A REAL People’s Choice Awards

Smirnoff-Choose-Love3-1440x1080

A REAL People’s Choice Award at the FABs

A new category was added at this week’s International Food and Beverage Creative and Effectiveness Awards. And it was decided by a public vote with a difference.

This award is inspired by Derek Johnson at Family (and friends), who wants to harness everyday people and uncover which pack design they intuitively love.

FAB Awards teamed up with Mindlab and Link Consumer to develop a bespoke process which now gives us the first ever FAB Choice Award.

A representative (and therefore diverse) base of 1,000 people from the UK took part in an online study. This was not just a simple survey, but a test designed by psychologists with the intent of uncovering what the public actually feel (not think) about the designs. These individuals became “lay-judges” for the 21 Silver or Gold FAB design winners.

Ahead of the online study, qual research uncovered four factors which matter the most: being Striking, Imaginative, Irresistible and Groundbreaking. Our respondents took part in a series of intuitive tasks specifically designed to get right to the heart of how a design can evoke these attributes. We didn’t allow respondents to ponder the ‘Irresistibility’ of a design – they had to feel it instantly! To add richness of understanding we also asked them ‘why’ they loved their preferred design. Then with a light dose of mathematical wizardry, we determined the winners.

The first People’s Choice Award went to Design Bridge for Smirnoff’s Choose Love limited edition bottles which were available during Pride 2017, showing that the best packaging is not just about beautiful design, but also meaning and purpose.

Congratulations to all the winners and finalists and here’s to another year of packaging innovation.

Click here for more on how we uncover what people actually feel. 

 

 

Brendan Dawes: On designing with impact

mindlab-blog-banners

Let the gorilla live: Ten tips on designing with impact

Ahead of the launch of his third book, acclaimed designer Brendan Dawes gave the Mindlab Academy a rundown of what he’s learnt throughout his career about how to create market-leading designs.

1. Let the gorilla live

Don’t sit in a room and overthink every detail because it will kill your idea. Often great thinking doesn’t make absolute sense. How do you explain a gorilla playing a drum kit? Trust.

2. Speak to a rose gardener

Look beyond your own industry for inspiration. I’d rather go and speak to someone who cultivates flowers than spend time exploring someone else’s data visualisation.

3. Embrace that everything’s been done

There are always new ways of doing things. If you’re working on an idea and it turns out someone else has already done it, that’s fine because it won’t have your unique take on it.

When you’re being inspired, it’s about letting your memories become fuzzy and distorted so you don’t end up making a copy. Let other ideas and inspiration you’ve collected intertwine with it. That’s when ideas become yours.

4. Don’t worry – everything starts ugly

Part of the process at the start of a design is to create something to start a conversation. It won’t be perfect – don’t expect it be. Don’t be precious. Start in black and white so you can’t get hung up on colours.

5. Accept the gap

What you want and what you end up with won’t be the same. Every day, close that gap until you get to a point that it works.

6. Channel Michael Jackson

Yes, Michael Jackson and Prince were gifted but they worked for it. Michael Jackson studied every form of dance. He was relentless. Prince spent 16-hours a day in the studio and learnt to play every musical instrument he could get his hands on. That is the commonality – hard work, every day.

7. Leave the door open for others

Share your process and work. You might not think what you’ve done is interesting. But it’s not insignificant to others.

8. Look in your rubbish bin

The ideas you discard can often include nuggets people will connect with. You may have written them off at the time but go back to them.

Have a culture that allows mistakes to happen and become beautiful. By being transparent about your process, you can hit on ideas nobody was expecting.

9. Find time to be bored

We’re constantly doing things but sit in silence and see what happens.

10. Add punctuation

Wrappings are what we connect with. If a box is too easy to open, you don’t take the time to appreciate it. It’s a comma when you want it to be a semicolon. If you create a box with a ribbon that takes a few seconds to open, there’s a reveal. It creates a moment. It feels like theatre. It adds luxury.

It’s about rhythm and timings and transitions. And it’s the same in packaging or an interface. On a website which calculates recommendations based on your input, if it spits out the results too quickly, people think it’s fake. Add in a moment of thinking time. It doesn’t make sense from a machine point of view – but that’s because we’re human.

