When it comes to identifying the most potent shopper insights, could it be that we are drowning in data? Loyalty card data, purchase data, IRI data — as marketers, we are not lacking in analytics. But could it be that the “optics” are more important than the analytics — or at least equally important — when it comes to truly understanding how shoppers behave?
How shoppers actually behave is more revealing than what they say. It’s almost cliché to say that people often say one thing and do another. We know this to be true personally, whether we admit it to ourselves or not. It’s simply the nature of human behavior. You need to be a psychology expert to analyze all the theories of why.
Suffice it to say that some of this behavior is our subconscious at work and some is our conscious filtering of information based on biases. This makes the ability to observe shopper behavior more valuable for marketers than the ability to survey shoppers, ask them questions, or analyze terabytes of data.
By way of quick example, take any topic or product category where people are particularly self-conscious. It is easy to see why people may over-report how many healthy foods they are eating, but when it comes to what’s really in their shopping carts, their choices tell a different story. Even more insightful, their motivations are even more revealing of their latent needs. Any husband or boyfriend who has had to run into the convenience store to purchase feminine hygiene products, (or even baby products!) experiences the feeling of “hoping no one noticed me.”
This is at the heart of why it is becoming increasingly important that good marketers over-index on methods geared to identifying and studying behavior, choices, what people actually do, and the motivations behind them. A few common shopper themes help make this point. It is impossible to truly understand why the rate of “abandonment of purchase” is so high by relying solely on self-reporting and common types of retail data. To unlock the most powerful shopper insight, we must explore techniques that reveal the key drivers of decisions and get at the ultimate benefits people seek.
What experts call “in-store subconscious” governs more than 95 percent of what we do in that physical environment. Just like our commute to and from work, we are on “autopilot” or “cruise-control” and relying on rote mechanics, memory, routine and habits to govern how we behave in-store. Examples of this include our purchase of items like toilet paper or toothpaste, or how we navigate the store and what we put in our basket and when.
Almost always, what people report that they do, and why they made the choice they did, does not reflect an accurate recording and interpretation of what they actually do and why. Paco Underhill and his company, Envirosell, observed that the larger the store, the longer shoppers perceive and record the time they spent shopping there. It doesn’t matter how much time actually spent in the store.
Conscious or sub-conscious, several factors affect how and why someone behaves the way they do at retail. Moreover, it can’t be assumed that the same person is going to behave the same way regardless of type of retail environment. Convenience, drug, mass, grocery, and club stores each elicit very different behaviors from the same people because their purpose for going to each, and the mode they are in, varies greatly.
Shoppers also may belong to a dominant segment — price-driven, convenience-driven, nutrition-driven, organic/eco-driven, or brand-driven. While that value may dictate the majority of purchases, it may differ dramatically based on product. That bias also dictates how they perceive themselves and thus respond to consumer research questions.
Many consumers are becoming more comfortable with store brands in instances where there is a perceived sense of commodity, yet completely comfortable with premium products where there is strong brand preference, such as shampoo or razors. Whether they admit how many store brands they are actually purchasing is another story.
Or, even more important, they may not acknowledge what is motivating this change in behavior or how long they believe it will continue. Others may overstate the number of price-driven choices they are making to appear smarter in their decision-making and feel less guilt for their premium-brand splurges. Before taking a look at some examples of where transcending traditional shopper data yielded more robust insight and thus retail programs, let’s quickly examine some of the pitfalls of relying too heavily on surveys and quantitative research.
A common mistake is to make assumptions based on loyalty data. One of our clients recently noticed an 80/20 pattern emerging, where 20 percent of their loyal users were driving 80 percent of purchases for their core brand. The natural instinct was to incent this group to purchase more of the portfolio through offering discounts. The classic thinking went, “If we could get this core consumer to purchase even one more product from our portfolio, think of the growth.”
On closer examination, there was a motivating reason why this group was so loyal to the core brand and not interested in the rest of the portfolio of products. In fact, pushing other products would have had a negative effect and actually alienated the consumer all together. Rewarding the purchase of the core brand with discounts for more of what they want is what this consumer segment most needs to perpetuate loyalty and feel recognized.
Insight into actual, authentic behavior and preference may help a brand create a “pull” model. Creative types have long known that the secret of creating “pull” for a brand is connecting emotionally to a consumer. Gaining insight into emotional triggers is best done through non-traditional methodologies of testing impact of concept. Consider ideas such as the “skinny can” (Diet Pepsi or Red Bull), 100-calorie packs, or premium products such as Wrigley’s 5 sugar-free gum. All of these connect to a deeper consumer need and, like an Apple product, reflect personal identity and “badge-value.”
When surveyed, very few consumers said that there was a lack of choice in the sugar-free stick, gum category. Or, that a barrier to purchase was the common package design which had become norm for sticks-of-gum versus “chicklets.” In fact, data showed gum sales in decline, especially for the stick variety. Observational insight into how people were carrying around their priority gadgets — mobile phones, iPods, lipstick — revealed an opportunity to brand a premium gum pack that completed this group of must-have-on-me-at-all-times possessions.
Observational information-gathering techniques help to get at whether a brand and brand idea are effectively creating a “need state” and a sustainable, motivating value proposition. By utilizing intercepts, observation techniques, focus groups, virtual simulations, in-store ethnography and shop-alongs, shoppers reveal more of their true nature and desires.
Obviously, the more stealth the better. The less chance someone has to begin to filter the activity with their personal biases, the greater the reflection of brand truth and behavior. Creating a natural possibility for true behavior is the goal. Neuromarketing and using biometrics to measure emotional response to stimuli are the next frontier of this approach. The use of virtual simulators to test response to in-store formats, merchandising, navigation and product display are useful tools that have been used for several years now to gain valuable insight.
As brands begin to scale more globally, we need to be careful not to make inferences based on syndicated data. It is increasingly important that we take the time to study and observe behavior at a local level. Procter & Gamble has led this anthropological approach for decades now. They made the commitment to visit consumers in their homes and watch how people actually used products and developed preferences.
Paco Underhill preaches this gospel: “… whether in the shopping mall business or the retail business ... we have to recognize what is global in terms of the nature of our brands, and what is local. If I am running an H&M in New York and I am running an H&M in a shopping mall outside New York, the way in which someone shops those stores is different. The way someone goes to market in Melbourne versus Sydney versus Adelaide is different. And how do we respond to what those differences are? How do we get at what those differences are? Some of them may be minor and some may be major.”
The future of shopper-insights analytics will come from innovative ways of observing shoppers. The best way of getting at an authentic shopper insight is by disrupting a person or observing them while they are “in-the-moment.” Most people are time travelers, thinking about the future and the past, but not really in-the-moment. Shopper-marketing programs that get someone to engage, to come into the moment have a higher likelihood of persuasion and conversion.
As marketers, we have to deal with the notion that we have to get people to come into the moment. Insights that inspire ideas that successfully do this will make winners out of brands. Bulk bins, salad bars … things that disrupt the cruise-control flow are examples of this success at retail and have yielded high-margin return for retailers.
Perhaps this is “Zen and the Art of Shopping.” That is the goal. The reward: more accurate understanding of what people really want and why. This is the insight that will drive sustainable revenue growth for brands.
