I’ve Been Baking

Shortly after stay-at-home went into effect, I—and countless others—decided to take up bread baking. After searching for the “best bread recipe ever,” I followed the instructions the best I could, but the bread never rose: the yeast was expired. I spent weeks on a quest to find a store with yeast in-stock. Soon, my obsession paid off, and I went to work baking my perfect loaf. It came out super average. Even with the right recipe and the right ingredients, something prevented the supreme bread experience I sought.

Applying this example to research, it is obvious that the right methodology, the right tools, and the right thinking/expertise are all critical to take high quality ingredients and turn them into excellent output. 

In terms of REAL Insight methodology, this means capturing behavioral and System 1 feedback whenever possible and weighing those differently than stated responses. Methodology is also important in ensuring those high quality ingredients are deployed with the right scope for the question and in the right way.

Technology has always played a role in research, but this year, its use has accelerated and hit high gear. We benefit from having access to these technological tools that we could not have developed ourselves, but technology isn’t a solution; it’s a tool that needs to be expertly utilized. Technology shouldn’t distract respondents, and we want to ensure their focus remains on the task at hand—not on how the data is collected. Tools that are too complicated, unreliable, or distracting only frustrate and disengage participants.

With DIY experiencing exponential growth as well as faster and cheaper research taking focus, the question remains: What is the role of specific expertise? As with any business investment, it comes down to value. However, it often takes time to determine if the trade-offs with faster and cheaper are worth it. Suppliers delivering average value with standard pricing will likely fade away. But partners delivering true value—one that drives brand growth—will continue to be worth the budget line-item over the long run.

At REAL Insight, we conduct authentic research that reflects the truth that leads our clients to make the right decisions and avoid costly mistakes. In this era of research where real ingredients are harder to come by and manufacturing timelines are tighter than ever, you need partners who can efficiently and cost effectively deliver recommendations you won’t regret acting on. 

We are here to make sure your bread turns out perfectly every time.

Check out Part One and Part Two of these series!

Better Ingredients, Expertly Crafted

It is a pretty well-known fact that market research companies struggle with marketing. REAL Insight is no different. We care too much about the nuance of what makes our approaches effective, so we choose to focus on selling that instead of the higher-order benefits. However, we know so much about how to test new product innovation and packaging that we thought we might highlight the goodness of REAL Insight as if we were a product instead.

Introducing REAL Insight: Better Ingredients. Expertly Crafted.

So why is REAL Insight trail mix? It is real food, transparent, substantive. It is good for you but also has delighters to discover. You will feel good eating it and feel even better as it fuels you on your mission. It is versatile as a snack or a meal. This is NOT food that entices you into eating something you regret later.

When it comes to research ingredients, we look for authenticity and quality of both the consumers we invite to participate as well as the environment in which we learn. Delivering on both makes execution more difficult, but our expertise, proven process, right tools, and inspired team consistently bring it all together and ensure the quality ingredients turn into actionable outcomes every time.

This is part 1 of 3 introducing REAL Insight. Part 2 will dive more specifically into our ingredients are and what makes them better. Part 3 will then explore the process and expertise that is behind the craftsmanship.

Our take on research right now

This is certainly a unique time for Americans as we see bold steps being taken on a broad scale to curtail the spread of this virus. I have come to appreciate the prudent steps being taken and the unity that has emerged from people joining together to solve a shared problem.

Our Leadership Team at REAL Insight has been talking regularly and tracking the progress to better understand the potential risks of in-person projects as well as what research should be conducted in this environment. After all, we are big believers of context: both physical environment and mindset are both behavioral drivers.

REAL Insight has conducted technology-enabled mobile and online immersive research for over 7 years, spanning over 100 projects, in both domestic and international markets. If a remote testing option is the right fit, here is where and how we can help:

Foundational exploration into attitudes and behaviors?REAL Immersion: Moderated online/mobile study with video/photo/written response activities
Exploratory package design or creative development?REAL Iteration: An online multi-phase creative development process with the same group of consumers
Agile/Rapid Feedback on just about anything?REAL Agility Toolkit: A scrappy, not crappy REAL Immersion
At-shelf performance of concept product or packaging?Remote REAL Optimization: Mobile missions to shop specific store/category where prototypes are cut into the shelf
Keep a pulse on your foothold during this uncertain time?REAL Year: In-depth, small-scale virtual community available for bi-weekly or monthly touchpoints/activities over a 6-12 month period
Consumer or shopper journey mapping?REAL Immersion: Moderated online/mobile study with video/photo/written response activities

At REAL Insight, we feel our team, client, and participant safety is most important, which means limiting travel and in-person research for the short term. The good news is we have options and are here to help you think through these upcoming projects. Our commitment to you is to give our honest viewpoint about your current questions and if and how those are best addressed over the next few weeks.