With clients including Airbnb, Google and MailChimp, Brendan Dawes’ designs have won awards from Fast Company, Information is Beautiful and D&AD. As an artist, his work is featured in MoMA’s permanent collection.

This is the latest interview in the Mindlab Academy, a series of interviews with experts on challenges and opportunities in market research. Catch up on other articles on lies and failure here.

The aim of the Mindlab Academy is to reveal insights to help you create actionable market research. As part of this, each month we speak to industry leaders on their views and tips. Don’t miss out:

Richard Chataway on: Science in communications

mindlab-blog-banners

Here comes the science bit: 7 secret ingredients in the best communications 

“Creativity is obviously at the heart of every truly great piece of marketing and that will always will be the case,” states Richard Chataway, one of the UK’s most experienced practitioners in applied behavioural science. “But we are at a tipping point,” he adds, “A great idea is now only one element of a successful campaign.”

“Today, we have an abundance of customer data and digital tools that open up a whole world of possibilities for marketers. Campaigns can be tested, adapted and improved over time. They don’t need to rely on outdated assumptions and personas, instead harnessing the power of personalised and personality marketing. And the very best marketing, triggers action using scientific insights into human behaviour.”

If anyone knows how to create a successful call to action using science, it is Richard. He has led communications strategy for the UK and Australian governments, was the Head of Ogilvy Change and has advised companies from IKEA to ITV, ING, Unilever, Sainsbury’s and Starbucks.

Richard believes that the more scientific the approach you take to marketing, the more likely you are to achieve success because often what you need to know is counterintuitive.

In this article, Richard outlines seven tips for marketers on how to ensure they are finding scientific insights and making the most of digital and AI developments.

Tip 1. Stand on the shoulders of giants

“There is an assumption in communications and marketing that research for every campaign should reinvent the wheel but that’s not necessary and not actually possible. There’s a famous quote from Isaac Newton which goes, ‘If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants,’ and this is true of marketing. There have been decades, centuries even, of scientific research into human behaviour. Marketers can take that existing knowledge and research and start applying those to their work.”

Tip 2. Experiment

“Marketing today is less about having one big idea and putting all your eggs in one basket, crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. It’s about recognising that actually there are a number of routes that might work and the only way to know is through testing, iterating and refining over time.

“That’s not how most marketing and communications works quite yet because in business, we don’t want to admit that we don’t categorically know. There’s a great book by the Freakonomics team called Think Like a Freak. One of its key arguments is that we should be comfortable saying ‘I don’t know’. That’s trained out of us throughout the education system, but it is the essence of a scientific approach.”

Tip 3. Think like a government

“Some of the more commercial organisations miss out on the rigor that governments insist on in their communications. Governments have to focus on changing behaviour rather than simply affecting attitudes or raising awareness, because otherwise it would be wasteful. When you need to recruit people to the armed forces or get people to respond to their tax returns, there are clear calls to action. You won’t get your project signed off if you aren’t clear on how you will trigger action or if you didn’t have the evidence to back it up. There is much more scrutiny and if you mess up, questions are asked in parliament. Nobody wants that!”

Tip 4. Test out the context

“People’s behaviour depends very much on the context. As an example, we developed scripts to be used by two businesses in their call centres to understand why people were cancelling subscriptions and try to retain their custom. One set of scripts was for a newspaper and the other was for a piece of IT software. We found they required a completely different approach to each other.

“With people calling up to cancel a newspaper subscription, we reflected social norms – ensuring that the customers knew that other people like them were subscribing and the benefits. This worked because a newspaper is about your worldview. It reflects your priorities in life. Not so for the software company because these were business customers and they are all seeking seeking competitive advantage – they want to be different to everyone else.”

Tip 5. Find your price point

“Before jumping into creative mode, spend time unpacking your thinking. Think about what assumptions you are making that you have no evidence for. What are you assuming about the way people are buying that product? How do people assess value?

“A good example of this is the principle of price anchoring. We all know, for instance, that people tend to buy the second cheapest wine on the menu. Rolls-Royce looked into this principle and found that their cars were seen as expensive at car shows, but not so if they exhibited at boat shows – where products can be worth half a million pounds. That’s an insight you only get by looking at subconscious influences of behaviour.  

