So let’s take another example: Whole Foods Market, the upscale natural foods retailer that works very hard to create an experience for its customers.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a regular WFM shopper. Indeed, I travel about an hour and a half to get there (Yes, my local “health food”

store makes even the prices at WFM look like a bargain).

Typically, I’ve had great experiences at Whole Foods. I’ve recounted to friends how at WFM if you ask a staff member for help finding something they don’t just wave their hand vaguely toward “Aisle 6″. Rather, they take you to the Aisle and find the item for you. And if they don’t have it in stock they will offer a raincheck. Or they will even special order items.

And for this level of service, along with a clean, bright store, attractive displays, and lots of staff, I am willing to pay the prices WFM commands (it’s not called Whole Paycheck for nothing).

Now this is great IF WFM maintains their high standards.

They have set a high level of expectation with me.

The first few times I visited I was blown away by the service. Now, it’s my expectation at a WFM. And it is very irritating when it is violated.

I frequent a smaller model WFM store in the Phoenix area. Always great service; always friendly. Without fail.

On occasion, I visit their larger model store there as well.

On my last couple of visits to the larger store, I’ve been disappointed. Instead of taking me to find what I needed when I asked, I was waved off to find it on my own. When I inquired about an item that WFM stocks (at least according to the product’s website), I got a blank stare. No offer of looking it up; no special order. Nothing. It was clear I was being a pain in the ass. And finally, when I got to the checkout, I joined a long line of other shoppers waiting while two overwhelmed cashiers tried to process the orders. No one was called to help.

It was totally as if the store management had gone to sleep.

So, now what? I’m voting with my feet. Back to the smaller model store only.

To be continued.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

A shout-out to Bryan Mattimore on his new book, Idea Stormers, and a couple of articles in Fast Company.

Bryan and I have worked together for going on twenty years now, brainstorming positioning statements for testing and refinement in market research. He is a skillful ideation leader who brings enthusiasm and energy to his process. Participants from executives to support staff raved about both the fun they had in the process and the richness of the outputs.

Check out the articles here:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3003864/creative-secret-sting-uses-write-new-songs

http://www.fastcompany.com/3003484/promote-new-idea-forget-powerpoint-try-billboard

For a Q&A with Bryan, as well as information about his book, click here.

We’ve probably all heard them–stories of sub-optimal customer service encounters.

Here’s one from a friend that happened today.

My friend needed to have a prescription filled. The doctor’s office asked where she wanted the script sent and my friend said CVS. National brand; convenient location; should be good service, right? She had not used CVS before and thus was not in their system.

When she arrived several hours later to pick up the script, she waited in line, and presented her both her health insurance and credit card. The clerk checked the script and told my friend that the paperwork needed to be redone because they now had the insurance information. The clerk asked my friend to wait while this was done.

My friend heard her name called and she presented herself at the counter. Now, what would any customer expect at this point? To finish the transaction, of course. Run the credit card and leave. Instead, my friend told that she would have to return to the end of the line and wait again for service. She protested mildly (didn’t I already wait in line; isn’t it customary to serve me now since I had already waited?), but the clerk insisted. That’s the way we do it here!

Several retorts present themselves: Oh, sorry Comrade. I thought we were in the United States, not the Soviet Union. Or turning to the waiting line and announcing, “I am a mystery shopper for CVS and this store just flunked!” Or (my favorite), “No thanks, I’ll go somewhere that wants my business.”

As market researchers, we must ask ourselves whether our customer satisfaction measurement system is capturing such incidents. I postulate that many do not. The perfunctory ratings on courtesy, friendliness, professionalism, and the like, an overall satisfaction rating and done.

Image via Wikipedia

CVS kissed a potential customer goodbye. Poof! Just like that. With some dozen or more pharmacies within walking distance of one another there is no reason for anyone to tolerate poor quality service.

Will they know it? More saliently, would they learn of such incidents through market research?

More to follow.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob

Welcome back to Market Research Optimized! After an hiatus, Dr. Bob returns. A quick one, today, to be sure. And a little macabre humor about market research. When yours truly began his career in the industry, MR was still pretty much a corporate backwater. Slightly suspicious. Since those days, MR has gone from shady to necessity. When I started hearing managers say let’s run that past some focus groups, I knew the trouble was finally starting. Not really; I jest. Interesting though that as the market research industry is evolving into an internet/social media-driven space, “old” MR is finally square in the public eye, both the the ad from Domino’s of late and the spot below developed by BBDO. Hope you enjoy it. I’m still laughing. (Hey, I think I’ve been in that facility!)

