[Slideshow Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

By Peter Jones of Design Dialogues. As quoted from the presentation’s description:

“While the processes and perspectives collectively referred to as “design thinking” have evolved progressively in the last 10 years, research methodology has not demonstrably changed in the same period. Design research has continued to add new methods to its roster of adopted tools, but do methods and tools collectively contribute to a new whole greater than the sum of the methods? We can observe a movement toward design contexts for organizational and social setting, which have been framed as Design 3.0 and now Design 4.0, by NextD.

One way to understand the difference in design applications is by reconsidering the way we understand and make sense of design opportunities in this perspective. What are the appropriate research methodologies that account for observations about the targets of Design 3.0? These might include the larger system within which a service is conceived, the organizational context, social systems with multiple stakeholders, large-scale information ecologies with multiple emergent participants.

We continue to study pieces of the problem, with user research, ethnography, participatory design research, smart sampling, trend analysis. But why have we not adopted methods from other disciplines that also contribute within the systems we intend to transform? Peter will present models and perspectives relating research methods and sensemaking approaches that bring the power of contextual understanding and collaborative problem solving to these organizational and social frames of design.”

[Video Link for Email/Other Subscribers - 60min]

I also met Marc last month at Sustainable Brands 09; must say that he’s quite a jolly fellow! From meeting him and further listening to his Interaction 09 conference speech shown here, I feel more fully aware of what ethnographic research can entail and the value it can bring to product design. Marc’s speech here is very relaxed, and the degree to which you feel like getting to see and experience the various case studies and examples is exemplary. Have a go at it!

In his own words:

In the midst of a global conversation about change, many designers are pondering their own impact in the world. How does our experience in software interfaces, web sites, and physical products prepare us to address the profound issues humanity is facing? These issues involve many complex systems, systems too big to fit into the scope of any single company or institution. Design methods are potent at large scale and scope, but what does it take to be effective as a practitioner, as a team, as a company? What is it like to actually achieve a meaningful, sustainable, positive difference in life?

In this talk I offer insights into that question, drawing lessons from a number of serious, heartfelt attempts to affect change. The work we have all done in recent decades has prepared us to take on much bigger challenges. The foundations of design remain powerfully effective. That said, there are ways in which “designing for change” requires additions to our inventory of methods, and transformations in the way we plan and conduct our work.

These new ways of working can also benefit the design projects most of us tackle every day – challenges less grand in scale than shifting to sustainable transportation or raising the quality of a nation’s schools. The grand projects force us to consider the social situation we work within, the social systems we affect, the ripple effects of our actions, the nested web of parts and wholes, and the personal journey of our team. Attention to these things can improve the effectiveness of any effort to accomplish meaningful change.

About Marc:
Marc is a co-founder of Fit Associates, LLC. Fit’s intention is to lead, nurture, connect and equip conscious organizations for the greatest impact for the common good. Fit has a deep bench in ethnographic research, design, psychology, technology, and organizational change.

He can be found tweeting at: @mrettig

About four years ago I read an interesting book called Super Searchers on Competitive Intelligence, which was a series of interviews with professional researchers on a variety of questions regarding CI, research methodologies, project management, and so on. Here are the collective tips I gleaned from the book, in addition to some of my own from practical experience.

1. Trenches time: 20% secondary research, 30% primary research, and 50% analysis.
2. Always ask if your work is actionable and not just “nice to know”.
3. If you see a trend supported by data, but still fragmented, trust your instincts and draw a conclusion.
4. Check sources on all info.
5. Sometimes you need to spend money to get great info.
6. Know your info source’s strengths, weaknesses, biases.
7. Project Management is key.
8. But realize there is no single, generic process. The deadlines, requirements, and recipient impact the depth, scope, nature of project, how it will be used and by whom.
9. Learn the industry including environmental influences, new competitors, opportunities, and threats.
10. Cite sources for quick reference later.
11. PDF data if you’re afraid it might not be available later.
12. Build relationships with everyone.

I’ve used many of these tips for articles, research, and proposals on marketing and product development. A couple particular tips I’ll expand on relate to inquiry and relationships.

There’s a lot of collective intelligence scattered amongst company employees and partners. This includes both line-workers, managers, and executives. Many folks are eager to express their opinions, but they’ve just never been asked. Therefore you have to be social with everyone, engage in a little bit of small talk, and ask questions. Perhaps the individual may not know the answer you’re looking for, but knows someone else who does.

Today’s social web makes for a huge variety of potential sources in building a picture of what you’re researching. But of course be aware of how biases, sentiments (positive/negative), and opinions may add a lot of unuseful data. FILTERS (technical & human) are very important! As mentioned before, source credibility is paramount.

