60-80% of all newly introduced products are no longer on the shelves about one year later – causing an tremendous value destruction for companies, trade, and shareholders.
This Webinar will introduce you to the logic of a simple model, called ‘The Spearhead’ ‘ a systematic process how to transform consumer insights into consumer-centric product concepts that actually sell in the marketplace. Following this logic has proven to produce successful product concepts, thus reducing the percentage of in-market failures.
The producers of the Shopper Insight in Action Conference invite you to join Prof. Dr. Hans-Willi Schroiff to learn:
- How to build a ‘Consumer Learning Plan’
- How to distill relevant ‘Anchor Themes’ from the sea of knowledge
- How to transform an anchor theme into a set of creative new product concepts
- How to select and improve a winning concept
- How to test product concepts
Register here: https://cc.readytalk.com/r/q5h2vt9bgja4&eom
Mention Priority code: M2615w1blog
Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2014
Time: 10:00 AM EST
Duration: 1 hour
Host(s): Shopper Insights in Action
Prof. Dr. Hans-Willi Schroiff joined the RWTH School of Business and Economics as a faculty member and Honorary Professor in 2002, where since then he teaches BA/ MBA courses all year round. Besides that, he is a frequently invited lecturer/ speaker at top business schools in Europe and in the US (e.g. Tuck School of Business, Harvard Business School, London Business School, European School of Management and Technology – Berlin, INSEAD Fontainebleau etc.).
He is the author of numerous publications and a keynote speaker at business conferences in Europe and in the US. From 1999-2008 he served as an Executive Council member of the Marketing Science Instititute (MSI) in Boston. Prof. Schroiff is on the Advisory Board/ Board of Directors of several international market research companies, such as Dialego and YouGov Germany. In the beginning of 2013 he became a co-founder and managing partner of MindChainge, an international consulting firm focusing on consumer-centric innovation.
Today’s blog post comes to us from TMRE 2011 sponsor Affinnova. Affinnova is changing the rules of product and brand development by using the science and theories of evolution to successfully optimize concepts, products and brands. Our patented patent-pending IDDEA (Interactive Discovery and Design by Evolutionary Algorithms) technology has broad applicability and is able to deliver profound insight and decision-making support throughout the product development life cycle: from concept testing to product and package design — to merchandising to marketing and promotion.
21st Century Innovation Inputs And Validation
Ideation and insight-gathering techniques are evolving to meet the current realities of an increasingly connected customer. Specifically:
- - Qualitative insight gathering ‘ Online communities, self-ethnography, and social media data now supplement and sometimes replace focus groups, in-depth interviews and in-person ethnography.
- - Quantitative insights gathering ‘ Online surveys have become a top research expenditure at many companies, and mobile surveys via phones and tablets are gaining momentum. Traditional phone surveys are becoming more expensive, and at times less representative, as consumers cut out landline phones in favor of mobile.
- - Online ideation and brainstorming techniques ‘ The in-person brainstorming session and focus groups are giving way to innovation jams, idea-voting sites like Ideastorm and MyStarbucks, and other online tools offered by research firms, technology platforms and innovation consultancies.
These are great new sources of inputs to fuel the bottom of the innovation rocket (our revamp of the old innovation funnel). But, with all of these new ways of eliciting ideas and gathering data, techniques for vetting this into viable, validated concepts at the top of the rocket have not evolved as quickly:
- - Qualitative techniques ‘ Qualitative techniques are great for those jewels of insight that you would never get from a survey, and they add an invaluable personal dimension to otherwise broad markets. They are poor indicators, though, of the specific needs your customers have on a broad basis. Yet, companies may still rely on qualitative work out of habit or because other quantitative methods aren’t perceived to be any more effective. Are quantitative techniques any better for concept testing?
- - Quantitative techniques ‘ Many techniques that are commonplace in the innovation process are inefficient at exploring and testing the full range of concepts. For example, sequential monadic testing ‘ showing one concept at a time – does not account for the fact that people choose from an assortment of options in the market place. Discrete choice methods account for this but, require testing in waves or batches to be cost effective. And even then, results are not easily comparable to other metrics. Lastly, conjoint analysis ‘ which narrows-in on the appeal of specific features and messages ‘ is limited in the number of features that can be tested at once and cannot test for interaction effects between different features.
So, what is an innovator to do? If companies rely on directional information or ‘ worse yet ‘ gut, they make decisions in an ivory tower, disconnected from the full picture of their consumers’ needs and desires. On the other hand, quantitative testing and retesting may feel like a closer collaboration with consumers, but companies still lose out because they can’t possibly be exposing the full range of concepts that a customer may potentially want.
Current methods leave a lot of risk on the table, and we find that many companies are stuck in analysis paralysis ‘ a prolonged, expensive cycle of ideate-test-retest. The act of commercialization ‘ knowing which ideas will perform best in market and then making them a reality through testing and validation ‘ is the hard, gritty peak of the innovation process before going to market. No one technique is a silver bullet for the entire process; researchers, marketers and product developers need to know when to use not only qual versus quant, but also the variety of methods within those two camps. What combinations of techniques do you use to distill ideas and concepts from the river of information into market-ready products?