“Another example is that there is a bias to items to the left. So we recommended that a charity changed the order of suggested donations on its website from £5 £10 £50 to £50 £10 £5 and it generated an extra £850,000 in a year.”

Tip 6. Choose the right channel

“Most marketers will use the channel they think that their audience is most likely to be consuming. But actually this isn’t always what they are most influenced by.

“Look at advertising on the main TV channels, for example. TV still holds great influence as a channel because subconsciously people think that if a business can afford to advertise there then it is legitimate, and reputable.”

Tip 7. Move from personas to personality

“It is only relatively recently that we’ve been able to target people on an individual level and the technology in this area is developing quickly. Through the evolution of social media and big data, there are now sophisticated ways of assessing personality, beyond traditional techniques like Myers-Briggs.

“This is really powerful. Personality is a much better predictor of behaviour than demographics – we all know people in the same demographic as us who behave in a completely different way.

“Hilton Hotels tested out the theory by developing two versions of an online ad. One focused on the bar and social activities, the other on the spa facilities and pampering. The first ad was targeted at people that they had identified as being more social. The second at more solitary people. The ads performed three times better than the control group.

“How do you fuse this understanding of personality with marketing and the latest advances in machine learning and AI? And how do you do it ethically? This is the next frontier in behavioural science.”

Richard Chataway Headshot BW-2Richard Chataway is the founder of Communication Science Group, which audits, optimises and scientifically evaluates communication to customers, clients and staff using behavioural and marketing science.

This is the latest interview in the Mindlab Academy, a series of interviews with experts on challenges and opportunities in market research. Catch up on other articles on lies and failure here.

The aim of the Mindlab Academy is to reveal insights to help you create actionable market research. As part of this, each month we speak to industry leaders on their views and tips. Don’t miss out:

Alex Gordon: On Semiotics

mindlab-blog-bannersThe Semiotics of Desire

“What is happening in this house?” asks Dr. Alex Gordon, CEO of semiotics agency, Sign Salad.

Screen Shot 2017-12-15 at 09.30.47

“A party?” I respond hopefully. “Brilliant, what you did there was a semiotic analysis,” he compliments me. “We don’t think of it that way. If we’re walking past this sight, we don’t turn to our partner and say ‘Hold on, I’m going to deconstruct the cultural context of that symbolic messaging.’ We just do it. By responding quickly, you demonstrated that we do it instinctively, irresistibly, instantaneously and unconsciously. Everyone in the world is a semiotician. We’re constantly interpreting symbolic messaging wherever we are. We cannot resist it.”

Alex has spent the last two decades decoding signs and symbols, first as a lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London and more recently for the UK government and brands like Mars and Pernod Ricard. When it comes to understanding how semiotic insights can impact a brand, he’s the person to talk to. He starts off our discussion for the Mindlab Academy by explaining there are two levels of meaning to every message.

“Brands that aren’t in control of this,” he believes, “can create confusion and disconnect themselves from consumers. The first level is the ‘denotative’ meaning. If you see a rose cognitively you recognise it as a flower. At the second level, you also recognise its ‘connotative’ meaning as a symbol of love. In other words, if I went home on Valentine’s Day and gave my wife seven white chrysanthemums she’d say, ‘Thank you very much, you complete idiot’ because I would have recognised the denotative value of a rose as a flower but failed to understand the connotative reference of a rose as a symbol of love.”

“Actually, the same process takes place in every branded communication. Brands either put a single message on their packaging, advert or so on which relates to the broader cultural context in which it’s situated. Or they might use contradictory messaging which leaves consumers scratching their heads to interpret in – either intentionally or not.”Screen Shot 2017-11-13 at 09.59.47

“Brands are increasingly aware they are dealing with cultural artefacts. For good reason, there was deep concern about using semiotics for some time. People thought it was the subjective opinions of individuals and didn’t come from data or consumers. But the dependence on listening to consumers alone hasn’t always worked. Today, brands know you need a level of insight beyond what customers say. Semiotics is something that everyone is engaged in constantly. It’s knowing that which gives you control over it.”

One of the most prevalent examples of where semiotics has deeply impacted marketing is in triggering desire for a brand and its products, which we went on to explore a little further.