Sketch! Seriously. Draw diagrams and maps of human relationships, processes, knowledge, and so on. It really helps. There’s only so much text alone can do for us. But drawing helps build conceptual interrelationships, and the labels we use carry deeper meaning to text we’ve already written, or thoughts in our head. Sketching also helps us visualize what we’ve accomplished, what still needs to be done, relative importance, and may open up areas we haven’t explored yet. It’s an interative process throughout a project, and may carry benefits forward for additional ones.

Additional Resources:
Competitive Intelligence - A Selective Resource Guide - Updated and Revised March 2009

Excellent presentation on branding and communications in the green space, by consumer insights firm Scenario DNA. Much of it relates to similar studies done by Umbria, specifically online. Official description is as follows: “Consumers are gaining knowledge. They are wisening up to the real meaning behind green. They understand tradeoffs vs. trivial. They’re at the brink of growing green deaf.”
Enjoyez!

[Presentation Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

More Than Half of Shoppers Consider Product Sustainability Attributes in Purchasing Decisions - Deloitte Study

I’m not the usual one to be deeply considering surveys on “green” products, but you might be interested in checking out the concise press release above. So the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Deloitte conducted a 6,400 shopper intercept survey that showed 54% percent of shoppers said that they actively consider environmental sustainability characteristics in their buying decisions, yet they actually bought green products on just 22 percent of their shopping trips.

Just what does this mean? Of course we can interpret it a bunch of ways. My take first is to question do people know what a “green product” is. Sorry, but this terminology is quite vague. When we’re using an adjective to describe products across various categories in supermarkets, we’re losing pertinent information. Let’s remember that roughly 18% of the American population considers themselves actively interested in environmental/sustainability issues. That would imply that eco-literacy in the rest of the population is subject to be quite hazy.

To be objective, “green” is supposed to mean environmentally & wildlife friendly. Yet, may some people consider fair trade as “green”? It’s a very fast growing product sector, but it wouldn’t surprise me if people lumped it in with “green”. Oh, and here’s a biggie: “local”. That could imply that we’re either supporting local economies & employment, OR we’re saving carbon emissions from long-distance transportation. Which value would come first? Even if we wanted to be all-inclusive and decided to use the adjective “sustainable”, I think we’d be in greater subjective “Uhm…what’s that” waters than “green”.

So here’s the takeaway quotes:

“Sustainable product characteristics are emerging as an important brand differentiator, but to capture the potential market value of green shoppers, retailers and manufacturers must do a better job of communicating the sustainable attributes behind the products to show the value of buying green to the shopper…Consistent, aligned messaging in stores, online and at other touch points will be essential to converting shoppers from simply being interested in green to buying green.”

Indeed. A combination of credible storytelling and in some cases depending on the attribute (i.e. packaging, ingredients, production methods), certification and additional info will give a good reason why the product is worth picking up.

If you want to seriously learn more about the right way to communicate your product/service offering, I suggest you come to Sustainable Brands 09, where there will be a variety of speakers talking about best practices and effective engagement strategies. No, I’m not talking about fluffy “eco-friendly” speak (which I absolutely abhor - more on this on a later date). I’m talking about customizing the brand communications to meet the unique needs and desires of the target audience in perhaps a subtle, yet relevant way. Or a penetrating way that speaks to the personal values of the user/mom/shopper/etc. which relate to a simple desire to do something for the better for our body, family, community, and maybe the planet.

Whichever approach it is, I can only recommend that somehow you act on this. Great sustainable products have been around for quite a while - bikes or clotheslines anyone? But in order for us collectively to increase their purchasing volume, we absolutely have to help the shopper out through better brand communications.

Survey Reveals Generation Gaps on Sustainability Attitudes - Packaging Digest

“The Sage Group conducted a web-based research study called, “My Views on Environmentally Friendly Packaging,” and delivered it to nearly 800 multiple-generation “friends” via an email or a Facebook link and took care to use commonly understood terms. For example, the survey didn’t refer to “sustainable packaging,” because 89 percent of consumers don’t know what it means. Queries ranged from, “What makes a company or brand environmentally friendly?” to “How does that friendliness affect purchasing decisions?””

See the article above for generational differences on a variety of topics. Here are the common findings among all groups:

• They believe they can have a significant impact on the environment.
• They seek data on the environmental impact of a product and its packaging on which to base purchasing decisions.
• They view “hard-packaging” and over-packaging as environmentally destructive.
• They’re unaware of the sustainability nuances of the various types of packaging materials (plastic is bad, glass is good, reused materials are good, etc.).
• To them, sustainable packaging is recyclable packaging. Period.
• They avoid buying from companies they perceive as having a bad reputation—ethically or environmentally.
• They recognize greenwashing when they see it. Authenticity and transparency are essential to them.