Regards, Dr. Bob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e0Gsn4khss&feature=player_embedded

In the delightful Marx brothers’ film, A Night at the Opera, Chico and Groucho discuss a contract.

Image via Wikipedia

Groucho: “That’s in every contract, that’s what you call a sanity clause.”

Chico: “You can’t a fool a me. There ain’t no sanity clause.”

In many organizations, market researchers are often the sanity clause or, more rightly, the sanity check on squishy information.

Take for example the recent headlines around the web that Facebook is responsible for one out of every five divorces. Goodness, what a great headline!

Step back and investigate even a little and one soon discovers that the headline plays fast and loose with the underlying data.

The headline was generated based on a press release from Divorce-Online.co.uk. Here is the salient portion of the release:

“Divorce-Online scanned their divorce petition database for the use of the word Facebook, and found 989 instances of the word in over 5,000 divorce petitions sampled.

This means that just under 20 per cent of all the petitions filed through the company had references to Facebook within the text of the divorce petitions.”

That alone is a far cry from one in five divorces were caused by Facebook. When did mention morph into causality?

Turns out as well that the sample of divorce petitions skewed to the young and was sourced in Great Britain which does not allow divorce without cause.

However, the juiciness of the headline overrode any sense of subtlety or just plain old fact-checking. Besides, it sounds so plausible.

It may not be accurate but it sure is salacious. So, let’s publish!

Part of our responsibility as market researchers is to do the fact-checking, to understand the limitations of our data and help our clients apply research conclusions to the highest advantage.

And in today’s voracious world where public relations and spin often govern, that is a tall order.

Are we up for the job?

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

Okay, time for a little rant!

As a market researcher, I believe in and have seen demonstrated empirically over and over the power of market research in providing critical input to management issues. And I have participated in the development and deployment of customer satisfaction research and analysis for a number of years now.

But sometimes market research is misused as a proxy for common sense.

How’s that, Dr. Bob, you ask?

Well, over the weekend, I had reason to call the insurer of my cell phone to file a claim. My beloved Droid simply died.

I had been to the insurer’s website, filed a claim, only to be told that I was not covered.

I then looked at my cell carrier’s bills to make certain that, yes indeed, I was paying a monthly fee for insurance coverage with said insurance carrier. I was.

So I called the cell service provider. Yes, they assured me, I was covered and helpfully gave me the toll-free number to call.

I did.

And I waited, on hold. I don’t know how long. Now, sitting on hold is annoying enough, especially when the information provided on the website (I was not covered) was patently false.

Then………………..the zinger.

On hold, I am treated to the repetition of two messages, every 30 seconds (you have the time and awareness to measure such items while you’re on hold).

Message number one: Don’t want to wait on hold? Visit our website for prompt and fast service.

Okay, what’s wrong with this picture? Well, I’m calling because of a problem with the website. As Homer would say, “Do’oh!

Message number two: We are experiencing a heavy call volume. We value your time and thank you for your patience.

Customer service management, here’s a news flash. Telling customers waiting on hold that you value their time while you are patently demonstrating to them with every passing message, repeated ad nauseum, you do NOT value their time, royally pisses off customers.

You are increasing customer dissatisfaction with every passing minute. Then you have the hutzpa to tell me how much concern you have that you are wasting my time.

At least have the decency to be honest: play a clip from a very old Saturday Night Live commercial that spoofed AT&T ads before the bohemoth had any competition: “We don’t care; We don’t have to.”

How do you think I responded to their customer satisfaction survey I encountered at the end of my call? Gee, I wonder.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

P.S. Actually, the customer satisfaction survey only asked about the agent’s performance once I reached them. Yet another demonstration of totally missing the mark. And how many agents are receiving bad marks because customers are really upset about sitting on hold interminably but have no way to register or vent their anger except by giving the agent a poor mark? Hmmmmmmmmm……………………………………..

Guy Kawasaki’s latest book, Enchantment: The Art of Changing Hearts, Minds, and Actions, stands tall in the long history of self-help and self-improvement literature. And it is more than that.

