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




How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities

EU Ref Blog 4

How Both BS Susceptibility and EU Knowledge Influence Voters’ Priorities

EU Referendum – Blog 4

Do you consider the following statements ‘Profound’ or ‘Meaningless’?

EU Bullsht

  • ‘Culture illuminates the door of excellence’

  • ‘Death is reborn in the light of observations’

  • ‘Evolution opens descriptions of phenomena’

  • ‘Freedom is the ground of innumerable experience

Statements like these formed the ‘Bullsh*t Susceptibility Scale’ (BSS) in a EU Referendum study we conducted in collaboration with the Guardian. Designed to sound, at least at first reading as deep and wise, they were in fact pretension nonsense. 1000 participants were invited to move a slider to indicate, on a 1 to 7 Likert scale, the extent to which they found them insightful. Their scores were then categorised as Low, Medium, High or Very High.

In a second quiz we tested voters’ knowledge of the EU by posing such questions as:

  • 1. Who is Wolfgang Schäuble?
  • 2. What is the name of the treaty that was responsible for the creation of the EU?
  • 3. What is the Schengen area?

What we wanted to see the extent to which scores on these tests influenced the priorities each of the five voter groups (Strong In; Weak In; Undecided; Strong Out; Weak Out) we identified. (See my earlier blog for a full description of these groups) attached to key social issues. The results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Table 1 – Bull Susceptibility Scale (BSS)

Blog 4 Table 1

As with charts shown in my previous blogs, the deeper the green, the stronger the priority, the deeper the red, the weaker.
If we consider the NHS, the issue that generated the strongest positive associations we see that a low BSS score significantly increased the time this issue was prioritised compared to those with a high Score (71% vs. 59%). In other words people who are more thoughtful rank it as having greater important than the more susceptible to statements that seem insightful while being anything but.
A similar, although smaller, difference was found on the issue that generated the strongest negative feelings – Europe. Here voters with low or medium BSS scores prioritised it somewhat less frequently (28% & 27%) than those with a High or Very High score (30% % 32%).
Let’s now examine the extent to which knowledge of the EU affects priorities. Once again scores were placed on one of four categories. Low indicates poor knowledge and Very high a strong performance.

Table 2 – Issue Priority vs EU Knowledge
Blog 4 - Table 2

Here we can see that more knowledgeable voters prioritised economy higher (green bars)  significantly more often than did low knowledge voters (51% vs. 39%). Similarly knowledge about the EU made them substantially less negative about Immigration and somewhat less negative about Europe.
When we examined the response time we found that the more knowledgeable voters’ were more reflective and less automatic in their answers. Table 3 shows the amount of time (in milliseconds) taken to answer – the longer the time the more thoughtful the response.

Table 3 – Decision Conviction vs Bull Susceptibility
Blog 4 - Table 3

Noticeable in the above is the fact that more knowledgeable voters take time to consider their options whereas the less knowledgeable ones make more rapid and automatic judgements.
Over the past four blogs I have explored some of the key issues about the EU referendum identified by our research. In my fifth and final blog I will summarise these findings and also provide a link to the Power Point PDF that shows all the results.

 

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


Subscribe




Share


A Matter of Priorities

 EU Ref Blog 3

A Matter of Priorities

EU Referendum – Blog 3

Image Of Hands On The Background Of The European Flag. Make A ChGiven the acres of newsprint and thousands of hours of broadcasting devoted to the EU Referendum, one might suppose Europe to be high on the list of voters’ priorities. Our research indicates otherwise. While there are undoubtedly some for whom the decision to remain or leave is the highest priority, a majority place it fairly low down on the issues that concern them.

This part of the study, in collaboration with the Guardian, determined implicitly the priority of ten key issues  for our 1,000 participants . These areas of concern, included the NHS, Immigration, Crime, Education, Low Pay and Europe. The results were analysed by the five voter categories I described in my previous EU blog. These are: Strongly In; Weakly In; Undecided; Weakly Out and Strongly Out.