To Be Sustainable Organizations Must Balance Empathy and Power - Karl Long

[Slideshow Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

Karl brought up an interesting subject which you can see from the slideshow above, and from his (and his readers’) thoughts in the link above. After posting this to an online Innovation & Design forum we belong to, here are some quotes from fellow list members:
- - -
Greg noted:

I participated in a workshop last summer at the Shambhala Institute Summer Program called  “Solving Tough Problems in Practice: The Language of Power and the Language of Love

It was hosted by Adam Kahane and friends. We drilled into this issue of the requirement for organizational leaders to carry both love (empathy) and power to engage effective leadership. Kahane is currently writing a book on the subject, and here is an excerpt from his recent paper on the subject:

“… the words power and love are defined by so many different people in so many different ways. For many people they connote, respectively, oppression and romance. But I am using two particular and unusual definitions, from theologian Paul Tillich, that in my experience explain a lot of the dynamics of social change. Tillich said power is “the drive of everything living to realize itself, with increasing intensity and extensity.” So power in this sense is the drive to achieve one’s purpose, to get one’s job done, to grow. And he said love is “the drive towards the unity of the separated.” So love in this sense is the drive to re-connect that which is whole, which is one, but which appears fragmented.Power and love are two orthogonal axes that together delineate the space of social change. If we want to be able to understand and address tough social challenges, then we need to be able to recognize and work with both of these vectors or poles.”

Another source of Kahane’s inspiration is from a speech by Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“Power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political, and economic change … And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites - polar opposites - so that love is identified with the resignation of power, and power with the denial of love. Now we’ve got to get this thing right. What [we need to realize is] that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic … It is precisely this collision of immoral power with powerless morality which constitutes the major crisis of our time.”

The insight for change makers is that to be effective, our approach to complex problems must be tempered by both assertive action (power) and empathetic listening (love).

- - -

Marc Rettig of Fit Associates, and known as @mrettig on Twitter noted:

Greg’s quotes from Kahane and King were both appropriate and powerful. Thanks for those. I would like to add one other observation, first called to my attention by David Whyte in his wonderful book, “The Heart Aroused: Poetry and the Preservation of the Soul in Corporate America.”

It’s this: I find it is relatively rare to encounter *individuals* whose normal way of being is skewed toward the coercive/oppressive expression of power. Even in companies that are outwardly perceived as being um, soulless. The imbalance of “drive to express one’s purpose” with “drive to reconnect the whole” is an emergent characteristic of
the typical corporate culture, in which people perceive that it isn’t safe to express the “love” side of themselves, where people hide their demons and never talk about them, where people feel leashed to someone else’s dream. Organizations are full of people who feel constrained by imaginary boundaries, frustrated by the disconnect between their work and Who They Really Are.

The original question had to do with the idea that an empathetic approach and a power-based approach to transformation are often at odds. Bridging from Greg’s quotes, I’ve decided I believe that is a false dichotomy. Working for change puts us face-to-face with the challenge of making it safe for people to reconnect with their own impulses toward empathy, and to express them in their work as a group. (What a relief for everyone involved!) This is one reason why I’ve found the “Theory U” material to be so helpful — it provides one example of a “how to” guide for exactly that transformation,
prerequisite to any other transformation in the organization or its offerings. (And, as an aside, for the same reason I’m excited that Lauralee Alben is writing and speaking about her Sea Change Design model. See albendesign.com for bits and pieces.)

- - -

What do YOU think?

What makes people buy? The question’s been so oft asked and answered by multitudes of marketers, designers, and behavioral scientists over decades that I’m quite sure we can skip the standard textbook answers from these three camps. In the last 4 years though, I’ve gotten a fairly good idea of factors at play in the retail store environment. This coming from sales and marketing experience for a few consumer product manufacturers, and having read some amazing books from Paco Underhill (“Why We Buy”), Kate Newlin (“Shopportunity”), and Pamela Danziger (“Shopping”).

So Martin Lindstrom is a gentleman who kindly sent me his book to review last Fall, which I voraciously read over the soonest weekend. Buyology is a book that’s probably best described from this Publisher’s Weekly description on Amazon:

“Through extensive and expensive research, Lindstrom provides an adequate primer on what neuroscience studies can tell society—particularly marketers—about how selling (and more important, buying) works. Whether considering the roles of sex, religion, product placement or contradictions in consumer habits between what they say and what they do, Lindstrom explores how brain-scan studies reveal an avalanche of information about what works and what doesn’t.”