The Apple

“Let’s go back to the very beginning of storytelling and the drama of Adam and Eve,” suggests Alex. “God told them not to eat the apple representing knowledge. They did, and so they were expelled from Eden. The critical idea here is that the desire to eat the apple was both irresistible and repellent because they felt guilt over doing it. The beginnings of desire were about being compelled to have something, and also knowing that need is somehow indulgent and wrong.”

The Reclining Nude

“The apple is embedded right at the heart of Western culture. It is a signifier and symbol of temptation, of compulsion and repulsion,” explains Alex. “Whenever we see an apple in any context, we don’t just see the fruit. We see it as a symbol of desire from the Adam and Eve narrative. It becomes a shortcut to understanding the purpose, meaning and value of a brand or product and we do it without even knowing it. When we look at the DKNY Red Delicious perfume advert we might not knowingly be thinking about Eve. But we are subconsciously.”

1997.149.9

“The branded world has absorbed these principles and appropriated the reclining nude for its own purposes. In our minds, when technology or a car is shown in this position, it is a signifier of desirability and of pleasure and attraction. It’s disturbing of course because, semiotically, desire is dependant on troubling tropes of sexuality.”

These values are embedded and we don’t even think about it when we’re reading magazines or watching TV. “Brands increasingly need to understand how to exploit the use of these cultural symbols and visual cues, to ensure they have control of their messaging and engage consumers in a culturally relevant conversation,” concludes Alex.

Dr. Alex Gordon is the founder and CEO of Sign Salad, a leading semiotics and cultural insight agency which helps blue-chip companies such as Unilever, GSK and Chanel to understand unconscious influences on consumer behaviour and attitudes. Over the last ten years, the agency has advised extensively on global innovation, positioning, visual identity, packaging and communications projects.

This is the latest interview in the Mindlab Academy, a series of interviews with experts on challenges and opportunities in market research. Catch up on other articles on lies and failure here.

The aim of the Mindlab Academy is to reveal insights to help you create actionable market research. As part of this, each month we speak to industry leaders on their views and tips. Don’t miss out:

Mike Herd: On innovation

mindlab-blog-banners

Innovation Special

Why “I will listen” should be your new mantra

Mike Herd Sussex InnovationTwenty-one years since the Sussex Innovation Centre opened and ten years since Mindlab made the hub its home, what has happened to innovation? We spoke to the person who would know – Mike Herd, the Executive Director who set up the centre and has driven its success. In this time, some people’s expectations have become unrealistic according to Mike. He told us that there are two drivers for this.

1. Speed  

”It has become much faster to innovate. It is interesting now that when people talk about ‘tech’, it’s not a shortening of ‘technology’. People just mean apps and mobile, both of which are relatively quick to create. Yes, innovating in other sectors has sped up but it still takes quite a long time to develop electronics, drug discovery, biotech and so on. There have been lots of accelerators set up where if you can’t create a new product in twelve weeks then you’re dismissed. To write an app in that time is achievable but to deliver a drug is a lot trickier!”

2. Profitability

“Most of the highly successful innovations in the past ten years within the tech area have not had any product. They are skimming the profits off someone else, like Uber or Just Eat, for instance. Just Eat doesn’t cook any food but it’s taking a big bite out of the orders – a very good business model because it can be hugely profitable. The issue in other industries is that then becomes the expectation of investors. You can no longer say: ‘It’s going to take half a million pounds to get to a prototype and then we’ll make a 20% gross profit, maybe 5% profit.’ People look at that compared to an internet venture and it’s no longer an attractive investment.”

1An impressive 85% of businesses that come to the innovation centre succeed and 15-20% of those scale significantly. How do you know when someone comes to you with a good idea?

“The principle I apply is: I will listen. Generally, I can’t make a judgement based on one conversation so I start from the perspective that I’ll believe your idea will do what you can say it can do. Then let’s see if there is a market for it. Then I ask: do you have the ambition to do it?

“The two aspects of market and ambition rule most people out. If they meet all three criteria, then we will find out quite quickly whether the idea can actually work.

“What I try to do is build up the ambition of the idea – how big could this be? If it’s big, then it’s worth trying to conquer the hurdles.”

What innovation trends do you think will take off over the next few years? 

