jeffrey henning qual - 2012

A Presenta*on from The NewMR “Pu6ng the ‘Qual’ in Qualita*ve” Event

28 March 2012

Structuring Qualita-ve Results for Maximum Impact in Concept Tes-ng Jeffrey Henning, Affinnova

Event sponsored by EthOS All copyright owned by The Future Place and the presenters of the material

For more informa>on about Ethos visit www.ethosapp.com For more informa>on about NewMR events visit newmr.org

Speaker : Jeffrey Henning, Affinnova, US NewMR Putting the ‘Qual’ in Qualitative Event, 28 March 2012, Session 1

Structuring Qualitative Results for Maximum Impact in

Concept Testing Jeffrey Henning

Affinnova


Have You Ever Felt…?

•  That you provided your clients a wealth of information from your qualitative research but… – Few of these ideas are given serious

consideration by your client? – Those ideas they do select for subsequent

testing are often selected in an ad hoc manner?


Meanwhile Performance Disappoints

Launch Rate 1 Success Rate 2 2 Year Revenue 3

Benchmark 27% 25% $9.0 million

* U.S. consumer packaged goods new product launches 1. Launch rate is a percent of product ini>a>ves which are subsequently introduced to market; benchmark is based on industry

averages 2. Percent of launched ini>a>ves that meet a success threshold of 2 years in distribu>on with at least $500k in revenue over the

last 2 quad weeks 3. Cumula>ve 2 year revenue (aggregated for mul>-‐sku lines) of launched ini>a>ves and same category benchmarks in the

2003-‐2008 >me frame

Many innovations – especially new products – fail to live up to their expectations


Refine and Launch Selection Exploration Opportunity

Messaging for an existing product that is slumping


Packaging looks dated

Interes>ng applica>ons of new technology

Unmet market need

New audience for existing product


Insights

BRANDING

Packaging

Benefit Statements

Imagery

Positioning

KEY MESSAGES

Agency

Previous Learnings Marke>ng

Qualita>ve Research

Refine and Launch Selection Explora>on Opportunity


Test/Tweak

Potential Ideas

Select a Handful of Ideas

Refine and Launch Selec>on Exploration Opportunity

Get Customer Feedback

Revisit Ideas

Cost Consuming

Resource Consuming

Time Consuming



? ?

? ? ?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

? ? ? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

How do you

know?


Typical Concept Process

Idea>on Selec>on Tes>ng


Typical Concept Process

Idea>on •  Research Driven

Selec>on •  Ad Hoc Decision

Tes>ng •  Research Driven


The Research Sandwich


Replacing the Innovation Funnel


Replacing the Innovation Funnel

hdp://affinnova.com/innova>onrocket


Representing Ideas as Concepts


Insights

Message Statements

Illustration Pack

Name

Illustration Product

Varieties

Concepts as Structures for Ideas


A Concept With 6 Elements…

1 2 3

4

5

6

279,936

Concept Ideation Creates Large Innovation Spaces

Unique Concepts Increase Exponentially

Variants Per Element

7 6 5 4 2 1 3

36

46,656

7,776 1,296

6 216


•  Total Variants = 40 •  Total Space Size = 168,000 unique

concepts Consumer Insight (5)

Product Name (7)

Marketing Tagline (6)

Umbrella Benefit (5)

Ingredient & Flavor

Functional Variety (8)

Package Form (5) Product Form (4)

Example Driver of Innovation Space


From 1 Concept To Millions


Creating an Innovation Space

1. Design a traditional concept 2. Group your qualitative research output as

variants for each element 3. Present to client as an outline


Concept Optimization Process

Idea>on Op>miza>on Tes>ng



Idea>on Op>miza>on Tes>ng

Conjoint Combinatorial Op*miza*on

Evolu*onary Op*miza*on



Idea>on •  Research Driven

Op>miza>on •  Research Driven

Tes>ng •  Research Driven


Top Concept Performance

•  60% more consumers prefer the top concept* over the pre-optimization concept (or innovation space representative mean concept)

–  Top concept performance indices range from 114 to 333 across optimizations

–  Pre-optimization concepts index at 100.4 vs. the rep. mean

–  Half of the variation makes it better, half makes it worse Utility Index Scale

N = 100 IDDEA II studies (42,000 respondents)

100

Top Concept*

160

Pre-Optimization Concept Representative Mean Concept

59

Bottom**

Evolutionary optimization improves concept performance by 60%


Market Performance

Optimization on average doubles new product success rates and generates more than two times revenue* Launch Rate 1 Success Rate 2 2 Year Revenue 3

Op>mized Launches 55% 44% $23.7 million

Benchmark 27% 25% $9.0 million

Impact 2.0x 1.8x 2.6x

* U.S. consumer packaged goods new product launches 1. Launch rate is a percent of product ini>a>ves which are subsequently introduced to market; benchmark is based on industry

averages 2. Percent of launched ini>a>ves that meet a success threshold of 2 years in distribu>on with at least $500k in revenue over the

last 2 quad weeks 3. Cumula>ve 2 year revenue (aggregated for mul>-‐sku lines) of launched ini>a>ves and same category benchmarks in the

2003-‐2008 >me frame



? ?

? ? ?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

? ? ? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

How do you

know?


Q & A

Sue York NewMR

Jeffrey Henning Affinnova


Thank you

Jeffrey Henning Affinnova

@jhenning [email protected]

+1 781 464 4750

A Presenta*on from The NewMR “Pu6ng the ‘Qual’ in Qualita*ve” Event

28 March 2012

Structuring Qualita-ve Results for Maximum Impact in Concept Tes-ng Jeffrey Henning, Affinnova

Event sponsored by EthOS All copyright owned by The Future Place and the presenters of the material

For more informa>on about Ethos visit www.ethosapp.com For more informa>on about NewMR events visit newmr.org