Findings

The Tables below show both the percentage of times an issue was prioritised and the feelings they generated. Red indicates negative and green positive feelings, the darker the colour the stronger the sentiment aroused.

As Table 1 below shows, the NHS was prioritised a greater percentage of times by all except Strongly Out voters for whom it came a close second to Immigration (74% vs. 71%).  The dark green colour indicates the feelings were all highly positive.

Those strongly in favour of leaving the EU unsurprisingly prioritised Immigration 74% of the time (compared to 25% of the time by those strongly in favour of remaining). Interestingly both they, the Weak Out and Undecided groups had positive feelings about this issue – extremely positive in the case of the Strong Out. Both the Strong and Weak In voters had negative feelings about it.

Collage On Event June 23: Brexit Uk Eu Referendum Who Wins The GOne can speculate this is because those favouring Brexit or still Undecided, regard high levels of immigration as helpful when it comes to persuading others to their viewpoint. The same negative and positive feelings can be seen where Crime is concerned. Here half (50%) of those favouring Brexit had positive feeling on this issue while the Strong In voted were much less concerned with it and expressed strongly negative feelings.

Strongly pro-EU voters prioritised Education (51%); Unemployment (45%) and Inequality (42%) more often than any of the other groups. Apart from Immigration (74%) the issues prioritised by strong supporters of Brexit are Crime (50%) and Housing (46%). Europe was prioritised 40% of the time by Strong Out voters but only 20% of the time by voters strongly in favour of remaining in the EU.

 

Blog 2 - Table 1 - Priority

Male Female Differences -Table 2

Blog 2 - Table 2 - Whats your Priority

We looked at both the percentage of times that a key issue was prioritised over others and the strength of feeling as measured by the speed with which a response was provided.

As can be seen a slightly higher percentage of women afford Education a higher priority than men (46% vs. 43%) whereas more men than women prioritise the economy (50% vs. 45%). Women in our sample were also somewhat quicker to make their decisions about what to prioritise. Positive or negative feelings for each of the issues matched in direction although not always in strength as the colours indicate.

Differences by Age – Table 3

In line with other studies, our data shows younger voters view the EU significantly more favourably than do older ones. For the under thirties, both Europe and Immigration are significantly less of a priority than for the over fifties. On Europe a third of 18 to 24 year olds (33%) and a quarter of 25 to 29 year olds (24%) see this as an issues compared to four in ten (41%) of over eighties.

On Immigration the split is even greater, while around a third of the under thirties make this a priority after the age of fifty just over half do.

For voters below 25 Education is slightly more of a priority (53%) than any other group except for those aged eighty and over (50%). With the NHS it is the only issue to arouse positive feelings across all age groups.

Blog 2 - Table 3 - Priority Percentage

In my next blog I will explore the extent to which accurate knowledge and false beliefs about the EU influences voting choices.

End

 

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

Blog 5 – Why Feelings Hold the Key to EU Referendum Outcome


Subscribe



Share


Who’s In and Who’s Out

EU Ref Blog 2

Who’s In and Who’s Out?

EU Referendum – II

bigstock--132594740Before looking at these data in more detail, a few words about the way this study, in collaboration with The Guardian, was conducted.

As I explained in my previous Blog we used our proprietary software to explore the ‘feelings’ of 1,000 respondents regarding many aspects of the EU and Referendum. Such feelings arise on the boundary between the conscious and non-conscious mind and comprise a blend, in varying proportions, of emotions and cognition – for further details see my March 23rd Blog Once More With Feeling.

When it comes to the complexity of the issues surrounding ‘stay’ or ‘go’ a lack of precise information either way suggests that emotions play a greater role than knowledge. Because such ‘feelings’ tend to be resistant to change, findings implicit findings are more accurate and durable across time than explicit results.

