Traditional Consumer Research Can't Do the Job

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Albert Einstein

What in the world was Einstein on when he, the 20th Century’s greatest scientist, made that statement? Imagine him telling some corporate suit after reading a company financial statement or a numbers-studded proposal for a new marketing campaign, “Your numbers do not refer to reality.”

Numbers are only symbols, and the pictures they add up to are made-up pictures, not real pictures. A numbers-rendered picture inevitably omits important details.

Quant research draws statistical pictures of consumers based on what they tell researchers. Often, focus groups are used to confirm what the numbers say. However, the primary assumption underlying each type of research is deeply flawed.

Famed neurologist Richard Restak indicates why when he says, “We have reason to doubt that full awareness of our motives and other mental activities may be possible.”

Brain scan technology supports Restak’s observation about the incompleteness of our knowledge of our motivations. More often than we’re inclined to admit, the reasons we give for doing something better fit the category of speculation than reality.

Yet researchers confidently present clients with statistical renderings of what consumers have told them, unmindful of the fact that motivations initially take root outside the realm of consciousness.

These thoughts are not grainy opinions. They are solidly grounded in new research into the workings of the brain and mind that should inspire us to rely less on the laws of mathematics and more on the laws of behavioral science to divine and forecast consumer behavior.

The problem is, there is too much economic interest in keeping to the old ways in the $6 billion research industry for change to happen overnight. This is one reason why the neurorevolution I talked about in the previous post is moving more slowly than it might. Few traditional researchers have figured out how to make money from this revolution or otherwise compensate for decaying confidence in their practice of reducing human behavior to numbers while ignoring all the evidence that human behavior like the weather defies absolute prediction.

Comments

[Katie Harris]

Interesting post!

Can you provide some examples of the kind of “motivations that initially take root outside the realm of consciousness”? And critically, how a neurorevolutionary would attach meaning to that unconscious motivation given that, presumably, the owner of the motivation isn’t aware of it/can’t articulate it? Does the neuro-researcher have a framework for attaching meaning to what it is they’re measuring? If so, what’s the framework based on?

Also, just to point out that *understanding* motivations isn’t the realm of quantitative research. The “statistical renderings” of understanding would usually be a quantification of some qualitative work. And on that point, since when have focus groups been used to confirm what the numbers say? We must be living on different research planets; in my research world, it only ever works the other way around!

[Matt Moore]

They are solidly grounded in new research into the workings of the brain and mind that should inspire us to rely less on the laws of mathematics and more on the laws of behavioral science to divine and forecast consumer behavior.

Hmmm

- Behaviourial science is not the same as neusroscience.
- Neuroscience is still in its infancy in terms of our understanding of the links between brain activity and thought.
- Most neuromarketing applications are slightly more scientific than phrenology.

What neuromarketing shares with quant and qual research is a plethora of "science-y" gimmicks that entice the unwary. In the case of quant, it's high-powered econometric models that may bear scant relation to reality. In the case of qual it might be the language of semiotics and literary theory used to disguise the bleeding obvious.

In the case of neuromarketing, it's a frickin' big NMR machine.

[DPaulson]

I agree that consumer research can be a bit misleading. Focus groups lack specificity and statistics can over-simplify. I like to think that contextual research can help. Use pictographs and then carefully pay attention to the on-going responses. Please see http://:beyondfocusgroups.bogspot.com

[danial]

good blog

[Business Plan Presentation]

Hi,
Nice and interesting blog. Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing.

Business Plan Presentation

[John]

Good post david. What you described in the first paragraph (about telling business people that numbers are just simbols) happened to a colleague's boss a while ago. I'm forwarding your post to him now! ahaha
Best
John