Views from the Hills by R. E. Stevens, GENESIS II (The Second Beginning) E-Mail views@aol.com

Ready, Fire, Aim

During the past two weeks, I have been preparing a presentation for the American Productivity & Quality Center's Summer Seminars in Houston.  The topic is the "Evolution of Consumer Research in Product Development."  Naturally, the presentation would focus primarily on my Procter & Gamble experiences.

This was really a fun task because it brought back memories of so many great times.  In going through my files, I found over 200 slides of early consumer tests.  I have always felt that studies should not only be documented in words but also in photographs.  These early slides were primarily from the mid to late 50's.  They dealt with fragrance tests, taste tests, whiteness testing, hand washing testing, etc.

Changes from yesterday to today were obvious.  Can you imagine today, trying to convince your management that you needed to study the task of hand washing and how conditions affected the consumers' perception?  In about 1957, with the development of "synthetic" bar soaps, we felt a need to assess the functionality and consumer preference of the different bars under different conditions such as water temperature and water pressure.  To this end a "portable sink" was created that allowed the control of hand washing variables.  We used the "portable sink" name loosely.  It was anything but easy to handle and set up, but it served its purpose well.

Another series of photographs that I found interesting were of an early "voting machine" (circa 1957).  This contraption was made up of an old Emerson television cabinet with a reverse projection screen replacing the picture tube.  This allowed various pictures to be projected on the screen and the respondents would vote through the use of a console containing a series of toggle switches.

Another series of photos were devoted to the "Portable Examolight."  Again really not that portable but it served the purpose of maintaining a standard light source for the evaluation of fabric and product color.  The Examolight gave us standard light sources of incandescent, florescence, or North Daylight with a single switch.

As I progressed through the sixties, seventies, and eighties, I began to notice a serious change.  That change was really brought to light by the quote of one infamous VP who will remain nameless.  His quote was that he intended his Division to use the "Ready, Fire, Aim" approach to the marketing of new brands.  His idea was to take as many ideas as possible and throw them into the market and see which ones survived.  You can imagine the expense incurred in this approach.  That is, the putting of 10 to 15 new brands on the market from one division in a single year.  Where did the money come from?  You guessed it, it came from the development of the brands.  A lot of brands went to the market, many half developed, some survived longer than others but none lasted to become profitable (as I remember).

While the "Ready, Fire, Aim" concept did not last very long, I do believe that there were and are today continuing effects of this type of thinking.  That is, rush to market.  I remember working on a new brand for 10 years before introducing it into the market.  That was the exception.  The general rule was 5 years of development.  In the seventies, 5 years was reduced to 2 years.  I hear there are people today who want new ideas on the market within six months -- development from idea to brand. I believe that it is impossible to give an idea a reasonable chance to succeed in the market with only six months development time.  No wonder 90% of the new products fail within their first 12 months in the market.  Is it my ears (I am hard of hearing.) or is it my eyes (I wear bifocals.)?  I see these changes but I hear so much about Total Quality.  There just seems to be a disconnect here.

My concern is that "How many really good ideas are rejected, not because of the idea itself but because of the lack of attention to detail?"  Think of all the variables associated with a product, not only the physical variables but also the in-use properties.  Once we have the right product color (and shade), the right fragrance (and level), the right texture, etc., what are the in-use properties we want the user to see and experience and how do we implement each?  How do we position our product in the category, what are the right words and visions we want to project?  How should our "Promise to the User" be positioned?  All these questions scream for consumer input, time and attention.

Maybe, just maybe, the term "Product Development" has a new meaning today.  It appears that we create a product today and let the development take place after the brand has been introduced into the market.  Is that wise?  Is it really cost effective?

I was also asked to describe some exploratory techniques that may not be widely known or practiced.  I assumed that Focus Groups, One-on-Ones, Habits & Practices and Ideation Sessions are widely used today.  So I concentrated on such techniques as:

  • Negative Brand Share - uncovering potential brand upgrades
  • Consumer Accepted Beliefs - identifying potential paradigm category shifts
  • In-Home Group Discussions - a much cheaper, faster and better version of a focus group
  • In-Home Observations - understanding how products are used and the conditions under which they are used
  • Expert Director Test - understanding the steps in the use process, the words used to describe the process and the basis for various deviations in the use process.
  • Peer Group Research - understanding the specific needs of various groups
  • The final piece of research presented dealt with the concept of "Assessment in Context" or how the physical and psychological conditions of the research can have an impact on the results.

    I guess the complete perspective is just another case of comparing the old days.  Note, I did not say "good" regardless of how I feel about the comparison with the days of today.  However, I am glad in many ways that I am an observer today rather than a practitioner.

    PROJECT UP-DATE

    I believe most of the Views readers are aware of the various building programs my wife and I have been working on during the past few years.  For those not aware of our fund raising programs, we are involved in school and church building programs.  One of the ways we raise money is through speaking engagements.  When I go to a company to give a presentation, I ask that my expenses be paid and rather than asking for a set fee, I give the company a name of a charity and they send a check to them.  The amount of the check is optional.

    Following are our most recent projects:

    Mary Queen of Heaven School -- grades K through 8, approximately 200 students.  The new science, computer, library and multi-purpose rooms have been constructed and will be ready for the new school year.  We are now in the process of equipping the new facilities.  many thanks to the company I visited in April.  Their check went for the purchase of two computers and two televisions for the new library.

    Cali, Colombia Churches - Mission Share has completed the building of the two Churches in the poverty areas of Cali.  We have just received our building permit for our first construction project in Russia.

    Beechwood School - One of the smallest public schools in Kentucky K through 12 - approximately 900 students.  The Board of Education is building a new science wing on the school.  A group of us are raising money for facilities and equipment not in the Board's budget.  Facilities will include an Animal Habitat, a River Habitat (aquatic life study), rooftop weather station, microscopes (trinocular, binocular and stereo), flexcam, etc.

    Again, thanks to everyone who has helped in these projects.  If anyone else is interested in the topics that I talk on, please give me a call.


    [Back][Index][Forward]