It's Obvious, it is a No Brainer -- Really???

How often have you heard one of these two statements in the course of a week?  I know that seldom did a week go by when one of the statements or something similar was not given as a reason for following some course of action.  If there is one thing that I have learned over the years, it is that my mentor was correct when he said, "If it is that obvious, someone would have done it years ago."  His advice to me was to confirm, confirm and re-confirm that your assumptions are correct.

I am reminded of a time when I thought a suggestion by a co-worker was one of those rare times when it was REALLY A NO BRAINER.   We were about to introduce a new liquid laundry detergent into the market.  This new detergent was unique in that it was not only a detergent but it also contained a fabric softener.  Our task was to introduce the new brand, Bold, to the public.  In the introduction, we were to effectively communicate that this new brand was not only laundry detergent but a laundry detergent with a built-in fabric softener.

We had substantial marketing development funds.  This meant that we could bundle our introduction with a feature promotion and an in-store display.  Our marketing manager proposed a unique in-store display.  The display would consist of a shell of a washer with a bottle of Bold sitting on the top.  Extending out of the bottle would be a clear plastic tube extending 8 feet into the air.  At the top of the tube we would position a funnel with two bottles, one labeled detergent and the other labeled fabric softener.   We would then pump up through the tube a light blue liquid so that as it reached the top of the tube, it would flow down the outside.  This arrangement would give the appearance that detergent and fabric softener were being poured from the two bottles into the Bold bottle sitting on top of the washer.  The effects of the display were much like the Culligan water display.

This was viewed as a great idea, a NO BRAINER.  But wait, this would be very expensive.  Could we afford to build 300 displays at a cost of $3,000 each?  We had better be prepared to defend our rationalization.  We knew that a feature in combination with a display should realize 12 to 15 times normal sales.  But would this display justify the expense over a normal script display?  We thought the advantages of increased communication, the novelty and appeal would surely overshadow a conventional display.  Cool heads prevailed.  We decided to build only two displays initially and test them for effects.  Some on the team wanted to test them in our simulated store display room, while others voted for a real, in-store study.  The real store study won out, thank goodness.

After only two days of the two-week test in real stores, the effects were obvious.  The mechanical display did communicate the concept of the brand better, it did attract attention a lot more than the verbal display, but it did reveal a serious flaw in the implementation..  As we would usually do in this type of study, we videotaped the reactions of the consumers to the display.  What the video showed was completely unexpected.  We found that it was not the children, as we had expected, but it was the adults that were attracted to the falling water.  We built the display so that children could not reach the water tube.  But the adults could.  Do you know what happens when water falling eight feet hits a stationary object like a finger?  We had a royal mess and a serious safety condition as well as ruining the labels on the bottles displayed around the washer.

Our new display, had we used it along with the introduction of the new Bold 3, would have alienated every stock clerk, maintenance employee and store manager in the stores involved.

So even if it appears to be a NO BRAINER, CONFIRM.