Before you jump into your conversation, take a minute to understand the external factors and internal pressures defining your contact's world today, as well as the flawed ways in which they're trying to cope. Understanding the situation will allow you to create the most meaningful conversation possible.
While your contact might have slightly different things affecting them, keep an eye out for these likely culprits:
Before you jump into your conversation, take a minute to understand the external factors and internal pressures defining your contact's world today, as well as the flawed ways in which they're trying to cope. Understanding the situation will allow you to create the most meaningful conversation possible.
While your contact might have slightly different things affecting them, keep an eye out for these likely culprits:
With the influx of trendy and flashy new solutions – like Google Surveys and GutCheck – your primary target needs to learn the pros and cons of a solution fast. This way they can recommend the best solution or explain (to Marketing) why a given solution shouldn't be used.
Insights teams aren't growing fast enough to keep up with the amount of work your primary target is responsible for completing. On top of that, their budget usually falls under Marketing meaning they need to fight for dwindling resources with traditionally lack luster ROI metrics. Ultimately, your contact wants to maintain or grow their teams and resources – not lose them.
Your primary contact has three main problems when it comes to what they do today.
First, they’re starting off on the wrong foot by subjectively choosing a limited set of ideas to test. Subjective decision like this means your contact is placing “best guess” bets with the high likelihood of being “locked into” a bad concept. It only get’s worse when they start testing because we know concept failure rates are high, which means the odds are they will have to tweak and re-test the concept. This kind of iterative testing is time consuming and allows limited exploration. At the end of the day, iterative testing takes a lot more effort than if you just tested more ideas to begin with.
Second, when it’s time to test, your contact is constantly being asked to choose between research speed or data quality. Marking always wants the latest “trendy” solution at the sacrifice of reliable data or data that can be consistently compared across different initiatives. Not to mention if the “trendy route” is taken there is a high learning cost for a solution that could very well be unproven.
And finally, as a result of the previous flaws mentioned, research is being used as a tool to mitigate risk instead of maximizing potential. Innovation means the act of creating something new or different: but fear of failure has made innovation mean mediocre instead of ground breaking. What your contact has lost sight of is that concept testing is about determining whether you have a sufficiently strong or good enough proposition to win; by improving your concept (through testing), the client has the potential to maximize purchase appeal, which translates into higher forecasted revenue potential, which means they can have killer launches more often.
With the influx of trendy and flashy new solutions – like Google Surveys and GutCheck – your primary target needs to learn the pros and cons of a solution fast. This way they can recommend the best solution or explain (to Marketing) why a given solution shouldn't be used.
Insights teams aren't growing fast enough to keep up with the amount of work your primary target is responsible for completing. On top of that, their budget usually falls under Marketing meaning they need to fight for dwindling resources with traditionally lack luster ROI metrics. Ultimately, your contact wants to maintain or grow their teams and resources – not lose them.
Your primary contact has three main problems when it comes to what they do today.
First, they’re starting off on the wrong foot by subjectively choosing a limited set of ideas to test. Subjective decision like this means your contact is placing “best guess” bets with the high likelihood of being “locked into” a bad concept. It only get’s worse when they start testing because we know concept failure rates are high, which means the odds are they will have to tweak and re-test the concept. This kind of iterative testing is time consuming and allows limited exploration. At the end of the day, iterative testing takes a lot more effort than if you just tested more ideas to begin with.
Second, when it’s time to test, your contact is constantly being asked to choose between research speed or data quality. Marking always wants the latest “trendy” solution at the sacrifice of reliable data or data that can be consistently compared across different initiatives. Not to mention if the “trendy route” is taken there is a high learning cost for a solution that could very well be unproven.
And finally, as a result of the previous flaws mentioned, research is being used as a tool to mitigate risk instead of maximizing potential. Innovation means the act of creating something new or different: but fear of failure has made innovation mean mediocre instead of ground breaking. What your contact has lost sight of is that concept testing is about determining whether you have a sufficiently strong or good enough proposition to win; by improving your concept (through testing), the client has the potential to maximize purchase appeal, which translates into higher forecasted revenue potential, which means they can have killer launches more often.
Copyright © 2016 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.