Scrappy, Not Crappy

AGILE! SPRINT! LEAN START-UP! SCRAPPY!

We are in an age where many paradigms are shifting quickly. Brand equity isn’t functioning the way it used to. Consumers are demanding more transparency and authenticity from companies than ever before. Start-ups are taking on big companies and winning more than ever. Non-traditional success stories are becoming more of the norm for innovation as consumers are getting better at blocking out the expected.

As this challenging and rapidly evolving environment puts more pressure on successful new product launches, companies are adjusting their approach and timing. Some have adopted more formalized approaches—like innovation sprints or other agile frameworks—while others are doing what they can to innovate faster and cheaper than they have in the past.  

We love this new emphasis and its results. Brand teams are engaged around understanding real needs and solving problems. They are less likely to get bogged down in the weeds too early or miss fatal flaws until it’s too late. Consumer interactions are happening earlier in the process. These are all good things.

The process is good, but as research and psychology nerds, we also know that not all research is good research, and that scrappy can sometimes mean crappy.   Some of the common pitfalls are:

  • The method, although fast and cheap, isn’t right for the question
  • The method is right, but you aren’t talking with the right people
  • There isn’t enough objectivity or expertise present in the execution

REAL Insight has developed a new toolkit we call REAL Agility to support teams in this new faster/cheaper world. Our methods are scrappy, but because of our objective expertise and contextualized methods, we can help your team avoid the crappy pitfalls.

There is a point, often closer to launch, where a scrappy approach isn’t able to provide the answers you seek. In those moments, REAL Insight can provide more robust (yet timely) solutions—like a REAL World Assessment or REAL Optimization—to help you launch with confidence. 

Innovation teams, stay agile. We love what you are doing and are excited to continue helping you on the journey.

Alienation: Subconscious Style

Behavioral Economics is HOT right now.

The industry is gaining appreciation for the inconsistencies between self-reported and actual behavior, which we at REAL Insight are obvious fans of. As a team, we spend thousands of hours in stores each year observing how these behaviors differ across shoppers. One specific area we have come to better understand is “subconscious alienation” and how it relates to package redesigns that impact structure and primary coloring.

A habituated shopper can enter a category they shop every week, scan the shelf for their typical item, and never notice a new package containing their product. Without even recognizing it, they have deselected the new packaging. This is what we mean by subconscious alienation.

Subconscious alienation, I would argue, is much more dangerous than conscious alienation because few consumers are so invested in a particular brand or package that they would consciously say, “no,” to it based on aesthetic. There are far more people who have acceptable alternatives in a given category; if they don’t see you, they will move on to the next option.

There is really only one way to test packaging for subconscious alienation. It is in a real store with real shoppers because authentic mindsets are just as important as authentic environments. We have directional and validational solutions to help you gain this critical learning. Let us show you how it’s done!


30 Years and Counting

Jim Cahill (we call him “The Founder”) discovered the importance of genuine engagement shortly after starting this company 30 years ago. He noticed there is something different about seeing how people behave in an environment and then speaking with them, for even a few minutes, rather than at a scheduled time in a research facility. At the time, very few companies understood or appreciated his approach, but he stuck with his convictions. 

He never made much money in the early days, but decades later, we continue to utilize similar methodologies in an evolved industry environment where companies and clients have a true appreciation for this authenticity.

Healthy Versus “Healthy”

The New York Times recently released an article detailing the differences between what nutritionists think is healthy versus what the general public believes is better for you. While a difference between the public and nutritionists is to be expected, NYT discovered quite a disparity in ranking within each group as well. Certain foods obviously ranked high (e.g. kale, chicken, oranges) and others were solidly in the low camp (e.g. chocolate chip cookies, white bread). The most interesting, however, are the foods that divided the public and nutritionists and just how those perceptions came to be.

Overwhelmingly, granola bars were the food that most divided the public from expert opinions, with 71% of consumer ranking them as “healthy” versus 28% of nutritionists. Granola, too, fell into a similar disparity, with 80% of the public ranking it has healthy versus 47% of experts. On the opposite side, 89% of nutritionists ranked quinoa as “healthy” while only 58% of the public agreed. So, where do these divisions come from?

On the quinoa side, it is probably safe to say that as an upcoming “superfood,” there is a large percent of the population that is still unfamiliar with the product (or stopped trying after being unable to figure out how to pronounce it).  Granola and granola bars, however, have been a “healthy” snack that has been popular for years and continues to find itself a staple in many American pantries.  Being that what is “healthy” and what is not flip-flops on nearly a daily basis, it is safe to say that marketing plays a considerable role in these public perceptions.  And by what we’re seeing here with public opinion, it’s working.

As a market research firm, REAL Insight is well versed in what cues “healthy” to a consumer and what will lead them to think the opposite. There is certain language and positioning that paints products in the perfect light that assures shoppers feel that what they are purchasing is good for them. Granola bars are a good example of a product that highlights the right qualities to appeal to its target audience.

While one could criticize the health halo that granola has granted itself, there is a second, perhaps more important takeaway from this survey. There are healthy and nutritional items that the public can purchase and consume. However, without cues as to how these items will benefit the consumer or assuage a need, their chances of going into the cart are slim. Where a box of granola bars will have claims leaping off the package about its benefits, a bulk bag of quinoa never will. Though as of today, only 58% of the public see quinoa as healthy, time (and marketing) will tell how that perception may change.

-Sarah Morrison, Communication Strategist & Mary Dolan O’Brien, Project Coordinator

Out of Focus

When the field of market research comes up, a common image that materializes in the mind is that of the traditional focus group: padded chairs clustered around a gray table set with uniform place settings of pens and paper, a white board easel off to the side, and a large two-way mirror leering omnisciently from the back. If you were to question the ability of such an environment to produce authentic and honest insight, you would not be alone.

Neil Stevenson lays out the case against continued use of this methodology, starting with its history and ending with one proposed replacement. Stevenson’s point is that the focus group either needs to be reinvented or left in the past. Initially ran by skilled psychologists contracted out by large companies, the insights produced from these focus groups were fairly large leaps based on emotional conversations that aimed to understand respondents at a deep level. Companies trusted these insights and built marketing and advertising campaigns around the interpretation of the psychologist.

Today, the format is much different and the types of questions asked in focus group tend to be direct, non-emotion driven (e.g. which design do you prefer?), with the hopes of eliciting verbatim quotes that can be used as evidence to prove the direction down which a company should go. However, this type of questioning can commonly lead respondents to either say what they think the moderator wants to hear, say something just to respond, or say something influenced by the group around them. If one person in the group is particularly vocal, it is not uncommon to have the rest of the group swayed along.

As a company, we at REAL Insight align with Stevenson’s argument against focus groups. Our advocacy has always fallen on the side of in context research due to its ability to elicit more honest and authentic feedback. Innovation options we bring to the table include our Brewed Insight sessions and REAL Immersion journeys. We have also created a design thinking team focused on growing and adapting our current methodologies. Innovation is a necessary component to successful research. As the history of the focus group shows, no methodology is guaranteed to remain relevant forever. REAL Insight knows this and makes a point to keep our methods current and relevant through innovation and adaptation. Focus groups are a comfort level for some companies, and stepping outside of that comfort zone can be daunting and nerve wracking, but general wisdom also says that’s where the magic happens. Or in this case, that’s where authentic, actionable insights can grow and flourish.

-Jennifer Carrasco, Associate Project Director

(New)trition Labels

Though perhaps unconventional, one way a curious observer might monitor modern food trends is by studying the evolution of the nutrition information label on packaged foods. First mandated by the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the latest chapter for the familiar black and white box will take effect by July 2018. Stalwarts against change might initially bristle at the news, but besides the new labels being yet another reminder that certainty can only be found in death and taxes, such a decree from the FDA merits further examination.

So what is going to change? Well, a few different things. To begin, the calorie count will be featured more prominently and in larger font. Though calorie count in itself is not indicative of a product’s health, for those who are calorie-conscious, the large font will be easy to see. Also, the serving size will change to better reflect what a normal person actually consumes in a serving. For example, ice cream will change from ½ cup to 2/3 a cup and soda will change from an 8 ounce serving size to a 12 ounce.  Which makes sense, because who stops drinking a can of soda 2/3 of the way through?

ucm502200
U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The idea behind both of these changes is that the nutrition label should be there to help consumers manage their consumption and make it easier to interpret the numbers on the package. Doing mental math when a child is screaming and the ice cream is melting, and getting out of the store in ten minutes to make it home in time to get dinner started can be taxing. The new labels hope to streamline the process.

Further, the requirements for which vitamins need to be included on the package have changed, swapping out vitamins A and C for D and potassium. Back in the 90’s, Americans were lacking in A and C, but recent studies on food consumption have pointed out that deficiencies lay in other categories these days. The reasoning here is that people generally consume enough A and C, but need to be more mindful of their D and potassium consumption. Calcium and iron will stay put.

Of the proposed changes, the most debated is the requirement for specifically calling out added sugars from the total sugar amount. This decision stirred up some rumbling among food companies who argued that sugar is sugar and therefore, calling out added sugars is redundant. However, health advocates applaud the change, standing firm in the assertion that added sugars (as opposed to naturally occurring sugars) are a hidden danger to the health of the population.

The inclusion of added sugars took off in the anti-fat trends of the recent past (think anything “lite”), and have hung around even as fat has gained somewhat of a recovery in the public eye. Now, health professionals hope to draw attention to the empty calories associated with added sugars, which, unlike naturally occurring sugars that usually come along with vitamins and nutrients, offer no nutritional benefit whatsoever. Dairy products have naturally occurring sugars, so do fruits; pop does not. The FDA’s new rules aim at giving customers more knowledge about what they are consuming so that they can make the best choices for them and their loved ones.

The goal of the change in nutrition labels is to help consumers make good decisions based on current diet and consumption patterns. Time will tell if the intended impact comes to fruition, but the desire of the FDA to use data of current consumption as a basis for reformatting shows a desire to adapt regulations as the general public evolves. Time will also tell if the new labels have an effect on not only health, but purchase behavior. Will new nutrition labels affect FOP call-outs? Will they force a change in product formulation? Will they have an impact at all? Good questions. Time (and good research) will tell.

-Sierra Dooley, Research Associate and Mary Dolan O’Brien, Project Coordinator

The Future is Now, and It’s Focusing on Food

Shoppers paying more attention to what is in their food is not a new revelation; it’s a trend that has been growing in popularity for quite some time and has been influential in any number of products that have been rolled out recently. Target Corp. is taking this want for transparency a step farther in their new, multi-year collaboration with design firm IDEO and MIT’s Media Lab. In January 2016, they collaboratively launched the Food + Future coLab which will explore urban farming, food transparency and authenticity, and health.

Recently launched in a test store at a Fenway Target in Boston, the coLab-created Good & Gather initiative aims to capitalize on transparency by reimagining traditional food labels. Instead of listing ingredients on the back of packaging as they have been traditionally, they are being displayed on the front. The second concept allows consumers to scan produce and learn information about it in real time. As this technology develops, it will be interesting to see how food companies will react to a transparency they may not have been prepared for. How will products and packaging adapt to a food space that goes beyond the characteristics that currently aid in shopability? Research will be imperative as our interaction with food becomes more and more entwined with technological advances. Though we are heading into territories that are new and largely unexplored, the opportunity for innovation will be an exciting development to watch.

-Tyler McGruder, Research Assistant

Saving Cereal

Sales in the cereal category have fallen, and companies are trying to gain intuition around how to hold onto their current consumers and bring back some of those they have lost. In general, people are eating breakfast differently. They’re saving the first meal of the day for work or are reaching for yogurt, breakfast sandwiches, or bars. But for Milliennials, the access to variety isn’t what is changing their breakfast habits. The need for convenience may be what is preventing them from eating cereal for breakfast. For Millennials, it seems that washing a bowl is too much work.

So, is this attitude truly born out of laziness and, if so, where does it come from? Roberto A. Ferdman suggests that this mindset is more the result of the inherent busyness of households with two working adults.  Fuller family schedules allow for less time to cook and clean. Even more so, when most of these adults were expected to do chores as a child, only 28% of them ask the same of their children. Rather than changing their lifestyles to fit their food choices, Millennials are looking for foods that fit their lifestyles. With this in mind, focusing on convenience will be important, especially for industries like cereal that are trying to adjust to the changing times.

However, as companies address rising trends and falling sales, it is important to keep the “why” at the forefront when reinventing, revitalizing, or creating products.  When crafting solutions, it is imperative to first understand the root of the problem.  For instance, are Millennials too lazy to wash a dirty bowl or are they transitioning to other options due to health reasons, better benefits from other products, or something else? A product developed solely on the hypothesis that Millennials would use cereal if it was convenient might miss an opportunity to pivot on an alternate reason for the drop in usage. Companies need to understand this consumer mindset before launching new products and packaging; bringing consumer perspectives to life will help our clients to uncover the real needs of their consumers.

-Beth Wogen, Associate Project Director