Welcome visitor you can log in or create an account

800.275.2827

Consumer Insights. Market Innovation.

blog-page

Half life-Market-Research

I heard a great episode of the “You Are Not so Smart” podcast in which Sam Arbesman talked about his book called “The Half Life of Facts”. This book has nothing to do with “truthiness”, “fake news” or any accusation that someone is or is not a liar, but it does provide some context for the world we live in.
 
The book’s title is taken from a scientific term (the time it takes an isotope to lose half of its radioactivity) and the notion that as we learn more, some things we took as “fact” will turn out to be wrong. Newton’s laws, for example, were supplanted by Einstein. The point of the book is not that we shouldn’t bother learning facts, but rather that we should be open to the possibility that they might be wrong. Modern medicine acknowledges that they don’t know everything and that some things they “know” will prove to be false. At the same time, they must treat patients based on what is known or thought to be known.
 
It got me thinking about our business. What is the half-life of facts here? You might be tempted to take comfort in the fact that things like margin of error have not changed. While technically true, this ignores that academia is facing a crisis of confidence over statistically significant findings that don’t hold up in subsequent studies. One cause for this is they run lots of cuts of the data and look for anything statistically significant and then build a rationale for that finding. They ignore that with so many cuts of the data they are likely to find some statistical noise. Don’t we run the same risk with each additional banner we run?
 
There is a known problem with Discrete Choice Conjoint that is often ignored. If you have a product made up of say 8 features each with three levels and 1 with 150 the importance of the feature with 150 levels will be overstated by the model. Still, the model will run, utilities will be calculated and a simulator can be constructed…all of which provide a sense of precision that is not warranted. A researcher who knows about it will guide the client either by changing the design OR by putting the results into their proper perspective. There are many other ways that a complex model like this can produce skewed results and I have little doubt more will be found in the future. 
 
This is not to say that we can’t trust results. Doctors have to treat patients based on what is known today and we must do the same for our clients. The important thing is that we have to acknowledge we have things to learn. As researchers that should be easy for us…
 
Tagged in: Conjoint
Hits: 3134 0 Comments
hp-trivia-pricing-research-monetizing
In my previous blog about HQ Trivia I pondered how the creators of HQ were planning to make money.  Right now there is no advertising; venture capital funds the app and the jackpots. Apart from occasional sponsorships, there appears to be no immediate source of additional funding.
 
HQ could do many different things to achieve financial success – content sponsorships, jackpot sponsorships, advertising, product placement, buying ‘lives’ by watching a 15-second spot  – even sponsor logos on host apparel. In fact, there are probably different ways to monetize HQ Trivia that we haven’t even thought of yet – making this a perfect research case for TRC’s Idea Mill™.
 
Idea Mill™ is our method that employs Smart Incentives™ – harnessing the principles of crowd-sourcing to ask respondents for their best idea, and the ideas are then voted on by other respondents within the same research survey. The respondents with the best ideas as judged by their peers are rewarded with prizes. This is a great technique to use when you’re in the idea generation phase of product development.  
 
Once we get a list of potential ways to monetize HQ, we could then winnow the list to the ones that would be feasible to implement, and narrow the list using a prioritization-based research method such as Idea Magnet™. Results can be generated quickly.  
 
Before implementing the winning ideas, we could further explore options by building various scenarios of the sponsored game, and asking HQers to weigh in on which one would be most acceptable to them. Through a choice-based research tool such as discrete choice conjoint, we could vary HQ’s potential features, such as:
 
      • •  Number of ads or sponsorships per game
      • •  Where the ads appear (between rounds, upon game entry) 
      • •  Prize pool
      • •  Having sponsor-related questions
      • •  Getting bonus ‘lives’ for watching sponsor videos
 
All of these techniques employ strategies we use in pricing and product development research to include the consumer in the decision-making process. HQ’s creators are good at asking questions – I hope they do the same in further developing their product.
 
Hits: 3166 0 Comments

GRIT-TOP-50-report

I appreciate that we are once again in the GRIT 50 Most Innovative Research Agencies. Innovation has always been important to me and so I am quite gratified when I see our efforts being recognized. What I don't know is how people are defining innovation.

I think as an industry we sometimes label things as innovative that are not while failing to recognize some things that are genuinely innovative. In my view, innovation requires that we provide something of value that wasn't available before. Anything short of that may be 'interesting' but not 'innovative'.

I would put things like neuroscience or most AI into the "interesting" category. There is a lot of potential but so far little so show in terms of tangible benefits. Over the years at TRC we've had many ideas that showed promise, but ultimately didn't prove out (my favorite being "Conjoint Poker"). Ultimately it is the nature of innovation that some things will never leave the drawing board or 'laboratory', but without them there would be no innovation.

