Consumer Behaviour

It’s always interesting to see what ideas a web giant like Amazon is evaluating, particularly when the change is more than just a subtle adjustment.

At present they’re trying out a very different home page.

One thing Amazon does that is super-smart is split test.  They don’t rely on the vague irrelevancies of what customers tell them in market research to decide whether a change is worth making: they send customers to the new look at random and check to see what the impact is on behaviour (and particularly on conversion).  This means the evaluation isn’t done as an artificial conscious exercise, people don’t know they’re taking part in research: as a result the unconscious drivers of consumer actions are still ‘in-play’ and the artificial influence that comes from asking questions isn’t an issue.

From this perspective it doesn’t really matter what I or anyone else thinks when they evaluate the new design.  You may love its clean look, the absence of clutter, the way it works properly in a wide screen format, enjoy accessing menus when you choose (rather than having them forced on you)… but if you end up not searching so effectively or not clicking on the day’s promotions, Amazon will quietly revert to a more profitable previous look and go back to the drawing board.

Tiny changes can have a big impact on conversion.  In Consumer.ology I recount a number of examples where changing a photograph, moving a logo or reducing the number of items returned from a search all increased conversion significantly.  Whilst as a consumer psychologist I can help identify what might work, and can speculate on what has made a change effective by explaining how it has connected with unconscious drivers of behaviour, it’s only through carefully conducted experiments that we can know for sure what the outcome of a change will be.

Fortunately, split testing is relatively straight-forward on-line, it’s actually reasonably straight-forward in most consumer scenarios, given a little thought: and it’s an investment that is well-worth making because what you get is genuine learning.  If you apply the AFECT criteria for psychological confidence, you will realise why you can trust the results of such a test far more than anything from a survey or focus group.

Philip Graves

Philip Graves consumer behaviour, market research Amazon, design, website

Developing a logo is an interesting experience.  Recently several organisations have found that the internet provides a platform for dissenting voices to grow into active movements to oppose designs that they don’t like.

Gap, who some have suggested were really undertaking a publicity stunt, Starbucks and the Portland Timbers have all experienced an adverse reaction when plans of their changes came to light.

Recently, the Iranian Olympic Committee has said that they think the London 2012 logo is racist, spelling out the word Zion.  There are a number of reasons not to pay too much attention to this complaint:

1. It doesn’t spell out Zion, it says 2012.
2. If it did spell out anything in English it would be “Zo in”, since we read left to right and, with no hyphen, the second line should be taken as a new word.  Perhaps animal welfare groups should be boycotting the Olympics instead!
3. If you want to say that a 2 looks like Z, is it reasonable to also claim it looks like an N?  So that would mean it spells out Zoin.

Choosing a new logo is hard.  I should know, I’ve just been through the process for my website (it should be appearing there in the near future).  It’s tempting to outsource responsibility for deciding what design to choose to other people; I could have asked my friends or conducted a poll with people who have signed up at my website.

But if I don’t know what conveys my brand, what perspective are other people expected to respond from?  They might tell me what they think looks nice, aesthetic taste is understood to be intrinsically personal.  They might tell what they think my brand is about and what conveys this to them. 

But this is my chance to communicate a little bit more about me.  If I already convey everything I want to, if the status quo is so important, why would I be creating a new logo at all?

One comment famously suggested the London 2012 Olympic logo looked like Lisa Simpson performing a sex act; lots of people agreed.  But they only agreed when one person said it and that comment was picked up by the media (at which point its humour and astute observation caused it to spread as only a meme can).  I don’t doubt that, had the designers had this pointed out to them, this design would never have seen the light of day.

However, just because, once it’s pointed out, you can see it, doesn’t mean it would ever occur to you to think along those lines independently.  Consequently, you could ask one million people for their views on the logo, but if you don’t ask the person who makes that specific association your research will be irrelevant (assuming the media find and propagate the comment subsequently).

It’s one thing to run a logo design past a fresh set of eyes, to check that you haven’t inadvertently conveyed something directly that is offensive to people who will see it, but it’s reckless to let a consensus market research opinion drive the representation of your brand.

I often think researching a logo is a little akin to asking someone to dress and behave a certain way when they go on a date with you: in theory it should make for a perfect evening, but the fact that someone is just playing back what you want isn’t a substitute for the genuine experience of two people being themselves and enjoying each other’s company.

So by all means run a design past a few pairs of eyes, and ideally have people from different cultures check you aren’t offending them inadvertently, but don’t suppose that other people can tell you how you should be.

For the record, I have always liked the 2012 logo, I never liked the Gap logo, I like the new Starbucks logo and the new Portland Timbers logo appears to me a substantial improvement.  But my view on these doesn’t matter.  And whilst I hope you like my new logo when it appears at my website, if you don’t, well, perhaps it was just never meant to be between us!

Philip Graves

Philip Graves market research 2012, design, logo, market research, Olympics

It’s often claimed in market research circles that perception is everything.

I suspect this stems from the thought that, provided the customer perceives things as being good then that is what matters, be it customer service, product quality, your brand’s image.

I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a really stupid way of thinking about consumers. Let me explain…

In one sense, perceptions are all that customers have to provide in market research. Life isn’t absolute when you’re living it. For example, I’ve been having some lower back ache (too much time spent writing in a bad chair) and have been treating it with a physiotherapist and lots of exercises. Unlocking my lower back has caused other parts of my back to react and the other night I turned over and stretched at night and managed to pull a muscle higher up my back.

Now, at the moment, my lower back doesn’t hurt. So I perceive that my lower back is fine. However, this is largely because my pain attention is directed higher up at the part that really hurts. In reality, the issues in my lower back are not resolved yet, it’s going to take a few weeks to undo what I’ve done over many months. So my perception about my back is almost certainly misleading.

If you ask me now how bad my back health is I will say it’s fairly bad: my attention is directed at the pain right now and I’m very sensitised to backs.

But if you ask me in a couple of weeks, when I expect it to be considerably better, I will probably say that my back is pretty healthy. In a couple of weeks it shouldn’t be hurting me any more, but I’ll have many more weeks of exercises to do to make it properly mobile.

Perceptions change over time. The further people are from an event the less likely they are to perceive it accurately.

When it comes to customer service (for example) what matters is what service you actually deliver. The only way you can judge that is by seeing what experience you deliver to customers.

They may say that service is poor because they’re expecting red carpets and rose petals.

They may say that service is good because they have such low expectations of your brand.

You have no way of knowing what frame of reference they’re making, how time is shaping it or how recollections of experiences will be factored in to future purchase behaviour.

All you have is a score. Which feels compelling because it has a number attached. But it’s actually meaningless.

Ah, they say, we can track it over time.

So now you know how a meaningless number changes. That’s helpful!!

The solution?

Decide what quality of service you want the customer to experience and design your service to deliver that.

Then watch, dispassionately, to see if it looks as though customers are getting that experience.

If you want them to leave the store delighted, look for delight on their face: we all know what ‘delighted’ looks like, don’t we?

If you’re studying the moment that customer service happens you’re studying reality. If you’re asking customers what they think you’re getting perceptions but you have no way of knowing their durability or relevance to that customers future behaviour.

There. That should save your company some wasted money on customer satisfaction surveys.

Philip Graves

Philip Graves Customer Service, market research Customer Service, design, market research, perception, reality