Throughout my career I have worked in sales and marketing for both products and services. In each of these experiences I have had (some) exposure to the new product development process, as well as the methods used to derive customer insights. So I have had the opportunity to conduct in-depth interviews, facilitate focus groups, and administer surveys. These traditional methods were fairly boring, but so were the product and service ideas that they we were evaluating. If only attempting an incremental change to your product or service, customers are more likely to be able to articulate their wants and needs. However, as Gladwell points out, when considering a truly revolutionary idea these traditional tools are often “too blunt.”
As demonstrated by the Kenna example, asking people to make an evaluation based on listening to 30 seconds of a song over the telephone is myopic. It seems akin to asking Mr. Magoo to be your co-pilot on a cross-country trip. In both instances, the experience created is going to be out of focus, without context, and potentially dangerous. Coke learned this lesson the hard way – the packaging is part of the product…and therefore should be part of the evaluation. Although, I wonder exactly where the packaging ends and where bias begins. How much is too much? A coke can is not just a can…it is hundred of billions of dollars in advertising to create a brand image. What if listeners knew that Kenna became a grammy nominated artist in 2009? And what if we gave them a positive review from Pitchfork or Metacritic to read? I suspect many people become aware of facts like this before they make their own judgements about music – much like many consumers are bombarded with advertising as they make their judgements about cola. What exactly is part of the package, and thus should be evaluated?
The generative research methods that we’ve discussed in class resonate quite a bit with me. For example, Zaltman’s ZMET process is one that I am somewhat familiar with. I really like the fact that this technique acknowledges the vast amount of information that is communicated non-verbally. These observations are often where the valuable information lies, and these gems can be lost using standard qualitative methods. As an MBA student, I find these methods extremely fascinating and would be anxious to put them into practice. But my professional experiences suggest I might be met with resistance. I can easily imagine people regarding these methods as academic, esoteric, and not statistically significant. I suspect there are a lot more Magoos out there than there are Zaltmans.
On a somewhat related note, I find it interesting that Gladwell’s article discusses the music business in detail, given our class discussion on the (forced) evolution of the industry. As outlined with Kenna, record labels historically promoted a relatively small number of artists that they expected to appeal to a relatively large number of listeners (Top 40). Thus, the market research phase was an important step in reducing risk. Only artists that were a “sure thing” would get backed by the labels.
However, with the dawn of the digital era of music, outlets like Amazon.com and iTunes have demonstrated that long tail economics can also be profitable. Thus, there is a place in today’s music industry for people like Kenna, despite their “dismal” results in market research testing. The internet’s ability to instantly provide widespread distribution and reach niche areas of the market changes the game. It has opened the door for so-called do-it-yourself artists to make a splash without the support of big labels.
Long tail economics is still being debated and perhaps the music industry is an exception – but supposing it is fairly easy, and profitable, to reach the long tail, does that change the value of market research? Is it more or less necessary?
