Malcolm Gladwell is the author of the Tipping Point and Blink, and in his TED talk, "What we can learn from spaghetti sauce," he discusses the contributions of Howard Moskowitz, an experimental psychologist who fundamentally changed our understanding of what people want and how the world of marketing can use this information.
For a long time in the food industry there was the belief that people wanted the most “culturally authentic” food: For example, we thought we all wanted thin tomato sauce that sinks to the bottom as the Italians enjoy it. People thought that if we were given this culturally authentic style of food, we would embrace it. We were looking for “cooking universals” but soon we came to realize that authenticity was not actually what we preferred. It’s hard to imagine in this age of excessive choice, but for a long time, products were developed in a way to appeal to all consumers, not specific sub-populations (chunky, garden variety, spicy). I thought it was interesting that Gladwell connected the surge of choices in products to the study of genetics. He says that genetic variability opened the door to understanding variability in a broader sense. We no longer were just figuring out cancer, rather we were at the point where we were asking the question of how one cancer varied from another cancer.
As a designer, what I find interesting is the notion that people are often unable to articulate what they like or want. You can’t expect that interviews with subjects will directly answer your questions or solve a design problem. You have to actually give people the examples of what you are talking about and assess how they react to it. For instance, no one was saying that they wanted chunky tomato sauce. Even when asked directly if they like it, they didn’t know that chunky was what they wanted. But after administering a taste test analyzing numerous variables, it became evident that chunky was one of the most preferred attributes in tomato sauce. This idea that people often can’t explain what they want or need is very compelling to me as a designer. I think about this when I interview people and try to hear what they are not saying. I am learning the value of presenting prototypes and gathering feedback based on reactions rather than just asking what people think of an idea.
Gladwell further explains that even when we think we can articulate what we want, we are often way off. He says that when you ask someone what type of coffee he or she likes, no one says they want weak, milky coffee. The majority of people say they like a dark, full-bodied roast. But the reality is that studies show that most people prefer the weak, milky stuff. Gladwell also discusses the idea of horizontal plane segmentation- the example of the grey poupon mustard popularity- where you turn your back on something you like for something you aspire to. I find this very intriguing.
Gladwell contends that when we pursue universal principles, we are actually doing ourselves a massive disservice. He says that in embracing the diversity of human beings we will find a sure way to true happiness. It’s an excellent talk but I think certain points are arguable. I’ll discuss the issues of having too much variety in my next post. In general, I think that society has a hard time managing excessive options and we’ve gotten to a point where so many options are benefiting the suppliers now more than the consumers.
No comments:
Post a Comment