We found that almost six out of ten respondents (57%) felt the UK should remain a part of the European Union, while 43% of the sample indicated that they would opt to leave. When we included the option ‘I am unsure’, just over one in six (15%) of respondents used this option. Two in five (37%) felt that Brexit was the best option while just under half (47%) indicated a preference for remaining.

One of the main goals of this study was to see if we could use implicit data to further separate these groups. To this end we identified respondents who held strong positions in either direction. For the purposes of this, ‘strong’ opinions were identified as being above 7 on a Likert scale indicating how sure they were (from 1 – ‘I am not certain at all’ to 10 = ‘I am extremely certain’).
Great Britain Leaves The European UnionOnce we had obtained a sample of such participants we then used their implicit positivity, associated with remaining / leaving the EU alongside their attitudes towards the key political issues to build a classifier that could be used to predict the probability that any particular individual would be inclined to vote either in our out.

According to the probability assigned participants were allocated into one of five groups: Strong out, Weak out, Undecided, Weak in and Strong in. Chart 1 below shows the differences between ‘explicitly’ and Implicitly derived answers:

The Tables below show both the percentage of times an issue was prioritised and the feelings they generated. The colours indicate the strongest and weakest sentiments per group. Green represents where the group most aligned, and red the opposite.

Voter preferences by Gender

Table 1 - Gender
As Table 1 shows, a higher percentage of men than women think the UK should remain in the EU, although both sexes were almost equally likely to feel Undecided or vote to leave.

Strong In males felt more strongly and positively about staying than did Strong Out men. Those in the Weak In, Undecided and Weak Out should negative feelings on the issue with the Undecided being most negative of all.

Voter preferences by Age

Table 2 - Age

As other surveys have found, our research confirmed the strong preference to remain among 18 to 24 years old voters with almost half (49%) feeling we should stay in the EU and only 3% feeling strongly that it would be better to leave.  Strong positive feelings were generated among those favouring remain while equally powerful negative associated were found in the Brexiters. Indeed it was only in this age range that equally powerful feelings, for and against, were found. Those most likely to strongly feel like leaving were aged between 50 and 59 (31%) although after the age of forty around one in five held this opinion. Those over eighty were least likely to be undecided (6%) but were far more likely to vote to leave (56%) than remain (39%).

Remain or Leave Preferences by Region

Table 3 - Region
Summary:

The Scots feel most strongly we should remain (41%) in the EU while those in Yorkshire and the Humber being least likely to want to stay in (22%). After Scotland, Londoners (37%) and the Northern Irish (33%) have the highest proportion feeling we should remain. People in the South West feel we should Vote Leave (29%), followed closely by East Midlanders (25%). All regions that are Strongly In have positive feelings about the EU, compared with only two regions (Scotland and Northern Ireland) in the Strong Out group.

  • Those who feel strongly we should either stay in or leave are most likely to be male, while women are more likely to be undecided.
  • Younger participants were more likely to think Britain should say in the EU, while older participants were more likely to want to leave.
  • Finally, people in Scotland and London were most likely to be in the ‘strong in’ group, while those in the South West and the East Midlands were most likely to strongly feel that Britain should leave.

But how important is Europe for a majority of voters? As I will explain in my next EU blog, our research has shown that it is far less of a priority than most in the Westminster Village would have us believe.

Read more on this series

Blog 1 – What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

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

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


Subscribe



Share


What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

EU Ref Blog 1

What Voters REALLY Feel about the EU Referendum

 

bigstock--130949024The traditional way of finding out how people will vote in the coming EU referendum is, of course, to ask them. Which is exactly what polling organisations have being doing regularly over the past months.

While their polls – that assign respondents to one of three groups: Vote to remain, vote to leave and undecided – offer a snapshot of voting intentions, such explicit questioning gives no sense of the strength of support for each position. Those marginally in favour of leaving or remaining, who could potentially change their mind, are combined with voters already firmly convinced one way or the other.