On the other side, I think ideas that save time and money are often not viewed as innovative unless they involve something totally new. I disagree. If I can figure out a way to do the same process faster and/or cheaper then I'm innovating. It may not look flashy, but if it allows clients to do something they couldn't otherwise do it is innovation.

...
Tagged in: Pricing Research
hq-pricing-research
 A bunch of us here at TRC enjoy trivia, so we’ve been playing HQ Trivia using their online app for the past few months. HQ is a 12-question multiple choice quiz that requires a correct answer to move on to the next question. As a group, we have yet to get through all 12 questions and win our share of the prize pool. But it’s a nice team-building exercise and we like learning new things (who knew that 2 US Presidents were born in Vermont).  
 
Given the fun we have playing it, I can understand HQ’s success from the player perspective. Where I am a bit confused is the value proposition for its creators. Venture capital funding provides the prize money.  But there are no ads, so I’m not sure how anybody’s actually making money. There are occasional tie-in partnerships (The awesome Dwayne Johnson hosted one of the gaming sessions to promote his newest movie release, “Rampage”.)  But I suppose the biggest question is, will interest in HQ still be there when they’ve finally signed on enough sponsors to be profitable?  
 
We do a lot of pricing research at TRC, and can model on a variety of variables. But predicting the direction of demand is nearly impossible for certain products. For consumables and many services, product demand is predictable. How your product fares compared to the competition may have its ups and downs, but you can assume that people who bought toilet paper 2 weeks ago will be in the market for toilet paper again soon.
 
But with something like HQ Trivia, product demand is much more difficult to determine in advance, especially more than a few weeks from now. Right now it’s still hot – routinely attracting 700,000 – 1,000,000+ players (HQers) in a given game. How do the creators – and investors and potential sponsors – know whether it’s a good investment?  What if interest suddenly declines, either because the novelty has worn off or because something better comes along?  
 
One way to find out is through longitudinal research. Routinely check in with HQers over time to determine their likelihood to play the next week, their likelihood to recommend to their friends, and their attitudes toward the game itself. This information can be overlaid with the raw data HQ collects through game play every day – number of players, number of referrals, and number of first-time players. This information can not only help shed light on player interest, but players could also weigh in on changes the creators are considering to keep the game fresh.
 
HQers are engaging in a free activity which gives them the opportunity to win cash prizes.  But just because it’s free to play doesn’t mean the HQ powers-that-be couldn’t do pricing research (more on that in a future blog).  
 
For now, I’ll keep on playing HQ hoping I can answer all the questions, not the least of which is: when will I – and the other million HQers – no longer care? 
 
 
Tagged in: Pricing Resarch
Hits: 3084 0 Comments

nouns-vs-verbs-in-market-research

I’ve written many times about the importance of “knowing where your data has been”. The most advanced discrete choice conjoint, segmentation or regression is only as good as the data it relies on.  In the past I’ve written about many ways that we can bias respondents from question ordering to badly worded questions and even to push polling techniques. A new study published in Psychological Science would seem to indicate that bias can be created much more subtly than that.
 
Dr. Michael Reifen-Tagar and Dr. Orly Idan determined that you can reduce tension by relying on nouns rather than verbs. They are from Israel so they were not lacking in “high tension” things to ask. For example, half of respondents were asked their level of agreement (on a six point scale) with the “noun focused” statement “I support the division of Jerusalem” and the other half with the “verb focused” statement “I support dividing Jerusalem”.   
 
Consistent and statistically significant differences were found with the verb form garnering less support than the noun form. Follow-up questions also indicated that those who saw the verb form were angrier and showed less support for concessions toward the Palestinians.  
 
Is this a potential problem for researchers? My answer would be “potentially”. 
 
The obvious example might be in published opinion polls. One can imagine a crafty person creating a questionnaire in which issues they agree with are presented in noun form (thus garnering higher agreement from the general public) and ones they disagree with in verb forms (thus garnering lower agreement). It is unlikely that anyone would challenge those results (except for those of you clever enough to read my blog).   
It might also be the case on more consumer-oriented studies, though it is unclear whether the same effect would be felt in situations where tension levels are not so high. In our clients’ best interest, however, it makes sense to be consistent and with that eliminate another form of bias.  
 
Tagged in: Consumer Behavior
Hits: 3231 0 Comments

Want to know more?

Give us a few details so we can discuss possible solutions.

Please provide your Name.
Please provide a valid Email.
Please provide your Phone.
Please provide your Comments.
Invalid Input
Our Phone Number is 1-800-275-2827
 Find TRC on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Find TRC on LinkedIn

Our Clients