This continues with our article dealing with the absence of “legitimate” and “productive” customers insights, which are absolutely essential to connect with target-customers in a relevant and meaningful way to drive brand preference and behaviors. This is Part “B” and addresses what are “legitimate” and “productive” customer insights. Part “A” identified “unsights,” which many marketers mistakenly pass off as insights, and defined customer insights. If you missed it please click here CRITICAL MARKETING MISTAKES - UNSIGHTS PART A.
Customer Insights - Review
Customer Insight - a deep-seated truth that reveals important customer needs and/or values that the brand can exploit.
If a customer insight is to be effective it needs to be “legitimate” and “productive.” These two requirements provide both a guide for discovering and testing for insights. They aid us in where to dig for insights and how deeply we must dig, respectively. Just as engineers use geological surveys to guide them in where to drill for oil and commercial fisherman use sonar to identify schools of fish before dropping their lines into the deep blue ocean we marketers have valuable indicators that reveal likely places for discovering insights. They point us to legitimate or authentic insights as opposed to unsights.
Legitimate Insights
Basically, there are three areas for us to investigate in the discovery of legitimate insights:
Perceived or real weaknesses of the competition;
Attitudinal barriers regarding our brand or category; and
Untapped compelling beliefs.
If what you believe to be a customer insight does not derive from one of these three areas then it is unlikely to be an insight. Instead, it is highly likely to be an “unsight.” Regardless it won't produce the brand performance results you seek. In the final analysis that’s what it is all about, getting results.
Note we label the first one as “perceived or real weaknesses of the competition” as opposed to “our product’s advantages.” The reason for this tack is to keep marketers and their organizations from continuing their practice of deluding themselves into believing that they have advantages where either none really exist or that are not sufficiently meaningful to target-customers. In this “age of sameness” there is little, if any, difference among products. For example, when dealing with the same class of drugs all the compounds produce comparable patient outcomes. Even if one has clinical evidence that the others do not, HCPS are likely to grant them class effect. In other words, they will credit them with the same clinical results. In the medical device sector surgeons believe that their skill can negate any differences in product performance to produce the same patient outcomes. So rather than fabricating advantages the marketer does not have, or may have to a relatively meaningless degree (as perceived by the target-customer), it is more productive for her/him to address how target-customers perceive or can be made to perceive competitive performance.
Another point of note is that we include “perceived” weaknesses. Customer perceptions are their reality. For all practical purposes perceptions and reality are the same. The introduction of the brand Lipitor is a case in point. Lipitor was a mega-blockbuster, achieving something approaching $15-billion in sales, prior to turning generic (i.e., the compound, not the brand). HCPs prescribe statins not merely to lower cholesterol but to help the patient avoid a cardiovascular event. While two existing brands Pravachol and Zocor had evidence from clinical studies that they reduced cardiovascular events (that Lipitor did not possess at the time of its launch), these brands were not able to reduce cholesterol to levels established as healthy for as many patients as Lipitor. Again, the goal isn’t merely to reduce cholesterol but, more importantly, to protect against events that imperil life. Yet many HCPs perceived these proven brands as less effective than Lipitor, intuiting that lowering cholesterol to healthy levels would translate to better protection against cardiovascular events - despite the lack of evidence at the time. The rest is history.
Oftentimes growth slows or stalls due to an “attitudinal barrier regarding our brand or the category.” If we can remove the attitudinal barrier then the brand has an opportunity for renewed growth. A classical example, which is a torture test of sorts, is Lite beer from Miller in overcoming a category attitudinal barrier regarding low–calorie beers. Heavy beer drinkers (there’s no pun here, we’re referring to high volume consumption not girth) believed that reducing calories watered down the beer, stripping its flavor. Miller avoided talking about low calories and, instead, referred to its beer as “less filling.” Miller Lite would enable them to consume more. This was a meaningful promise to heavy beer drinkers who can easily quaff down a six-pack or two at a sitting. Voila, Miller was successful where others failed by eliminating an attitudinal barrier.