In the present study, conducted in collaboration with the Guardian, we adopt a radically different approach. By using a specially developed form of implicit rather than explicit testing, we are able to access both subconscious ‘feelings’ and the strength with which these views are held. This type of research relies upon the fact that for most of our decision-making, we employ mental shortcuts that call upon information that has been ‘absorbed’ into the subconscious. This information does not exist in isolation. Each piece of information is connected with every other in memory.

When presented with new information people generally take time to process the information and form a rationalised response. Over a period attitudes become more automatic as the individual devotes less energy into re-evaluating opinions already firmly established and connected in their minds. If we record the speed of response we obtain an insight into how embedded these opinions are. The more multi-faceted and complicated a decision becomes the more likely voters are to go with their gut feelings.

In this referendum, apart from a minority on either side who are passionate and committed, most voters seem confused and uncertain. A recent letter to the Metro undoubtedly expressed the feelings of many:

“I am educated enough to recognise that I have no hope of understanding and evaluating all the factors affecting this decision demanded of us in the EU referendum,” the writer admitted, adding “I seriously doubt if anyone can.”

In such situations, implicit testing provides a far more powerful and reliable tool of determining voter sentiment.

The present study, conducted in collaboration with the Guardian involved a thousand respondents and combined our new and unique form implicit testing with a number of explicit questionnaires in order to find answers to the following:

  • How positive do voters feel about the United Kingdom and the European Union?
  • How strongly do they associate the UK with leaving or remaining in the EU?
  • How do they prioritise the key political issues?

Over the next two weeks we will be publishing five further blogs each focusing on different findings from the study.
It is important to realise that one can only accurately predict what one cannot control. Weather forecasts are becoming increasingly accurate because their publication has no effect on the weather. The same cannot be said about polling data. This fact that, for example, a widely publicised poll that showed a significant increase or decrease in those supporting a particular position, would be very likely to influence voter decision making in the future.
This was what happened during the Scottish independence referendum after a well-publicised poll indicated an increased vote for the leave section. The government immediately made further promises and concessions, which, together with a surge of support for those in favour of the Union caused supporters of Independence to lose the vote.
In the next blog I will be describing what our research has revealed about the key characteristics of ‘Leavers’ and ‘Remainers’ together with the priority they assign to the referendum itself. Given the massive amount of discussion and media attention our finding may well surprise and shock you.

 

Dr David Lewis

Read more on this series

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

Blog 5 – Why Feelings Hold the Key to EU Referendum Outcome


Subscribe




Share


Once More with Feeling

 

Charimans Blog Once more with Feeling

Dr David Lewis –David Lewis - Mindlab International Chairman The Chairman’s Blog

The 19th century polymath Dr Thomas Young, who was expert in medicine, mathematics, geometry, vision, light, mechanics, languages, music and Egyptology, has been described as the ‘last man to know everything.’

Today, few can claim such a breadth and depth of knowledge. Indeed, outside our specialist fields, most of us know rather little about almost everything. This does not, of course, prevent us holding robust opinions on virtually any topic. Such views are typically based neither exclusively on from knowledge, which we generally lack, nor on emotions. Rather they arise from our ‘feelings’ of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’.  Take for example the following current issues:

Gay marriage.
Genetically modified food.
Abortion.
Legalising cannabis.
Curbing immigration.
Leaving the EU.

On all these you are likely to ‘feel’ they are either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

On the Fringe

‘Feelings’ arise on the boundary between our conscious and unconscious mind, in what the 19th century American psychologist William James called the ‘‘fringe’. To gain an insight read the following just once:

“A newspaper is better than a magazine. The seashore is better than the street. At first it is easier to run than to walk. You may need to try several times. It takes some skill but it is easy to learn. Even young children can enjoy it. Once successful, complications are minimal. Birds seldom get too close. Rain, however, soaks in very fast. Too many people doing the same thing can also cause problems. One needs lots of room. If there are no complications it can be very peaceful. A rock will serve as an anchor. If it breaks loose, however, you will not get a second chance.”