“Firstly, I’m seeing a real explosion in “Psytech” companies – those that apply psychology to technology or technology to psychology. This rise is because companies are looking for the subtleties of how you differentiate yourself in an increasingly complex marketplace and how you create something that works at a local level. It’s also due to an increasing interest in wellness. People are accepting stress and mental health as an issue which five years ago nobody would touch.

“Electronic sensors are also becoming huge. In each area, a sensor might have twenty different applications, so how can you use it and how can you use the data it captures? With the Internet of Things, we’re asking how you can make someone’s life easier but then how do you affect it as a group?

“When it comes to all this data, there is so much of it that you have to find a way of dealing with it. AI is going to continue to be a key area because if you can create things which teach themselves, then the more data the better. It’s no longer overwhelming.

“Finally, there is a lot of envy from bigger business looking at smaller businesses and thinking, ‘I wish I could be a bit more like that’. So trying to find that interesting interface of how to introduce smaller companies to bigger companies and how to make that work – that’s where I’m seeing a lot of interest.”

Watch our very own Duncan Smith talks about his experiences at the hub over the last ten years. 

This is the latest interview in the Mindlab Academy, a series of interviews with experts on challenges and opportunities in market research. Catch up on other articles on desire, lies and failure here.  

The aim of the Mindlab Academy is to reveal insights to help you create actionable market research. As part of this, each month we speak to industry leaders on their views and tips. Don’t miss out:

 

 

Mindlab’s Museum of Failed Products

Museum of Failed Products

Every year, millions of products flood the market trying to be the next big thing.

But not everything can be the new iPod or Phish Food.

In fact, at least three-quarters of new products end up failing – despite extensive market research, mammoth marketing and tightly crossed fingers.

We’ve looked at twelve products and rebrands that didn’t work to see what can be learnt from them today.

Which product failed because the technology wasn’t opened up for others to use? And which company found out that sex doesn’t always sell? Click on each of the products for more information.

In the case of many of these failed products, people working at the companies probably experienced groupthink, where the desire for harmony within a group leads to poor decision making, for example through being overly-optimistic and not expressing doubts.

It is likely that many of these companies suffered from the planning fallacy – they took on a high-risk project, giving confidence to the best-case scenario without fully considering the worst-case scenario.

Of course, failure isn’t always a bad thing and it can lead to great success. Read more on how to fail well in our article with Barney Whiter from The School of Life. 


Subscribe


Share


8 tips to make the most of your market research budget

mindlab-blog-banner-dynamic-advertising

Companies are often afraid of spending too much effort and money on market research, and that it might not provide enough value for how much they put into it. However, results from market research (if done right) are a powerful tool to improve packaging, products, brands and even the company as a whole. In this post, I want to show, from a psychologist’s perspective, a few easy ways to make the most of your market research budget and get the best value for money, whether you are able and willing to spend a lot or just a little on it.

1. Know exactly which questions you need answered

When spending money on market research, it can be tempting to try and find out as much as possible. However, this ‘fishing expedition’ approach may result in you spending more money than you should, and leave you with a large amount of results that aren’t particularly useful at this stage. Instead, take the time to separate out your questions into ones that would just be ‘nice to know’, and ones that are crucial to your company’s success. Then put your main efforts into finding the answers to your essential questions. Don’t try to fit too much into a single study.

2. Base your sample size on what you need to find out

Sample sizes and the statistical power associated with them depend largely on how many groups you want to compare. If you are just interested in responses from the market overall, you will need fewer participants than when you want to compare men and women. Regional comparisons will significantly increase the number of people that need to take part in your study in order to get meaningful results, and increase the cost of your research. Identify whether these comparisons matter to your research questions. There are plenty of cases where regional comparisons are important, for example when you want to find out why a product is performing well in one region but worse in another. There might however be other, more general questions that can be answered without having to use regional splits.

3. Know your target market and tailor your research to it

In order to get results that really matter to your company, it is helpful to use participants who are part of your target market. A lot of the time research is carried out with a wide range of participants, all age groups, both genders, income ranges etc., which can be the right approach. More often than not you will however benefit from using more specific samples. Separating people into groups such as age or location can often be a waste of time. A more pragmatic approach may be to separate according to lifestyle or personal tastes. If you know that your target market are people over 35 who do most of the shopping in their households, use this as a selection criterion. Narrowing down your participant groups can also help reduce costs – sometimes slightly smaller sample sizes can be used because there is less variation in the data, and fewer groups to compare.

