"A study by psychology researchers at Warwick has found a 50/50 split in how people decide ‘what makes two things seem similar’. This could mean that advertisers and marketers are failing to reach up to half of their potential audience...
The research, which was published in the journal Cognition and led by Dr Zachary Estes, found that people differ radically in their perceptions of similarity...
Some people base their similarity judgements on physical features; others based their judgements on more theme-based relations. For instance, some people thought a bee is more similar to a butterfly, whereas others thought a bee is more similar to honey."
We can use this as a springboard for thinking about our busineses.
How do people really see your business? Is your business "another local business" OR a "leader in its field"? "An online retailer" OR "a radically unique offering"?
Who do you compare your business with when you are communicating with clients (consciously or unconsciously)? And who do they compare your business with?
Mini Case Study
The Directors' Centre had a client (Company X) who thought he was Number Five in his industry (only 87 players in the UK). As such he thought of himself as one of the big boys. However the the Top Four represented probably 90% of all activity. When we talked to the key customers (only 10 in the UK) and the Top Four 'competitors', no-one mentioned Company X in the same sentence or paragraph as the Top Four... or as a serious 'Big Boy' - X was considered to be a nothing, a nobody.
Conclusion: X was presenting itself in a way which did not reflect anyone else's view of the world.
Outcome: Company X's real position in the market was reflected in a new approach to the marketplace... a campaign that saw sales increase exponentially.
RELEVANT LINKS
study by psychology researchers at Warwick the article
Cognition the full article!
12 comments:
If we get it right then how we present oursleves is how we become seen. The old 'fake till you make it' routine that the NLP people love so much...
TW
One ought to be careful about taking such research as a panacea. The results are interesting, yet unsurprising. After all, we would have to re-learn every single decision, even so far as to re-learn how to open every door, each time, (which way does it open, what does the handle do, etc,) without our ability for recognition giving us frames of reference.
The research tells us that 50% of the study group were inherently lazy and took the pairing route, with little or no cognition. The remainder either thought about it a lot more, or had a different frame of reference to reach a decision, based upon their background.
Warwick used only 35 undergraduate students from the University of Georgia - tiny - such a cohort size would not pass muster as serious research these days, it is simply too small, even given the regression analysis used by the researchers.
I would say that they would have yielded significantly different results, (dare I say then, even less significant results,) had they used a more suitable cohort size, at least 350, and if they had spread their research across a suitably broader demographic.
It is a further skewed result, as the cohort was a culturally homogeneous group - i.e. of same age, American, Southern, at a uni that tends to attract "In-State" students, so they were probably all from the same area - Georgia. Thus, they would have yielded even poorer results, had they used a UK university, which is perhaps why they chose where they chose, and the cohort size that they did.
Convert this paper into business use, and it means even less, without considering what the buyer's demographic, education, and immediate and long term needs are.
Also, one must factor what the product is that the buyers are buying, what the investment size is, whether it's for personal use (less risk if it subsequently fails,) or for their company, (greater risk if it fails, lost face, lost investment, lost career..).
So, this concept is ok for selling biscuits and coffee or Malcolm Gladwell books, but not ok for selling serious widgets or services.
I propose that this research paper is largely invalid, which is possibly why it was never continued, and only ever published in one mid-level journal. No disrespect to the researchers, but it's a bit weak.
"Basic research is like shooting an arrow into the air and, where it lands, painting a target..."
P.S. I like the case study, and agree on your points. There are so many people who liove in their own "reality" and so can't see what their potantial customers do.
Hence the need for honest self-reflection, honest measurement of the business, and a seasoned outside perspective to clarify.
Andrew
You certainly don't like the business schools... or is it just sloppy wokrmanship you object to?
TW
PS I think Robert was at Warwick!
TW
Yes, I was at Warwick Business School to do an MBA and then I ran programmes for fast growth small businesses employing entrepreneurs to show entrepreneurs... I did no resarch there at all.
Robert
TW
My apologies, especially being a new visitor to this blog, but this has to be long in order to answer your observations.
Albeit you are right that I do dislike "sloppy workmanship," I don't dislike business schools, per se.
Business schools are, however, generally at the forefront of the "industrialization" of the education system. The modern University's goal is now revenue, created by products, i.e. Alumni; created by branding; created by funding; created by "research" and alumni endowments. It has become so petty, in fact, that universities now favour foreign students over national candidates with merit, as they generate more revenue for the university.
Nowadays, a newly qualified professor, in order to receive job security, i.e. tenure, has to first prove themselves by generating research revenue in the form of grants.
In order to receive the grants, they have to be "recognised" by the peer review panel involved in the grant source, which they achieve by getting published in "high-impact journals." To become published in such journals, one first has to be "recognised" by the peer review panel involved in the journal. The journals themselves are more interested in maintaining their club status, than they are in saving the World.
It is therefore a vicious cycle that must be broken, for a PhD to get to a point wherein they can actually use their minds for the greater good. Meanwhile, they must get published wherever they can, and with whatever material they can use. Otherwise, no job security, and no money for research.
The other problem is the quality of PhD candidate being churned out these days. The universities are so obsessed with getting as many graduates out into the world as they can, and the faculty are so obsessed with their own agenda's, that the quality of Masters and more surprisingly the PhD's is, at best, pedestrian. This is especially the case in the United States.
The danger here, is that these people are being put out into the world to "teach" and are busy compiling shoddy excuses for research, in order to get themselves published, that is, after they've been on the academia casting couch.
