Back in December, in a post in which I wrote about P&G’s focus on “immersion” as a means of getting in touch with consumers, I suggested that the practice of spending time with consumers as they go about their everyday lives was a good complement to traditional research, though not a replacement for it. One reason that I see some value in immersion is that I know how hard it can be for people to digest and internalize the results of traditional research. I recently read an essay by Jeremy Bullmore titled, “Why is a Good Insight Like a Refrigerator,” in which he articulates the issue far more completely and more eloquently than I did.
I found the essay in the book Apples, Insights and Mad Inventors, a collection of Jeremy’s writing from WPP’s annual reports. In the essay on insights Jeremy writes:
The origins of an insight are usually to be found in numbers. That’s how we know an insight to be more than airy whim; that’s how we know it has substance; that it can be tested and replicated. But, except to the supernaturally numerate, numbers seldom sing spontaneously.
As I thought about how difficult it was to coax music out of a stack of data tables, I remembered a comment which the immersion post had evoked, on its application to online media:
As contextual immersion relates to online media, it seems to be a very natural progression of Jakob Nielsen’s web usability studies. The potential for engaging online consumers is amplified by an understanding of what they do in a particular web space. (posted by Michael)
After looking up information on Jakob Nielsen, I realized that his concepts might apply equally well to market research presentations and reports, which are, after all, the “user interface” of our research projects. Nielsen describes web usability in terms of five concepts: Learnability, Efficiency, Memorability, Errors, and Satisfaction. The first three of these concepts bear directly on the work we do.
“Learnability,” according to Nielsen, relates to how well a web interface facilitates the ability of users to transact their business (whatever it may be) on the site. I’d propose that the “learnability” of a research presentation would be the ease and transparency with which it communicates the findings of the research. While Nielsen relates “Efficiency” to the speed with which users can perform tasks using the interface, I’d suggest that an “efficient” market research report needs to suggest ways in which insights can be translated into timely, practical, cost-effective actions. “Memorability” would describe the staying power of the findings.
So perhaps if we keep Nielsen’s usability components in mind, we can better appreciate Jeremy’s prescription for bringing insight to life. He doesn’t suggest that people need an immersion experience to gain insight; rather, he advocates the skillful use of language. “We need to call on words—provocative, allegorical words—to let in fresh air; to liberate the insight and give it immediate, self evident potency.”
What we need, he proposes, are statements which ensure that the idea is communicated in a memorable and compelling fashion. He cites a statement of his own as an example:
“People build brands as birds build nests, from scraps and straws we chance upon.”
As Jeremy admits, this statement is demonstrably untrue – birds are often very selective in their use of building materials, and marketers do their best to ensure that our notions about their brands are not left up to chance. But you do get the main idea, which is that an individual’s mental concept of a brand is a montage of images, impressions, and experiences. You get this idea easily and quickly, and you are likely to remember it.
So what we need to do is find ways to summarize our research findings using words that make the insights vivid, clear, provocative and memorable, as well as “learnable” and “efficient.” Or – with apologies to Jeremy – we need to make our research reports like a refrigerator. That is, when you look inside them, a light should come on.
How do you make your numbers sing?
(25 votes, average: 2.68 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
May 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I enjoyed this post very much. A most eloquent articulation of the challenge we find as researchers yearning to be writers. And by writers I mean people who are able to communicate simply and express a sense of the human experience. Not so easy when we have to ensure that we describe the research we did, the steps we took, how confident we are in the findings…and so on even before telling the story.
Perhaps we try to accomplish far too much? Perhaps we should try to communicate the findings without PowerPoint charts entirely. Once satisfied that we have a cohesive story, we then go and develop those five charts that express the evidence. Perhaps…
We can but dream
May 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
This is an area of passion for me - I think Millward Brown is ahead of some research consultancies with regards to how we conversationalize data, but still steps behind the ideal.
As Philip posted, one challenge is to get the story straight completely independent of the support materials.
Two questions I ask myself before writing analysis or powerpoint - “What would I say if the electricity went out and my laptop died?” and “How would I explain this to my buddies in the pub?”
The former is to just remind us to get away from reliance on slides, and really criminalize reading off slides. The latter is interesting though- if we were telling the story to a friend who works in an unrelated industry, who had come to the pub to talk about fun stuff, we would keep it simple, entertaining, and focused on the main point.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Watch Hans Rosling do it
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92
May 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Thanks for the comments, Philip, Frank and Lee.
Some interesting contrasts here that I would like to pick up on.
First, Philip, I think your comment reflects the fact that researchers often find themselves presenting to two different constituencies: the marketing team and fellow researchers. I doubt the marketing team care about the methodology, they care about the actions they might take on the basis of our findings. The researchers may care, but not as much as we might expect. On that basis I would suggest Frank is right on the money. First, identify the story then support it with findings and charts. If that makes sense for developing the presentation it also makes sense for delivering the presentation.
Lee, thank you for the link to Hans Rosling. It is a salutory reminder of how out of date our perceptions of the world might be, and a great example of presentation graphics and style - well worth watching in its entirety. Of course, if the power did go out Hans might be a bit stuck but I suspect he would be able to carry off the story telling without the interactive charts.