4. Pick the right time to carry out your research

Often market research is carried out too late and seen as a confirmation of decisions rather than a tool that can help you make decisions. If you want to design new packaging, for example, market research can not only be used to compare several finalised designs but can already help you in the pre-design stage by letting you know which ideas are likely to work and which ones won’t. Neuromarketing is ideal for this sort of testing because it can be used to look into how people subconsciously feel towards concepts, colour schemes, words and just ideas in general, instead of presenting people with a final design and asking what they think about it. Similarly, when you notice problems such as decreasing sales don’t wait until these are more established, but use market research to counteract these quickly and effectively.

5. Don’t waste money on research that won’t give you the answers you need

This point cannot be repeated enough: Traditional ‘asking methods’ (such as surveys, focus groups and interviews) will give you answers to the questions you ask, but these explicit answers are not always the key to what people really think. A large amount of people’s decision-making processes are subconscious and your respondents will be unable to understand the factors influencing their decisions, let alone tell you about them. It is important to use the most effective research available to you, one that takes all factors influencing behaviour into account and gives you the answers you really need to hear. I’m not saying don’t ask people, don’t just ask people.

6. Make use of on-line tools

I have already pointed out that surveys are usually not the best way to find all the answers to your research questions, but there are plenty of implicit on-line tools that will. Neuromarketing does not necessarily mean that you have to wire people up and test their brain activity and biophysiological responses; rather, there are many tests that look at subconscious associations and reactions on-line. These tests are incredibly cost and time effective: Hundreds and thousands of specifically targeted people can be reached quickly and at a comparatively low cost. It’s important to note that measuring implicit attitudes is not the same as indirect questioning.

7. Make the most of your results by avoiding confirmation bias

It is easy to get results back, look through them and mainly focus on the insights that make the most sense to you, the parts that feel intuitively right and ignore the rest. We are all guilty of forming opinions and then picking out facts that confirm these exact opinions (confirmation bias). However, by using this approach you might miss important details in the results that are essential for you to move forward successfully. There are other ways in which expert opinions can help you make the right decisions based on your research. Often, people confuse correlation (A and B often occur together) with causation (A causes B), which can make them draw the wrong conclusions. Do not be afraid to go back to the people who carried out your research! Good reports already tend to include advice regarding what exactly individual results mean in relation to the company strategy and what good future research steps might be, but your researchers are always happy to clarify any details and point you in the right direction. This will help you use your results in the most effective way.

8. See market research as an investment

As I said in the beginning, many companies are worried that they will not get enough value out of their market research. You might have carried out research in the past and the results did not lead to the improvement you were hoping for, or you might not be sure if your funds should be spent on research or other important areas within your company. But it is important to understand that you can benefit tremendously from better understanding your customers, what they want, how they truly feel about your brands, products and advertising by using the best market research methods available. Understanding what truly drives your customers’ behaviour will help you become a more successful company, which is why you should see market research as an investment.


Subscribe


Share


Groupthink and focus groups

Have you ever sat in a group discussion and stayed quiet because you were worried that you were wrong, or that everyone else had a different opinion from yours? Most of us have been a victim of ‘groupthink’ in one way or another. It affects political discussions, work meetings, focus groups and pretty much any situation in which groups try to solve a problem, or come to a consensus decision. Groupthink was first talked about by Irving Janis in the 1970s and has been used to explain bad decision-making in many different contexts. But before I talk about how it has an effect on work or focus groups, let’s focus on one of the prime examples of groupthink:

The Attack on Pearl Harbour

Before Pearl Harbour was attacked on 7th December 1941, internal Japanese messages had been intercepted and it was discovered that they were preparing for an attack in the Pacific. As a result of this, Washington sent a warning to the officers stationed at Pearl Harbour. But why was this warning not taken seriously enough to prepare for the attack? Discussions led the Navy and Army to conclude that the attack was unlikely, and they rationalised their opinion in many different ways. They assumed that the attack would only happen as a response to the US attacking Japan, and that Japan would surely not be crazy enough to start a war that they couldn’t win. Also, the officers thought that even if the attack should happen, they would be able to detect and destroy the fleets before they could reach the base. What does groupthink have to do with these conclusions, and how does it affect our everyday decision-making?