Purposely chock-full of tidbits and easily-accessible chunks of useful information, it is easy to turn to any page at random and pick up useful advice about relating to our fellow human beings.

Guy’s basic premise is that in order for a leader, an entrepreneur, or an executive or manager to marshal the human, financial and physical resources to execute a vision, one needs to enchant. And he should know, having been Chief Evangelist for Apple in its early days and rubbing shoulders with Steve Jobs, perhaps the finest business enchanter of our day.

For market researchers, Enchantment could be quite helpful in providing guidance on client relationships. Sometimes we tend to get caught up in numbers and statistics, graphs and charts, and assume that a well-constructed logical argument will usually win the day. And we often learn the hard way that that’s just not so.

To success in business is first and foremost a matter of mastering relationships, selling oneself and selling ideas and concepts.

Enchantment provides a modern roadmap to doing so.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

Now, market research is rarely as dramatic as in the RJR example in the previous post. But this story conveys an essential point. The bottom line of market research is to guide organizations in making investments, large and small.

We do so through both confirming the validity of product development, marketing strategies and campaigns, and changes to customer-facing internal processes.

Of course, everyone likes a winner. Clients tend to be jubilant, or at least pleased, when market research confirms the viability of a concept, product or change they have developed and nurtured.

But market research also has a role as in the story above: to warn management about product/service concepts or changes that will either fail or negatively impact the bottom line.

Type I and Type II error tests are critical here. Rather than simply go with the gut, or management consensus, careful, thoughtful and valid market research can help guide winners and avert losses. Both roles are crucial.

Comments welcome. Dr. Bob

So what is the bottom line on market research?

There is a delightful scene in the 1993 film, Barbarians at the Gate, the story of the hostile takeover of RJ Reynolds in 1988.

The iconoclastic CEO of RJR, F. Ross Johnson, played by James Garner, is furiously fighting off Kravis Roberts for control of the company. Johnson has bet the ranch, so to speak, on developing a smokeless cigarette. The company’s labs are diligently working on the product but time is running short.

In the scene in question, Johnson visits the lab for a presentation regarding initial market research results on the prototype.

A market researcher, a dweeb-ish fellow with a white lab coat, is obviously nervous.

He’s doing everything he can not to come to the point.

Researcher: “Now eight percent of that one group sampled at least one Premier to give us their opinion.”

Johnson: “Bottom line?”

The researcher glances around furtively. Finally, he speaks.

Researcher: “Well, of all the groups we tested, the response to Premier was just about uniform.”

Johnson’s right hand man sees that no one wants to fess up.

Finally, he says, “They all said they tasted like shit.”

Johnson: “Like shit???”

Researcher: “Shit was the consensus, yes sir.”

The story goes on with an inquiry by Johnson as to the current total investment in the development of Premier. About $350 million.

Johnson’s reaction?: “$350 million and we developed a turd with a tip.”

More to follow.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

The big game has come and gone. I’m reading and hearing more about the advertising in the postmortem than about the game itself.

Seems that the auto ads were the big hits, along with the Budweiser singing cowboys.

And seems that the Groupon ad with Timothy Hutton was the big loser.

Mr. Hutton opens with a soliloquy about the suffering people of Tibet. Then, as the camera pulls back, he says, “but they still make an amazing fish curry.” (Fish curry? Tibet? Who knew?) He then tells how Groupon members are saving big at a Tibetan restaurant.

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

When I heard the line about the fish curry, I winced. From suffering people to fish curry? Pretty improbable leap.

The outcry about the commercial has been intense.

And, it appears, that Groupon had no intention to offend.  A visit to Groupon’s site relating to the ad (www.savethemoney.groupon.com) suggests that Groupon meant the ad to be humorous. Indeed, Groupon is supporting social causes as indicated on their site.

My guess is that the ad aired with no real-world testing. I’ve seen it happen over and over. The ad agency comes up with a “great idea”. They pitch it to their client’s leadership. They’re convinced. The campaign is commissioned and aired. Test it with the target audience? No! It’s brilliant. We get it, therefore they’ll get it.

Besides, it takes time and money to test.

Let’s see:

$5-$6 million to air the commercial (once).

$3-$4 million (or more) to make the commercial.

$100,000 to test the ad.

Yes, great idea. Let’s skip the test.

In the end, damage done–priceless!

Test, Test, Test! No excuses.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob