Once you get over the AHA moment of the new idea for a product you just got, the question you should ask yourself is how you are going to position it. This is valid also for old products that need a makeover and boost in sales.

New products usually come in:

• A new form but with similar function as other alternatives (e.g. new bottle shape for a hair product)
• A known form with new functions (e.g. car with GPS)
• New form and functions combined (e.g. iPhone)

Product positioning often takes two forms: functional or experiential. Although, you can find a little bit of both in many ads, there is usually a focus on one of them.

In functional positioning, utilitarian benefits take the front seat by focusing on product attributes, how it works, how helpful it is and what needs it meets. An example is the 2011 ad for Boyardee Ravioli below. It uses its long tradition and beginnings to emphasize quality ingredients and non-preservatives as its main product attributes.

Experiential positioning, on the other hand, is about hedonic benefits, how they product makes you feel. A stellar example is the recent years’ Old Spice commercials telling women how they would feel if their men were to use Old Spice body wash: “We’re not saying this body wash will make your man smell into a romantic millionaire jet fighter pilot, but we are insinuating it.”

Recent research (Noseworthy & Trudell, Journal of Marketing Research, Dec. 2011, Vol 48, p. 1008), shows that new products that are moderately incongruent with what consumer expect from it, but positioned with a utilitarian angle like in the Boyardee’s ads, tend to receive more favorable evaluations than typical, congruent products or highly incongruent products. However, in experiential positioning, this seems to work in the other direction. In this study, congruent products were more likely to receive favorable evaluations than products that came in an atypical form.

This research, validated across 5 different product categories, found that “when a product is positioned on functional dimensions, moderately incongruent form causes consumers to perceive more hedonic benefits, whereas when a product is positioned on experiential dimensions, moderately incongruent form causes consumers to perceive less utilitarian benefits.”

These results suggests that consumers put more value on hedonic benefits once they understand what the product does, which seems logic, but not always considered. Have you ever seen a commercial and wonder what is it for? Check the G commercial created when Gatorade did a brand makeover a couple of years ago and left consumers scratching their heads.

Before you decide on how to position your product, I suggest doing research to understand:

• Prior knowledge about the brand, product or product category
• User behavior
• Awareness and usage of competing alternatives
• Perceived risks
• Price perceptions and willingness to pay

With this knowledge, you can create both functional and experiential positioning versions and test them before you decide which version to go with. One test may not be enough. Test a version, refine it based on the research results and test again until you feel confident that the positioning chosen is going to advance your product.

I recently received a survey from a trade association exploring my interest in online marketing research courses, which I assume they are planning to offer. I was a little surprised to see the simplistic concept test approach they used to explore not only my interest, but also the price points at which I may be willing to buy one of their courses. 

Concept testing is a very valid approach to mesure appeal of product and services, but when it is not well designed, this type of research tends to yield general information that is not strong and granular enough to support decision making.

The first step in concept tests is to develop product concepts that clearly describe the “reasons-to-believe” in the product and touch on the experience the customer may have with it. The best source for good product concept descriptions is the potential customer himself. This is a case, where exploratory qualitative market research can bring a lot of value by uncovering what it is important to customers and what language they use to talk about the product. I wonder if the trade association that sponsored the aforementioned survey did its homework in trying to identify what features are really important to potential end-users of the product being tested.

The image below is a snapshot of how the concept was presented in the online survey. Of the four features described in the concept, the only one I found appealing is the 24/7 accessibility. The other three are quite vague and somewhat irrelevant.  What does it matter if the courses will have 3 to 8 hours of total instruction if I don’t know the length of each class or module? Is it 30 minutes, 45 minutes, 60 minutes? My work schedule and home life may only allow me to sit for 20 minutes at a time to attend an online class.

I quite frankly don’t know what they mean by “comprehensive instructions.” Are the classes task-oriented, will I need to do a lot in preparation to take the class? I associate the word “instructions” to manuals, so when I read this I feel weary already. Who has the time to read manuals nowadays?

“Dynamic interfaces” doesn’t tell me much either. A more concrete example would have helped to set my expectations. The image they use doesn’t have any indications of what the dynamic changes may occur. Without any guidance, my expectations could be too high, which can lead to a big disappointment if the courses are not on par with my notions of what a dynamic interface is in this context. A short video tutorial showing how this will work would have provided a better illustration of what the user can expect from the interface.

The most important feature of all for the target audience (which I represent) is the actual course topic and this is absent from the product concept. You may say, well, there are many topics of interest and we only want to test interest in the format. To which I would respond that the format is irrelevant if the topic is not of interest. The approach followed here doesn’t really reflect how the end-user thinks about this product. If topic is the most important feature in buying an online class, then excluding it creates an artificial product concept to which is difficult to give an accurate answer. When they asked if I would be interested in these courses, I could only say “might or might not.”

If you are going to conduct meaningful product concept tests:

1. Conduct qualitative research with members of the target audience.  Avoid “inbred” concepts based only on input from internal staff – A few interviews with marketing research professionals would have provided a richer and more realistic foundation on which to base the concept for online marketing research courses.
2. Create concepts that are concrete and put them in relevant contexts – An online course on a particular topic would have allowed me to give a more realistic response. A video could have shown me what to expect from the ”dynamic  interface.”
3. Write concepts in the target audience’s language – No “instructions” please!
4. Focus on Reasons-to-Believe arguments that highlight what is important to your audience – I need more than 24/7 accessibility to assess the value of this service. Topics are a good start.

This survey also attempted to measure price points that end-users are willing to pay for the online courses. I don’t think the pricing research approach they used gives the association the most bang for their buck, but that’s the subject of another article.

To learn more about our Product Concept Testing service visit Concept Testing and Product Optimization.

To request consumer shopping behavior data and insights don’t hesitate to contact us.

This may not sound as a novel idea, but many, many companies go about their business thinking they don’t need to conduct market research in order to improve their products and grow. They believe they know enough about their industry and product category that there is nothing new to learn. Then there are companies that are barely aware of the importance of research, but see it as an expense and not an investment. They prefer to throw spaghetti at the walls and see what sticks.

I don’t know how many focus groups Domino’s did or if they also used other research methods to test their improved pizzas, but the important thing here is that they were willing to listen to their customers.

Now regarding methodology for new product development, I always advise clients to combine qualitative (e.g. focus groups) and quantitative research (e.g. surveys) methods.

Qualitative research is by definition exploratory, and it is used when we don’t know what to expect, to define the problem or develop an approach to the problem. It’s also used to go deeper into issues of interest and explore nuances related to the problem at hand.

Quantitative research is conclusive in its purpose as it tries to quantify the problem and understand how prevalent it is by looking for projectable results to a larger population.

Here are some guidelines to use both types of research in new product development:

Combining both approaches when developing new products will give you a solid foundation to make the right decisions for your business grounded in consumer insights.

To learn more about our consumer data service visit Consumer Shopping Behavior Insights. To request consumer shopping behavior data and insights don’t hesitate to contact us.