The final area is “untapped compelling beliefs.” These are the obvious beliefs, staring everyone in the face, that marketers have overlooked. The first to tap into one of these gains an advantage. However, to achieve and maintain the advantage the marketer needs to own what others could also own. The way to do this is to invest, and maintain that investment, behind it. If the marketer does not continue investing a fast following competitor could capitalize what another has surrendered. An example of an untapped compelling belief is the long-standing reason-why support for the Folger’s Coffee claim of being the richest, most flavorful cup of coffee in the world – “Mountain Grown.” Consumers believe that what’s grown in the mountains is closer to the heavens and, therefore, the recipient of abundant sunshine and clean, cool waters – unspoiled by the pollution of civilization. This makes for compelling reason-why support for a meaningful benefit whether it is for coffee or, for that matter, bottled waters. But in this case, coffee is grown in the mountains – all coffee! Yet Folger’s Coffee claimed it as their reason-why support, trademarked it (which is no longer permitted by law), and supported it for decades. It is one of the reasons for its incredible success in becoming the number one retail coffee brand in the U.S.
Productive Insights
Discovering a legitimate insight is only part, albeit an important part, of the battle in winning with customer insights. Once we have unearthed a legitimate insight we need to determine if it is productive. After all, the discovery of oil doesn’t mean that the well will be productive, or worth the cost of further drilling and operating. We must determine if the legitimate insights we discover will make a difference to our target- customer and, in turn, our brand and our business. In order for an insight to be productive it must meet two conditions:
It can be exploited by the brand – If it cannot be exploited (e.g., the technology is not available, or the clinical studies don’t bear it out, or product testing doesn’t evidence it, or customer perceptions or experiences don’t favor it, or it is not consistent with the brand positioning strategy, etc.) then it is not productive. Take note that we’ve specified “brand” not “product.” The brand is a constellation of values and perceptions, and captures customers’ experiences with it. So Gatorade the brand can deliver more versus other brands in the category while its formulation is basically the same as its competitors. If what we’ve found is not productive then we need to return to our three areas and renew our digging.
It will effect a change in customer behavior – This, too, is absolutely essential. It fulfills the purpose of the insight. It must lead to stimulating a predetermined, desired behavior objective (e.g., switching, adoption, etc.). Moreover, it must achieve a specific level of behavior. In other words, it must meet a numeric hurdle, a marketing metric that ultimately contributes to realizing the brand’s business objectives. We refer to this as a SMART behavior objective.
We need to discover customer insights that are both “legitimate” and “productive” in order to make a difference in producing results in the marketplace!
In 2-weeks we’ll issue Part C. We’ll share a tool for displaying all relevant parts of the insight as well as a process for going about digging for insights.
BOATS & HELICOPTERS:
Drill where you are likely to find “legitimate” insights – There are three areas in which to dig for legitimate insights:
-- Perceived or real weaknesses of the competition;
-- Attitudinal barriers regarding our brand or category; and
-- Untapped compelling beliefs.
If what you’ve discovered doesn’t fall into one of these classifications then it is highly unlikely to be an insight. You’re probably dealing with an “unsight.”
Make sure you can make something out of it – In other words, make sure it is going to be productive. This means that you can capitalize on it with your brand, claims, reasons-to-believe, brand positioning strategy, etc. You have to be able to pay-off the insight if it is to be productive.
If it isn’t productive go back to digging – Remember, don’t just dig anywhere; dig where you’re likely to find “legitimate” insights. Repeat as needed!
Best wishes in making your marketing matter more by discovering “legitimate” and “productive” customer insights that will drive brand preference and fuel brand growth.
Richard Czerniawski and Mike Maloney
Richard D. Czerniawski
430 Abbotsford Road
Kenilworth, IL 60043
847-256-8820
Fax: 847-256-8847 richardcz@bdn-intl.com
Michael W. Maloney
1506 West 13th Street, #17
Austin, TX 78703
512-236-0971
