I went to an APG talk on Wednesday about how 'best to understand consumer behaviour'. Five ad people argued the case for different ideas in a school debate stylee. There was nothings said that changed the game for me massively - although it is always a pleasure to hear Rory Sutherland speak - and mainly stayed because I spotted people I wanted to have a drink with after, but there were a couple of points worth noting (for me):
John Kearon: Arguing the case for consumer research
- Basic emotions can be boiled down to 7: contempt, sadness, surprise, anger, happiness, fear, disgust (and neutral). It's sad that they are mostly negative emotions
- Creating a project to track the 'social life of research', i.e. what happens with it and how it's used after the debrief. Erm, just sits in a folder?
Gemma Calvert: Arguing the case for neuro science
- Quite interesting that split brain tests found that different sides of the brain have different intentions, but it's not like that's a scenario that ever
Rory Sutherland: Obviously arguing the case for behavioural economics
- The case of 1-800-MATTRES in NYC, which controls most of the mattress trade in the city because it removes old mattresses. A nod to sequential decision making
Mark Earls: Again, obviously championing the Herd
- Interesting to find that the only purchase decision made outside herd influence is deodrant
Nick Southgate: Championing empathy
- Apparently anthropologists write down a list of their prejudices before conducting research. Given some of the conversations I've had and heard, this is probably good practise for ad people
- I liked the idea of finding comparative scenarios in your own life to draw upon, i.e. to get inside the mind of a woman buying a £4k bag, think about the most expensive purchase for you (a laptop, for example) and what it means - status, etc
- Imagining + your own experience = Real?
- While this isn't a robust method to put infront of clients, I like the idea of your mind as a 'free lab where you can conduct cheap experiments'