Can Facebook's '2012 Matters' make Facebook matter?

Facebook has a new app called 2012 Matters.  They describe it like this:

"2012 Matters provides Facebook users with a way to share what matters most to them in this year's election. People can select three top issues to create a unique set of icons that will appear on their timeline and can be Liked, commented on and shared by their friends. They also can opt-in for the chance to share their issue choices to thousands of passersby in Times Square, NYC, via the Thomson Reuters and NASDAQ screens."

The app is brilliant! 

Of course, it doesn't do much for users because Facebook already gives them a way to share what matters most in this year's election. Users can, and do, post what matters to them in their status, their photos and their links. If you have Facebook friends anything like my Facebook friends you also know that they do this sharing with detail that goes well beyond 'top three issues'. Users share with a lot links, a lot of passion and a lot of back-and-forth rancor. On Facebook there is no lack of users telling other people what matters most (or least).

I'm sure the icons will look really nice on the timeline. Even as we're posting it we'll know which of our friends will "like" the icon and which will toss in a snarky comment about the issue. The chance to have our face up in Time Square is pretty cool (though, do remember to remove that goofy profile picture before you opt-in to the Time Square bit of it).

So how can an app that provides very little user benefit be brilliant?

First, it'll provide clean, quantitative data to sell. By having people choose their top three issues Facebook and partners will have a solid chunk of data that will shape the talking points politicians use and the questions journalists ask. By having simple polling questions like "which matters more the environment or the economy?" they have an even more refined set of data to shape the conversation. Since it's an opt-in app all of the user comments (the qualitative data) will provide human nuggets to make the numbers come to life. While I'm not personally a fan of research that's disguised as something else, as long as users don't catch on to the real purpose it's brilliant. Or if they catch on and don't care, bonus points.

The other reason it's brilliant -again, so long as users don't catch on to the data-mining bit- is because it elevates Facebook into the cultural, political realm. Facebook is no longer the dark alley where your account is hacked and smarmy messages are sent to your friends. Facebook is not just about collecting badges for farming or war games. Facebook is not just the place where you talk about politics with your friends. It shows us a Facebook who seems to have grown-up into a fine, up-standing company.  A company that knows issues matter, elections matter, this year matters. A company that is not taking sides just encouraging everyone else to share the issues that matter to them. A company that surely doesn't deserve to be number one on the list of 'most hated' U.S. companies.

On second thought, this app would be brilliant if they were doing it for reason #2 and foregoing reason #1.

Research I like

*caution: healthy doses of self-promotion in this post

Some of the richest, most interesting projects I've done over the last three years all have the same five things in common:

1. The topics were big, juicy and actually a bit daunting
2. We approached the projects with an unconventional methodology (happily we spent less money in the process)
3. We never met the research participant face-to-face yet they were highly engaged
4. We got to know them so well that I can still remember their different styles, personalities and the ways they creatively express themselves
5. The clients were that rare blend of trusting enough to let us run with it and engaged enough to guide us through the territory being explored

The core difference in the research approach I'm talking about is --unlike focus groups with a homework assignment tacked-on as a supplement to learning-- this research elevates the assignment to be the backbone of the learning. Obviously, this changes the assignment significantly. It becomes longer, more creative and more detailed. The questions are designed to help us see and feel the distinct personality of the person it came from. But mostly, the difference is that it's crafted to unfold a story.

We're not left to interpret the assignment unaided though. In every instance, after the assignment has been returned we talk to the person via desktop conferencing so that we can look at each page together and dive deeper into what it means and what they didn't say on the page but should have. Because we've also had the time to do analysis before the interview we're able to explore additional questions and hypothesis sparked by the assignments.