From the various chapters, here are their summaries and my thoughts:

Study Details

2,180 volunteers from U.S., England, Germany, Japan, and China. Sought answers to these kinds of questions: Does product placement work? To what degree do brand logos still have power? How is subliminal advertising taking place? Does religion influence purchasing behavior? How do disclaimers and warnings affect purchasing? Does sex in advertising work? The book is on neuroscience and brands.

Product Placement

We have no memory of brands that don’t play an integral part in the storyline/plot of a program. Those which are tied along well will be much more memorable, and will weaken our ability to remember other brands. The question of efficacy comes down to asking whether the placement makes sense within the narrative and if it’s relevant to the context?

Mirror Neurons

Wikipedia explanation or mine: perceptive nerve cells which create internal reactions by releasing dopamine/other chemicals. The Brodmann area 10 of the brain is supposed to be the ‘cool’ identification region.

Subliminal Ads

Logo-free images work best, by associated image emotions acting on reward & craving centers of the brain.

Rituals, Shared Beliefs, and Stories

This relates to common daily/monthly/seasonal activities, personal and shared beliefs (whether true or not), and stories as the means they’re solidified in our minds. Affiliating a brand to one of these is common and can be very sticky. However, trying to extend brand affiliation to other contexts or rituals can become futile. Our memory acts an intuition guide on which scenarios have natural, open, or questionably brand fit. Collection activities are powerful rituals. Martin goes on to humorously talk about his frantic Lego collection as a kid, building a Legoland in his backyard and getting many visits after placing a newspaper ad, whereupon some Lego employees came and while they enjoyed his creations, advised he’d have to change his name - which he did and later on worked for the company.

Religion

Among all faiths there are many common attributes. Most successful brands have elements of religions. These include:

1. Sense of belonging/community
2. Clear mission, unambiguous vision
3. Desire to overcome and exert power over enemies/identifiable “Other”
4. Sensory appeal
5. Storytelling
6. Evangelism
7. Symbols
8. Mystery

Logos are unimportant for emotional branding for devotional products/services. Lovemarks are just indicators to the user experience.

Somatic Markers

Indicators for positive/negative sensory experiences that typically draw associations between two incompatible scenarios. Based on past experiences of reward & punishment, conditioning to events. Fear and insecurity can be strong drivers for mental associations. These markers act as intuition, strong impressions, and cognitive shortcuts for activities to be done. They’re created over time and every day.

Senses

Eyes are much less potent than they’re acclaimed them to be. The reason is that attention nowadays is hard to get and hold. Logos don’t matter in sensory perception. See & smell combinations can work well though, for positive and negative emotional reactions. Touch is important in some user impression-forming and purchase consideration scenarios, for example electronics and textiles. Sometimes unique colors can be spellbound to particular brands when strategically employed in their graphic, industrial, and environmental design. Sound/image combinations can also form strong impressions. Ultimately, sensory experiences can either form an immediate positive/negative regard (in new encounters), or create anchors for future encounters, where the previous emotional responses will be fired off automatically in response to sensory stimuli.

Sex

Sure it can be powerful in grabbing momentary attention, however in advertisement testing there is very poor/no brand recollection. Secondly, there’s even worse brand recall if the ads surround sexual-themed programming. The general idea is that its inclusion is distracting altogether, and can hinder desired action the brand wants the user to take. Controversy on the other hand sells better than sex, as the brand attention is more influential rather than the suggestive/explicit content itself.

Using extreme beauty (models) and celebrities in brand affiliation can be ineffective for recall, as people will momentarily admire the individual much more than notice a brand. What we are attracted to is people in ads who look like us or could reasonably be us - through appearance, activities, lifestyle, etc.

Sex, in general, has the effect on mirror neurons of evoking desire and affinity (“They’re cute” - “I’d like to look as sexy as them”). For this reason, sexuality in advertisements will be around for a long time, as their function is wish fulfillment. If saturated exposure characterizes the user experience, more effective forms of deploying sexuality will involve being sneakier, subtler, and under the direct conscious radar.

Summary

So traditional market research can only go so far. Neuroscience has and will continue to add advanced understanding of why people behave the way they do, as sometimes we may not even know ourselves

Audit May Boost Light Weighting of Packaging - Beverage Daily

Tesco Runs In-Store Market Research To Cut Packaging - Env. Leader

In itself, a great idea on multiple fronts:

• Customer insight yields areas for product improvement and recycling service design
• Decreased material usage throughout life cycle
• Feedback system may leave positive company impression on retailer

Donation Usability: Increasing Online Giving to Non-Profits and Charities (Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox)

Usability Expert Jakob Nielsen gives the lowdown on:

• User Research
• What Donors Want
• What Kills Donations
• Integrating Local Chapters with National/International Site
• Donation Process: OK

The full 124 page report is available for $98

via Lee Scott on Twitter