About · Advertise

Research Access header image 4

Andrew Jeavons

Innovation Consultant

With over 25 years in the market research industry, Andrew is a frequent writer and speaker for various publications and events around the country. He has a back ground in psychology and statistics, and currently focusses on innovation with in survey research.

s  ·   ·  apj [at] andrewjeavons [dot] com

The Problem with Neuromarketing….

August 24th, 2010 by Andrew Jeavons · essay

There are several problems really. The first is the name. It should really be called applied cognitive neuroscience (ACN), because that is what it is. Hopefully this would counter all the specious arguments about it being scientific. The New Scientist (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/neurofocus-and-new-scientist-magazine-apply-neuromarketing-to-select-cover-design-100053049.html) test raised some comments about the science of ACN. I have to disclose in what seems like a previous life I studied cognitive neuroscience (we called it neuropsychology back then). Trust me, it is a science, it has been around a *long time*, many decades, and it also uses statistics correctly. This latter fact is a novelty for a lot of MR, I know. At least ACN tries.

There is also the privacy “discussion”. ACN is about as invasive as looking at someone who is blushing and deducing they may be embarrassed. ACN measures physiological correlates of mental states or processes. It happens to do them via electrical signals measures from the brain. We do this all the while with body language, speech tones and so on. Just because there is a lot of equipment in ACN and latin words doesn’t make it any different.

The biggest problem ACN has is sample size. N = 19, as in the New Scientist test, isn’t much. It is barely enough for a single quota cell. Making big decisions based on tiny samples mostly ends in tears. The sample size issue relates to the technology of ACN. The electrodes on the scalp can take time to set up and this limits sample sizes. However several companies have ways round this with either limited electrode placement (not so good – one electrode gets you nothing except muscle noise) and less “invasive” caps that hold the electrodes on the scalp without glue. The latter holds the most promise so far as I can see. Sample size is a solvable problem, scalability may take time, but compared to the rest of the technology used in ACN it is not the most complex problem. Several companies are building normative databases which will be hugely useful.

The problems with ACN are solvable, the potential is huge…

About Andrew Jeavons - With over 25 years in the market research industry, Andrew is a frequent writer and speaker for various publications and events around the country. He has a back ground in psychology and statistics, and currently focusses on innovation with in survey research.

→ No CommentsTags:

CrowdSolving – Beyond CrowdSourcing?

July 12th, 2010 by Andrew Jeavons · essay

I’m not very convinced of the “wisdom of crowds.” There are numerous examples of how “the wisdom of crowds” is in fact the “idiocy of the mob.” Look at some political movements or some of the more extreme religions, for instance: a good few of these make no sense, but they have a lot of people who believe them. In Vanatu, an island in the Pacific, there is a cargo cult called the John Frum Cult that thinks building replicas of USA air force bases from World War II will bring the USA and all their goods back to the island. A lot of people believe this.

There is a lot of research from social psychology showing that groups polarize decisions in contrast to individuals. A group will make a more extreme decision (cautious or risky) than an individual. There is also the fact that estimations of physical sizes and weights will tend to show a normal distribution, with the most common estimate, the mode, being the correct one. Here there is wisdom in crowds, or more likely the wisdom of the normal distribution, the central limit theorem and statistics in general. Distributions are wonderful things.

One of the advantages of a large scale survey is that you are able to leverage a lot of people’s experience and knowledge. Recently, a company called “Netflix” in the USA utilized the web and their subscriber base to solve an interesting problem. While it is not the usual meaning of the term the “wisdom of crowds,” it is an example of how a crowd can solve a problem. Netflix (www.netflix.com) rents DVDs to their subscribers. They send the rentals via mail and their users maintain a list of which DVD’s they want. Netflix also tries to predict which DVDs people might like to watch based on the DVDs they have already rented. Amazon does a similar thing in making product recommendations to purchasers. Netflix wanted to improve their predictive algorithm by 10%, which is quite a large improvement. They could have tried to hire all sorts of geniuses, but they instead chose a very unique way to solve the problem. They set up a web site (www.netflixprize.com), posted a huge data set of movie DVDs, data about those movies, and subscriber choices. They then offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could improve their algorithm by 10%. There were two conditions: a deadline (September of 2009) and an agreement that anyone who submitted a solution had to document that solution publicly. Many companies allowed their employees to set up teams and compete, some individuals competed, and teams merged and re-formed over time. In the end there was a winning team: Bellkors Pragmatic Chaos.

In this case the wisdom was not “crowd think,” whatever that is. Instead, Netflix leveraged the web and all the people surfing it to source people who wanted to solve this problem. For Netflix, the $1,000,000 was cheap. They could never have afforded to hire all the people who took part in the contest. They got access to world-class computing facilities, superior minds, and  they received some great publicity as well.

The winning algorithm was a technique called a “Restricted Boltzmann Machine.” It proved that numbers and math matter. It wasn’t the crowd that solved the problem, but the crowd was the mechanism that made the solution possible. I’m inclined to think that this is the real wisdom of the crowd. People can come up with all sorts of strange beliefs; the ability to get people to address your problem is the wisdom of the crowd. It’s another example of how the web has changed the world in a radical way. Twenty years ago, it simply would not have been possible for Netflix to find a solution to their problem so gracefully. I hear there is going to be another Netflix contest. It’s nice that it was the math that was wise in the end….