Instead of the traditional role of the university; creating wonderful discovery and teaching valuable subject matter, based upon serious research and, heaven forbid, teachings based upon what works, it is merely a conveyor belt system, churning out people with certificates, and debt. Delighted corporations, represented by revered alumni, await them with open arms, ready to put them onto the next conveyor belt system. So much for teaching independent thought.
What we have, as a result, is a watering down of the entire education system, in order to fulfill a senseless goal, revenue over knowledge.
If you want proof, think for a moment about how many graduates there are today, versus a decade, two decades, five decades, even a century ago. Now think about how many tangible, usable discoveries there are every year, versus those times past. Where does all that so called education go? Where are the benefits to society? Where is all the leadership in business?
Now think about how many successful entrepreneurs have brought benefits through businesses, products and discoveries, most of whom have never stepped inside a university, (those that did, eg Gates, quickly exited). The ratio is astounding.
So many though, thanks to attitudes in industry, help keep up the MBA hype, that it is stifling creativity and enterprise. I received an email the other day from a chap who has just been accepted into a US "ivy-league" university. He has a big idea about a future venture, but will now spend about $250,000 over the next two years on doing an MBA over there. Absurd, isn't it, when you think about that?
I don't doubt that the MBA has some value, however, I do believe that the useful aspects of the MBA can be taught in far less a time-span, and with far less cost than the universities edict.
The research and the product itself nowadays, is full of so much nonsense, that one has to feel sorry for those current Graduate students. For, what will their MBA or PhD honour be worth in the near future, when there will be so many of them, at such a poor, homogeneous level?...
Finally, I was well aware of Robert's MBA, and his Warwick connection. In fact I met Robert in a University setting, (I was already a Graduate, but this was an MSc in Entrepreneurship,) where he was the guest lecturer, teaching a course over a weekend.
He was the only lecturer who made any sense, (of the 7 I saw,) and who gave the Graduate students anything immediately tangible to think about. Far more importantly, anything to actually use. The whole group felt the same way.
He had such an impact, that I left the course shortly after that lecture, moved to Japan, and have used his methods ever since.
Therefore, it is, in my opinion, proof that an MBA can indeed be taught in a short time-frame. In fact, I advised the US MBA applicant to go to one of Robert's seminars, and read his books before paying the Uni deposit, as I was sure he would decide on using the $250K to actually start the business, rather than accrue useless, huge debt.
Robert's excellent books, are in fact indicative of how all academic research ought to be done, and presented.
Best Regards,
Andrew S.
I agree with Andrew, most research even has to go through "research translation" these days - which is research on the research so that the research can be used for something useful. This requires more funding. A ridiculous concept that could never survive in the commercial sector.
Business school professors, there a handful of good ones, most who have talent leave for the outside world. Those with less talent, stay to get tenure, and talk the talk - "do as I say, not as I do".
Thanks to insipid, greedy, leadership, and corporate influence, academia has gone on to mirror those corporations.
Unfortunately, "Hot Air Rises."
Andrew S
Thank you for your kind words.
I would be fascinated to know which programme you were on and what you are doing now, Do contact me directly at rc@directorscentre.com
Robert
Robert,
My pleasure regarding the comment, though I deserve no such credit, they were simply the facts.
And, delighted to take up your kind invitation and will email you.
Andrew S
Thank you for your kind words.
I would be fascinated to know which programme you were on and what you are doing now, Do contact me directly at rc@directorscentre.com
Robert
TW
Yes, I was at Warwick Business School to do an MBA and then I ran programmes for fast growth small businesses employing entrepreneurs to show entrepreneurs... I did no resarch there at all.
Robert
One ought to be careful about taking such research as a panacea. The results are interesting, yet unsurprising. After all, we would have to re-learn every single decision, even so far as to re-learn how to open every door, each time, (which way does it open, what does the handle do, etc,) without our ability for recognition giving us frames of reference.
The research tells us that 50% of the study group were inherently lazy and took the pairing route, with little or no cognition. The remainder either thought about it a lot more, or had a different frame of reference to reach a decision, based upon their background.
Warwick used only 35 undergraduate students from the University of Georgia - tiny - such a cohort size would not pass muster as serious research these days, it is simply too small, even given the regression analysis used by the researchers.
I would say that they would have yielded significantly different results, (dare I say then, even less significant results,) had they used a more suitable cohort size, at least 350, and if they had spread their research across a suitably broader demographic.
It is a further skewed result, as the cohort was a culturally homogeneous group - i.e. of same age, American, Southern, at a uni that tends to attract "In-State" students, so they were probably all from the same area - Georgia. Thus, they would have yielded even poorer results, had they used a UK university, which is perhaps why they chose where they chose, and the cohort size that they did.
Convert this paper into business use, and it means even less, without considering what the buyer's demographic, education, and immediate and long term needs are.
Also, one must factor what the product is that the buyers are buying, what the investment size is, whether it's for personal use (less risk if it subsequently fails,) or for their company, (greater risk if it fails, lost face, lost investment, lost career..).
So, this concept is ok for selling biscuits and coffee or Malcolm Gladwell books, but not ok for selling serious widgets or services.
I propose that this research paper is largely invalid, which is possibly why it was never continued, and only ever published in one mid-level journal. No disrespect to the researchers, but it's a bit weak.
"Basic research is like shooting an arrow into the air and, where it lands, painting a target..."
Post a Comment