When Janis developed his theory, he named three groups of symptoms that groups suffer from when making a decision: overestimating the group, closed-mindedness and pressure towards uniformity.

Overestimating the Group

According to Janis, group members overestimate their group in two ways: They think they are invulnerable, and they don’t question the morality of their group and the decision it makes. Pearl Harbour suffered from both of these: Overestimating the power of their country (which led them to take the risk of not preparing), and believing to be in the right, supporting the right cause, and therefore ignoring the consequences of their actions (or non-actions in this case). Focus groups are more strongly influenced by the first factor: They are a completely invulnerable group, because they will never be held accountable for their decisions. This encourages the group members to voice support for riskier options than necessary, which can end up costing a company millions.

Closed-Mindedness

But you don’t need to overestimate the group in order to make bad decisions: Group members also tend to rationalise their group decisions and stereotype those who aren’t part of the group. In the Pearl Harbour example, both of these factors played a role. The officers used rationalisations to ignore the warning signs and stereotyped the Japanese army as being too weak and scared to attack the US base. In focus groups, these factors are seen in a more subtle way. The aim of focus groups (and most work discussions) is to come to a consensus decision, which means that they are prone to ignore minority opinions. Additionally, focus groups assume that their opinion is representative of everyone ‘in their right mind’, and ignores people who aren’t represented in the group. Most of the closed-mindedness of focus groups, however, stems from the third group of symptoms:

Pressure toward Uniformity

The pressure toward uniformity arguably has a lot to do with the fact that groups try to reach a consensus decision, and Janis describes the symptoms related to this in four different ways: Self-censorship, illusions of unanimity, direct pressure to conform and mind guards. Self-censorship is exactly what I talked about in the beginning of this post; if you feel that everyone else’s opinion is different from yours, you are reluctant to speak up. This is especially true if you feel that others are more powerful than you (probably the case in the Pearl Harbour discussion) or if you don’t hold particularly strong opinions (as seen in focus groups – would you start a fight over a new bottle design?). This can result in the illusion of unanimity, because the group assumes that silence is a form of agreement. The direct pressure to conform and ‘mind guards’, people who deliberately shield you from dissenting information, might not play as obvious a role in the work environment and focus groups (one would hope), but might influence political decision-making.

Does this mean that all group discussions are automatically doomed and can never come to a good decision? No, but it helps to be aware of group dynamics and how they can influence your discussion. Next time you are in a meeting, speak up (especially if you don’t agree with the rest of the group!) and try to not get carried away with the flow of the discussion. Be realistic about your options, advantages and risks, and you might be able to reduce the influence that groupthink has on your decision-making.

Mindlab offers the most accurate and effective market research available because we don’t just ask people what they think, we find out how they feel.


Subscribe


Share


EU Referendum Summary

EU Ref Blog Summary

EU Referendum – Summary

Brexit

In the aftermath of the EU referendum much ink has been spilled in an attempt to explain the outcome and why people voted as they did.

In the month leading up to the referendum we conducted a study, in collaboration with the Guardian, that explored the subconscious ‘feelings’ that drove voters’ decision making. By feelings, we mean the information that has been embedded into the subconscious over time that subsequently informs our decision-making.

So what did the data show and how does it relate to the actual result?

Based on the research we conducted in February 2016, before the campaign got into full swing we, like other research companies were surprised by the final outcome suggesting a small majority in favour of the Remain campaign, and I will suggest some of the reasons for this error in a moment. But let me start by looking at what we got right.

  • Among those most in favour of Brexit (for further details see Blog 2) 74% prioritised immigration above all other issues (See blog 3 for further details)
  • At the other end of the scale, our data clearly suggested that feelings about the EU were most positive in Scotland (Remain 61%), London (Remain 95%), and Northern Ireland (Remain 99%)  (See blog 2 for more detail)
  • Our data also clearly showed a significant increase in ‘Leave’ voters according to age with half (49%) of 18 – 24 year olds feeling strongly we should remain in the EU compared with around a quarter (24%) of those aged between 50 and 60. (See blog 2 for more details)


Last but not least, our findings indicated that the feelings of those who were still undecided at the time of testing (Feb 16) were aligned closer to those who were in either of the two ‘out’ groups (Weak
out and Strong out).

