What went wrong in the 2012 research

...yet another blog post on the 2012 logo then?

Well yes - what I want to focus on is not necessarily the validity of the logo (which I think is actually quite cool in it's multimedia incarnation) but what lessons there are for researchers.

It's clear that public opinion in the UK and elsewhere isn't 100% behind the logo. Any well conducted research would have shown that this logo would divide opinion. That in itself is no big deal. However there is another theory and it's this. Although a great deal of research would have been done to justify the logo (£400k goes a fair way), it may not have actually been done properly - it's possible that they asked the wrong questions and in this may have included the use of leading questions - these are a real problem in this type of research.

In this case, a leading question would have been "do you think that this logo expresses dynamism and energy?" - clearly the question itself leads the respondent to assess the logo on the emotive terms dynamism and energy. If the selection criteria for the logo are these characteristics then - hey presto - we have a winner. A better question would have been "what emotions does this logo convey" - at least this wouldn't have led respondents to certain answers.

Let's turn to that great TV series "Yes, Prime Minister" for the definitive explanation:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

As I said at the start, I like the logo. However many people don't and such an adverse reaction to a picture has to be unique in the history of logo design.

So that's my theory - it researched well for one of two reasons - either they asked leading questions because they wanted a certain answer or the questions were formed in such a way that one logo one over the others. Either way, I'd love to see the research which gave us this new logo.

Don't just analyse the sign-ups! The case of the missing Channel lipstick.

Here's a little story about why it's never the best idea to analyse the success of a campaign by the number of "clicks", visitors or sign-ups.

My wife was browsing the Internet about 6 weeks ago and was presented with an online advert (or somehow found a link) for Chanel makeup - since you ask it was for Le Rouge lipstick. The premise was a typical one - watch the online advert or in this case film, learn about the product and we'll send you a free sample.

At this point, I'm assuming that their analytics team are quite happy with the data they collected and the value the campaign generated. I'm also assuming that their brand manager is feeling quite good about this campaign:

1. got the viewer (in the right target market)
2. got the details
3. they've signed up to our database (and are likely to have selected to receive more info)

Now so far, there's no real ROI - but they have now got a person to go and sell to. The next part of the implicit deal that they have made is to send out a free sample but this is where the "deal" falters. Instead what actually happened was that my wife received an e-mail yesterday telling her that she can't have a free sample - "sorry but it's all gone" was the message. Those with a keen memory will recall that this is a 6 week process between sign-up and being told that stock has run out of the freebie. So the question for Chanel is this. Was this a successful campaign?

From a marketing measurement point-of-view, i suspect that internally it's being regarded as a promotion that worked "too" well - certainly a success! Too many people said that they wanted to trial the product and we got too many interested customers. Oh how tough can this marketing game be?

In practice, what Chanel did was raise then lower peoples expectations about the brand and it was all unnecessary for the following reasons:

1. It's easy to work out how much stock you have then close the offer when it's run out - Chanel didn't do this (and by implication can't). That's dumb. In fact it took 6 weeks for Chanel to spot this.
2. The marginal cost of a few extra lipsticks must run to literally a few thousand pounds which is a tiny amount in comparison to any potential damage from not fulfilling the brand promise - again dumb.
3. Chanel could have offered something else in return if there was a shortage of product. Maybe an alternative free sample, consultation or even a voucher

You may of course question why a premium brand like Chanel is offering a free trial or even vouchers. Neither are very "premium brand" but clearly Chanel's team felt that it was a risk worth taking to bulk up their database of prospects. In practice, I'd guess that they've added a whole list of names to a database with little value and potentially negative ROI given that they left so many people disappointed. My guess is that there is a whole range of people out there who are now less inclined towards this prestigious brand than there were previously which can't be a good thing.

Overall:

• On a "sign-ups" basis - a success
• On a "visitors" basis - a success
• On a "brand equity" basis - fail
• On an ROI basis - really?

A new term emerges for online analytics

Pete Affeld at Numeric Analytics has coined a new phrase to describe the analysis of online advertising using econometrics - "3rd generation" web analytics (see http://www.numericanalytics.com/pdfs/AdServ.pdf).

What I like about this is that it acknowledges that there is now a realisation that you cannot analyse online advertising in isolation from other actives. I've noticed this trend as i talk to online media companies about their analytical capabilities and it certainly seems to be a good time for these organisations to reassess how they define ROI for their customers. If Pete is right then all those TV and Radio analysts will be moving into online in the near future. However as others have noticed, there is plenty of money in the bigger media channels to justify top researchers fees but less is going to be available - hence the need for better tools, training and processes in marketing research. It's this last reason which gives me faith that our new venture marketingQED will be a success.

Walmart's Brand Positioning Report Leaked

The NYTimes has published a branding report on Walmart which was prepared by their agency GSD&M. There's going to be a lot of chatter about this online the gist of it is that the Brand Reputation may be failing or at least the "Pride" in the brand needs reinventing.

See Brand Autopsy for further comments on this (http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/11572/18918300).

Report available here - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070530_WALMART.pdf

New research highlights the presence of Strategic Consumers

A new piece of research from Gérard P. Cachon and Robert Swinney at Warton (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1339.pdf) suggests that there may be three types of shoppers which retailers need to consider when setting stock levels and retail strategy. To quote:

“Some shoppers just can't help themselves and buy mostly on impulse without regard to price. Others are die-hard bargain hunters, who only open their wallets for a discount.

“Then there are the strategic consumers, who are willing to buy full-price sometimes, but at other times they will wait for a bargain. According to new Wharton research, it's these customers that retailers need to focus on in order to reap the full benefits of lean retail inventory management and variable pricing”

If this article is correct then the current model of release at top price, take the profits then discount towards the end of a products lifespan is not going to last. The research looks at retailers like Zara and airlines such as Southwest and highlights their policies which commit customers to an early purchase rather than waiting for discounting to take place.

For marketing analysts, there is an interesting suggestion here. Whilst most segmentation is behavioural is terms of how consumers actually use products or interact with them, retailer segmentation is typically behavioural. The question now is can you use store card data to identify the strategic customers and can you bring forward their purchases? Any ideas if this has been done anywhere and what it actually meant in practice?