About Andrew Jeavons - With over 25 years in the market research industry, Andrew is a frequent writer and speaker for various publications and events around the country. He has a back ground in psychology and statistics, and currently focusses on innovation with in survey research.

→ 7 CommentsTags:

Reward the chain: Incentives for surveys in social media…

June 30th, 2010 by Andrew Jeavons · essay

So here’s the thing. All those nice shiny, familiar email addresses we use to send survey notifications are decaying, they are losing value by the moment. I’ve had an email address since 1984, and very little in my life dates back from then  (well except me that is). A couple of weeks ago my primary email address stopped working (I didn’t pay the hosting bill on time). I had a moment of panic and then I realized: it really didn’t matter that much. Personal friends are pretty much all on Facebook, business contacts via LinkedIn, anyone who really needs to get to me fast has my mobile number.

Email is so over.

Obviously the next way to get to people for surveys are via mobiles or social networks. It struck me that the usual model of incentives for respondents doesn’t fit the social media world very well. We want people to do the survey via social media sites AND pass on the link. There has to be an incentive for the latter to happen, let’s be reasonable, people want to get paid for helping.

We need to come up with something that will reward respondents for sending the survey link on to their friends as well as them completing it. How about trying to reward people for reposting based on the number of people they repost to (hard to track I would guess) ? Or if they or someone they repost to is the Nth complete of the survey ? So if you repost the link and you or one of your friends is the 10th, 100th, 1000th et al complete you get money/something ? Maybe report how long your “chain” of completes are ? It would be a sort of survey incentive pyramid scheme. Is anyone doing this ? Anyone have any other ideas ? So far the whole social media and surveys melange has not totally taken off. Viral dissemination is nice, but we need to be able to push to a lot of people….

About Andrew Jeavons - With over 25 years in the market research industry, Andrew is a frequent writer and speaker for various publications and events around the country. He has a back ground in psychology and statistics, and currently focusses on innovation with in survey research.

→ No CommentsTags:

Watch Words

May 13th, 2010 by Andrew Jeavons · essay

Watching what people do is a powerful technique. Watch long enough and you may start to see some patterns emerge that are of significance. Google has provided us with a great tool to study what search terms people use. If you go to trends.google.com you can type in any combination of words and get a display showing how frequently those words showed up in search terms since 2004. It’s great for looking at how interests and fashions have evolved. For instance you can clearly see the rise of “Hannah Montana” as a Disney star. From nothing in 2005 to her peak in 2009, staying at home instead of going on holiday, suddenly gets searches in early 2008 a symptom of the economic times.

You can also see the decline of certain products and technologies. Since 2004, the search frequency for the term  “VHS” has dropped by half. VHS video tape is history (as everyone knows). A similar effect occurred for the term “e-commerce”, which has also dropped by half in frequency, although e-commerce itself has probably grown leaps and bounds in that time. “Fountain pen” is another term, slowly declining over the years. “Word processing” took a similar dive in frequency from 2004 to 2009. What does this have to do with market research ? The term “market research” shows a drop in frequency similar to the search terms “fountain pen”, “e-commerce”, “VHS” and “word processing” from 2004 to 2009.

Words have meaning, and in this case we can see that the words “market research” aren’t “top of mind” anymore. Is it the case that, like “VHS,” the term “market research” denotes an old, defunct technology or process ? Or, are we just watching linguistic evolution ? New words and terms overlay the old with subtle changes in meaning. We still have “Wword processing” is still taking place;, we still type words on computers. We just don’t delineate it as a specific task or function anymore. On the other hand, VHS tapes have gone the way of the Dodo. “Fountain pens” are falling out of use; anyone under 25 doesn’t seem to know how they work. “E-commerce” abounds, we just don’t call it that anymore. Could it be that the term “market research” is just a victim of ubiquity ? It’s everywhere and so delineating it seems pointless, as with “e-commerce.” The search term “web survey” has dropped in frequency significantly since 2004, but the actual practice of it certainly hasn’t.

The search term “customer” shows an interesting trend. It is relatively static until the start of 2008 and thereafter there is a steady increase to nearly double the pre-2008 levels. Customers have suddenly become much more important as the recession bites.  Pretty obvious, really !

What is clear is that the world isn’t thinking of the term “market research” as much as it did. The whole debate about “new MR” could be as relevant as talking about “new word processing.” Market research just isn’t a term that has much meaning anymore. However, there is a lot of thought about consumers and that is what MR is about. Perhaps it is time to let go of the term “market research” and let it slip into history. It doesn’t mean that working out what customers want isn’t important; it certainly doesn’t mean that MR companies should stop doing what they do. Customer research now has lots of different terms and “market research” isn’t meaningful as a way to describe what is going on. If only to get better results from searches made by prospects on Google, dropping the “market research” name would seem a good idea.

So is anyone interested in the “new VHS?”

About Andrew Jeavons - With over 25 years in the market research industry, Andrew is a frequent writer and speaker for various publications and events around the country. He has a back ground in psychology and statistics, and currently focusses on innovation with in survey research.

→ No CommentsTags:

Partner Feedback Network :