Which do you find the most appealing?
a) Having access and sharing all your information across multiple devices and platforms OR
b) Having a secure computing/digital environment
If you’re like most of us, you want both.
But here’s the catch: when PCs were first introduced, they were local (sat on our desks) and their contents could be kept private (no information was shared). As we became more connected, we were taught safety first – “Get anti-virus!” “Make sure you have a firewall!!” We were living on the left side of this grid.
Then two things happened: cloud computing started to gain traction at the same time social networks came to define Web 2.0. (For those of you who don’t know the expression “cloud computing,” it’s where shared information, resources and software applications are stored and accessed in a “cloud” (the Web). If you use Google Docs, for example, its Office-like programs which store and share documents online are “in the cloud.” The same for its Calendar.)
Where does that leave protecting our files, identities, and the like?
It’s confusing, really. Public info in the cloud? How about Facebook, which has consistently said they don’t believe in privacy – so much so that there are now four senators calling for an investigation of the company and its policies? Have you changed your settings recently so you’re comfortable with the amount of info being shared?
Feeling virtuous because you don’t use Facebook? Doing any online banking? Using GoToMyPC.com to access office files from home? Or sharing pictures via Flickr? You’re in the cloud, whether in public or private.
Why is this comfortable for us? I suppose that for each of these things, we have weighed out the benefits (convenience, accessibility) with the risks.
But in the last few months, as I’ve explored delivering interactive market research reports to clients online, I’ve realized that where I draw the line in the cloud is in storing proprietary client reports in an area where they can have access to them. In other words, I’m not yet comfortable providing my clients with an electronic cloud-based archive of the work I’ve done.
To get there, I’ll need the following:
- A private browser-based gateway or portal for each client. (This could include a “secure tunnel” from the client’s Intranet to where their files are stored in the space I’m paying for.)
- The platform should be able to support multi-media elements (slides/pages, audio, video, podcasts of presentations, etc.) without software needing to be loaded on the client’s server/computer. (Rather like how the wonderful sales tool, SlideRocket.com, works today.)
- Viewing of files must be completely secure – like SSL, with a visible lock in the browser.
- Client files can only be uploaded and/or edited by me.
In short, if Carbonite and SlideRocket were to have a baby, I’d be very happy and there would no longer be a need for “drawing lines in the cloud.” I’d have both “a” and “b.”
Know of a solution for me? Think online reporting is moving in another direction? Let me know!
BTW, Perspectives on Consumers, this GSS blog, is now part of the blog directory at http://Market-Research.Alltop.com!!
I attended a very interesting Advertising Age seminar last week. Steve Knox, CEO of P&Gs Tremor, talked with us about “Why Consumers Talk” and the art of consumer advocacy. In the context of this presentation, consumer advocacy was about word-of-mouth recommendations, whether online or offline.
Two “mental models of how the world works” were described: interrupting schemas and conceptual schemas.
Interrupting: Something that makes you take notice because of how different it is from the norm. For example, the plane (crash) landing on the Hudson was discussed for months; with a “regular” plane crash, we pay attention, but maybe for only a day or two. The greater the disruption, the more impact on us.
Conceptual: When two familiar products or services are put together to form something new, the disruption of this new idea captures our attention. For instance, when the cell phone was put together with a PDA, we noticed.
Disruption causes us to talk – to share.
Steve said that research has shown that word-of-mouth advocacy can take place at any stage of product adoption due to “connectors” (those people who have wide and deep social connections and who spread trends more than they set them). He showed a very interesting quad-graph that highlighted where one wants to be in “guiding” a word-of-mouth effort: you want your connectors to strongly advocate your product/service and you want the word to spread quickly. Intuitively, this makes complete sense.
Being a P&G company, they’ve created an online community of “connectors” (there’s a screening survey to identify those that meet the profile), called Vocalpoint. They’re using this panel to help identify which communication strategies, created in the context of the different disruption schemas, will be most effective in generating consumer advocacy.
A couple of examples:
Secret Clinical Strength – “The more you move, the better you smell” captures attention because it’s the opposite of what we’re used to believing.
Venus Razors – The new campaign got women talking about the main product feature – that they didn’t need lotion after they shaved.
Most companies don’t have the resources of P&G and other CPG companies. But we can learn from these models when developing communication strategies – or even new products – for brands.
The classic learning model is comprised of three elements: Think -> Feel -> Do. People learn about a product or service, come to feel a certain way, and then take action. A very linear, logical approach.
In the 80s, Dick Vaughn spearheaded the FCB Grid which identified alternative learning models, such as Feel -> Think -> Do (for categories like luxury cars and perfume) and Do -> Feel -> Think for (instant gratification products like candy bars). Still linear, however.
In the 90s, based on the research I was conducting, I started counseling clients that the decision-making process was actually iterative – often with lots of back and forth between the thinking and feeling components. It’s often the case that we rationalize our feelings with thoughts and our thoughts with feelings.
But that’s only one dimension. What’s the situation a consumer finds themselves in? What are they actually thinking and feeling about? How they prioritize, based on their situation, can provide marketers will critical consumer insights.
Take restaurants for example. The diagram below shows quite a number of attributes that might be considered when deciding where to eat.
Here are several situational examples:
- I don’t have a lot of time to eat and I’m alone.
- I’m dining out for a special occasion and don’t have a lot of time because we’re going to the theater immediately after dinner.
- I feel like full-service Thai in a family-friendly setting.
- I’m driving on a highway and I’m hungry; the next rest-stops are in 5 miles and 50 miles.
Where someone “enters the decision-process” – how they prioritize what’s important to them in that situation – will determine which set of restaurants they will choose from. In our four examples, I might have some of the same restaurants on my first two lists. If children are in the party I might have some of the same restaurants (Thai only) on my second and third lists. Example #4 highlights how taking action can supersede nearly all other variables.
What are the decision criteria in your category? How can you use this approach to effectively segment and communicate with your customers?
Your thoughts?