On reading this for the first time, most people report a vague and disagreeable ‘feeling of wrongness’.

While all the words make sense and every sentence is grammatically correct, the overall effect is of confusion and incomprehension.

Now re-read the paragraph keeping in mind the word ‘kite’.

Suddenly, despite their being no change in the sensory content, it all makes sense. You will enjoy a Eureka moment as feelings of ‘wrongness’ change in an instant to feelings of ‘rightness’.

Where Feelings Arise

Over the past two years I have been researching the fringe between conscious and non-conscious thought. I term this fringe, and I first described it at a Neuromarketing Science & Business Association conference in Amsterdam in August 2015, the periliminal region.

 

Iceberg

The research currently being undertaking by Mindlab International is into scientifically analyzing periliminal ‘feelings’ in order for advertisers, marketers and retailers to be better able to identify and control them.

Networks in the Brain

Because every memory we have is linked to every other memory, retrieving one brings to mind many others. The word ‘canary,’ for example, is closely linked to such attributes as ‘is yellow’; ‘has wings’; ‘sings’ and ‘can fly’. When people are tested in the laboratory, these responses are given almost instantly. Less closely associated memories, for example ‘is an animal’ or ‘is warm blooded’ usually take slightly longer to come to mind.

Known, in the case of words, as our ‘semantic network’, this aspect of cognition has been extensively studied down the years. Less often appreciated is the fact that every type of sensory input creates networks and that all the networks are interconnected. This means, for example, that a particular aroma will trigger visual, emotional and possibly muscle memories.

There are occasions when these links can lead us into error. If you’d like to demonstrate this – it makes a faintly amusing party trick – ask someone to answer the following questions as quickly as possible:

What is a common abbreviation for Coca-Cola?
Which four-letter word describes an amusing story told by a comedian?
What sound does a frog make on a lily pad?
What’s the white of an egg called?
If they answer fast enough the chances are their responses will be:

Coke – joke – croak – yolk!

Perhaps that’s how you responded to the questions.

What has happened here was that, searching for a pattern among the seemingly disconnected questions, your brain hit on the idea of looking for rhymes. This caused “yolk” to seem the obviously correct response, whereas a moment’s thought would have shown this was wrong. The answer should, of course, have been “albumin”.

Although, within a specific demographic, there will be many commonly shared association, every person also makes sense of the world in a different way. Memory networks are personal to each individual. This means that even seemingly trivial aspects of an advertisement, marketing strategy or retail display can cause a flood of positive or negative associations, both conscious and non-conscious, that directly affect the consumers’ ‘feelings’ about that message. These are formed extremely rapidly and, once established, prove hard to change.

‘Feelings of Rightness’ – The Key to Success

For a product, brand, proposal or, indeed a person, to be successful they must generate ‘feelings of rightness’.

The success of Republican Presidential contender Donald Trump provides a case in point. Not all those who support him agree with many of his statements, indeed some disagree strongly.

At the same time, he is able to generate a ‘feeling of rightness’ strong enough for them to set their objections aside.

‘Feeling’ will nearly always trump reason!

When a campaign, a product or a negotiation fails to hit the mark, this is typically due to its effects on neither the consumer’s conscious nor their unconscious mind, but to a ‘feeling of wrongness’. Equally, success is the result of generating a ‘feeling of rightness’.

The ability to predict which ‘feeling’ is most likely to arise will enable companies and individuals to avoid ‘feelings of wrongness’ so reducing the chances of failure and increasing the likelihood of success.

It is with developing technology capable of predicting these ‘feelings’ that our research is concerned.