We found that a latent mistrust of the EU lurked in many people’s subconscious, but at the time of testing was of insufficient power to override conscious doubts about the future outside of the EU. This might have tipped the balance towards voting leave at the last minute. When decision making becomes overly complex people tend to rely  on their ‘gut’ feelings.

Brexit-pic

Basing our prediction on the data collected in February, we expected that Britain would remain in the EU. Clearly, implicit attitudes change during campaigning and more so than we predicted.

As explained in Blog 1, we can only ever accurately estimate outcomes over which we have no control. It is possible to make increasingly precise weather forecasts, since their publication exerts absolutely no effect on the outcome. The same cannot, of course, be said about public opinion polls whose widespread dissemination can and does significantly influence voter intentions.

A second possible reason is that people who wanted out were more strongly motivated to actually go out and vote. Data shows that only around a third of younger voters actually did so on the day and, of course, no one knows how non-voters would have voted.

Since the methods we employed have never before been used to capture people’s implicit attitudes and motivation towards complex and abstract concepts like EU membership, we probably need even finer tuned tools to do so.

All in all, however, we believe the detailed results are a powerful demonstration of both the accuracy and the potential of this radically new approach to market research.

Written by Insa-Annett Tiaden & Dr David Lewis-Hodgson

 

Subscribe




Share


Why Feelings Hold the Key to the EU Referendum Outcome

EU Ref Blog 5

Why Feelings Hold the Key to the EU Referendum Outcome

Blog 5 – EU Referendum

Ballot PaperIn this blog I summarise the main findings of the research we conducted with The Guardian that looked at  voters’ intentions during the EU Referendum,

What do we mean by ‘feelings’?

Psychologists’ categorise modes of thought in two ways:

Implicit (System 1) thinking is non-conscious and error prone but able to rapidly integrate numerous types of interacting information.
Explicit (System 2) is conscious and more accurate, but only capable of handling a few items of information at a time. ‘Feelings’ arise on the ‘fringes’ of conscious and non-conscious thought and play a crucial role in our decision-making.

The basis for this type of research relies upon the fact that ‘feelings’ offer a mental shortcut that draws upon information and emotion that has been ‘absorbed’ into the subconscious. This information does not exist in isolation, but rather pieces of information are connected with other pieces of information in our memory.

People generally take time to process new information and work out how they ‘feel’ about it. Over time these ‘feelings’ become increasingly automatic, allowing the individual to devote less energy into re-evaluating what is already firmly established and connected in their minds.
Come 23rd June, we believe a significant percentage will be voting to remain or leave not on a deep understanding of the economic and social issues involved but on whether they feel staying or leaving is, in some way, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
This study set out to measure both the direction (i.e. positive or negative) and strength of these feelings.

Here is a summary of what we found.

  • Those strongly in favour of Brexit consistently prioritised Immigration over all other issues, suggesting this is the real issue driving strong negative feelings.
  • Undecided voters have, on average, marginally positive subconscious associations with the EU.
  • The feelings of floating voters are closer to those who say they will vote to leave than those who say they will vote to remain.
    With the exception of UKIP, supporters of each mainstream party are more likely to have positive feelings about the EU with Lib Dem supporters being the most positive.
  • Britons aged 30-49 are most likely to have positive feelings about the EU with men being marginally more positive than women.
  • Feelings about the EU are most positive in Scotland and least positive in the South East and East Midlands.
  • Positivity tends to increase with education; those with a post-graduate degree are, by some distance, most likely to have positive feelings about with the EU.
  • Those employed either full or part time, have more positive feelings than do the unemployed, students, retired or the self-employed.
  • Those with the highest levels of knowledge about the EU are the least likely to have positive feeling.

Based on this research conducted  at the beginning of the campaign we expect there to be a 57% Remain vote. We think that people’s implicit attitudes to Europe may waver but are unlikely to change dramatically but we are very soon about to find out.

If you would like to receive a FREE copy of our report,  just e-mail mail@themindlab.co.uk

 

Read more on this series

Blog 1 – What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

Blog 2 – Who’s In and Who’s Out – Attitudes based on Demographics

Blog 3 – A Matter of Priorities – What Matters to Voters

Blog 4 – How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities



Subscribe



Share