benefits AND the costs—so we can obtain a full understanding of how a product or service creates utility.

We all seek to maximize utility. But, contrary to the pronouncements of classical economists, there is more to utility than money and other quantifiable factors. Utility is complicated, and squishy and messy. That’s a lot of what the field of behavioral economics is about – providing a more nuanced and complete definition of utility – and the Utility Tradeoff Model has some of its roots in that field

I was originally exposed to behavioral economics in the 1990s by Vic McGee, a former business school professor of mine. Vic had sent me some academic journal articles on the topic by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. My takeaway from these papers was that utility is much more complicated than I’d originally been taught, that money is only one building block of utility, and that decision making is not always as neat and rational as we’d like to think. So, in the combination of my going-in knowledge of consumer tradeoffs and what I was learning from Kahneman and Tversky, the Utility Tradeoff Model was born.

The Utility Tradeoff Model is based upon the premise that consumers express utility in terms of five currencies, with each decision carrying both gains and losses. Those currencies are:

• Time

• Energy

• Money

• Performance

• Self-esteem

So, the idea is that consumer decision-making is essentially an exercise in unconscious mental algebra, with the decision maker figuring out which of the five factors go on which side of the equal sign to make the equation balance.

In future newsletters I’ll go into detail on these currencies, as they all benefit from a bit of unpacking. All have multiple dimensions, some of which – in a given situation – contribute to utility, and some of which might detract.  Some dimensions are pretty straightforward – even quantifiable—while others are much more subjective.  I’ll also provide a detailed, specific blueprint for how to use this tool.

Tradeoffs are the stuff of life. In a world of finite resources, we’re always giving something up for what we get. Just as Eve was confronted with the choice of paradise or wisdom, we are constantly reminded that we usually can’t have it all. This realization shapes individuals’ perceptions and decisions, so we need to be aware of it when designing and executing research.