Subscribe



Share




Decoding the Irrational Consumer, by Darren Bridger – An overview.

blog-decoding-consumerDecoding Irrational Consumer

 

So you’ve heard of this word floating around ‘Neuromarketing’, but what is it? If you are in the marketing profession and looking to expand your market research horizons with something new, it is well worth reading ‘Decoding the Irrational Consumer’ by Darren Bridger, 2015.

 

Bridger provides an easily digestible insight into the world of Neuromarketing and everything that surrounds it in manageable chunks. By the time you have finished you will be clued up and ready to kick off your next campaign with neuromarketing at the heart.

 

This book begins with a useful insight into the way in which we, as humans, think and make decisions, which undoubtedly has an important impact on the way practitioners undertake market research. Bridger states that the irrational thinking of consumers comes from an energy-saving, unconscious ‘System 1’ mode of thinking. He makes the point that markers need to ensure they understand this way of thinking in order to fully understand consumers’ choices and deliver campaigns that appeal. Because marketers are now beginning to understand the limited value in simply asking people what they think and instead, are investigating a whole range of new techniques, also known as neuromarketing.

 

The author explains that the most important elements of neuromarketing are to have a solid understanding of the way in which the brain operation, in particular, the role of memory, attention and emotion. Us humans have a limited attention span meaning we require an awful lot of non-conscious processing to ‘fill in the gaps’. Memories and assumptions bias our perceptions, so with this in mind it becomes clear that marketers need to have a good grasp of non-conscious thought. He describes brands as nothing more than a ‘web of nonconscious memories’ and emotions as a ‘key motivating factor that likely evolved to get us to move’.

 

In terms of behavioural economics, Bridger argues that although consumers are constrained to a certain extent in that they cant be fully rational, they are however,  able to make choices that make rational sense within the contexts they live. He adds to this by suggesting that value is often subjective and that consumers will tend to judge it more on relative comparisons that absolute amounts or costs. He suggests that the everyday consumer will continually come across products or services that they just arent willing to compromise on and others that will do. Meaning that in the end, they tend to come to a choice which is just good enough.

 

He goes on to discuss the mental biases that guide consumer choices on a day to day basis, also known as ‘heuristics’. The idea of these biases is based on the concept that people are more likely to fear loss over the opportunity of gain, unless of course they are ‘nudges’ towards a specific decision.

 

Implicit Association Testing (IAT) is commonly used in Neuromarketing in which instead of directly asking people their opinions, participants are asked to pair two concepts together and see how the different pairings either slow down or speed up simple categorisation tasks.

The book provides an overview of IAT explaining how participants reaction speeds on each pairing becomes a measurement of the degree of association between the two concepts.  The author explains that there are a number of different implicit testing paradigms.

 

Academic – mostly test binary or positive vs. negative type associations whereas many of the market research paradigms test the connection between a wide array of attributes and a brand or ad.

 

Implicit response tests – powerful and versatile way of measuring the degree to which important qualities are being automatically evoked by a brand, ad, service or product.

 

Bridger concludes with a discussion of his thoughts about the future of neuroscience. With costs coming down and awareness of techniques increasing he believes the science will continue with three main areas of interest:

 

  1. More validation

With increasing pressure from clients, the field will be driven into more research into testing these metrics against real world sales data, effectively providing a stronger rationale for use.

 

  1. more understanding and insight

Through more use,a greater understanding about how and why different features in ads and communications perform well or poorly will likely accumulate. This will coincide with an increased understanding of the brain and its workings in relation to real world situations.

 

  1. New measures

More metrics using current techniques will be developed along with more user-friendly outputs. The number of devices consumers now own is growing at a rapid pace and can be used to track commercial messages. With wearable devices being able to monitor reactions and the sensors in smartphones leading allowing brands to track what is viewed online.

 

There’s a whole world of exciting new ways to engage consumers and really understand what drives their buying behaviour, and neuromarketing has the answers. Try giving ‘Decoding the Irrational Consumer’ a read for a real insight into how neuroscience can help improve engagement with your consumer base.

Helen Ogden


Subscribe



Share