While this approach is not suited for every type of exploration (and it's certainly not designed for testing ideas) it's quite versatile across topics and types of people.  For example, here's a snapshot of my four favorites:

• The most recent was an immersion into the nearly black-ops world of data security in enterprise-sized organizations. The target was the upper-most IT security people in the largest US organizations. Our goal (client, agency and myself) was to find relevant and distinctive insights to fuel communications in a category that's filled with me-too messaging.  The outcome was deep, fresh insights and many more creative possibilities than we imagined at the outset.
• In mid-2011 Nancy Shuford and I tackled a state tourism project. The target was US and Canadian winter travelers in states surrounding the client state. Our goal was to develop strategies for winter-specific marketing that aligned with an already robustly defined state tourism message. In addition we needed to define how destination or activity marketing/advertising ("ski x-mountain" types of ads) fits into the bigger state communications plan. The outcome was an incredibly deep understanding of the emotional connection people have with winter/snow vacations, how this particular state can uniquely tap into that, and how so much of the current category marketing is completely missing the mark.
• 2010 wrapped-up with a dream project which was to understand one of our most powerful and enduring cultural memes: the cowboy and the American West.  The project was designed to understand at a deep, human level why the cowboy and the American West remain mythic ideals. Because these elements have long been a part of the clients' brand the goal was to understand it deeply enough that it could be refreshed and modernized without losing the powerful resonance.  The outcome was a provocative understanding of where values end and costume begins.
• Three years later, a social exploratory I did with EB Lane to understand the impact the recession was having on the middle-class mom continues to be one of my all-time favorites. The project was an extended engagement with a group of ordinary women who quickly demonstrate that when times are tough there is no such thing as an ordinary woman.  Over the month-plus that we interacted we talked about everything from family to lifestyle, values to money, shopping, saving, advertising and the impact of the recession on all of it.  The outcome was a collection of stories, profiles and perspectives that enabled the agency to communicate at a more personal, human level than those agencies who see women as nothing more than a target audience.

Again, not every project is right for this kind of approach but many are. One of the things that's helped crystalize for me why this approach works as well as it does is Susan Cain's research into (and forthcoming book about) the importance of creating environments that help us tap into the natural thoughtfulness and creativity of the introvert (you can read more about that work here).  I believe this methodology does this exceptionally well.

Beyond the group

I have led more focus groups than I can possibly count. I'm pretty good at them too. People listen, talk, laugh, disagree and on rare occasion they cry (in a good way). I'm told by clients that people reveal a surprising amount of depth and personal stories in my groups.

And yet, only on rare occasions was it the focus group that unearthed the fertile seeds that made the final report great. Those almost always came from pre-group assignments that I usually had to fight to have included in the project. I believed in the power of these of assignments so much that far too often my business absorbed the cost and my schedule took the hit on the timing. It's not the most profitable way to do business but I did it because these assignments were packed with creativity, honesty, humanity and glimpses of pure magic (more on those here).

Now, thanks to Susan Cain's book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking I hope to help you understand why the magic came from the assignments not the groups.

The New York Times Sunday Review

Susan's mightily researched book is not on the shelves quite yet but I've scoured all of her book tour interviews and distilled ten important points.

1. Our society has a bias toward extroverts. In fact, we regard them as the ideal personality type.
2. And yet, one-third to one-half of the population are introverts.
3. Now for a bigger and yet, the most creative people across many fields are introverts.
4. Our society is becoming more and more designed for the extrovert.
5. A social/educational/business structure designed exclusively for extroverts depletes the energy and creativity of introverts.
6. To get by, introverts often try to pass as extroverts which results in a loss of their true potential.
7. Working in groups leads to groupthink – a dynamic that makes it hard for a person to know what they think and leads to an instinctive tendency to mimic others.
8. Decades of research consistently shows that brainstorming in groups is a terrible way to produce creative ideas.
9. Introverted leaders have been found to deliver better outcomes and are less likely to take dangerous risks.
10. Interestingly, the groupthink dynamic doesn't appear to hold true for groups of people digitally connected.

Anyone who has been involved in consumer research knows that focus groups are not a natural environment for an introvert. I'm pretty sure many decline invitation because it's simply not a place they want to be. Add to that the deliberate exclusion of introverts both clients and researchers are known to infuse into the screening process. Finally, we've all fallen victim to listening more closely to the most charismatic extroverts in the group. By doing this we're reducing the population we're learning from by (potentially) half. We're eliminating the people who are likely to have the most creative ideas. And, we're creating an environment that is not fundamentally designed to spark individual, creative ideas.

Does that mean there is no role for focus groups? No, of course not. But we should be much more selective with when and how we use them. We need to design a exploration so that we can draw the most out of both introverts and extroverts. We need to be careful not to hold-up what the extrovert says as gospel just because they are more charismatic. Specifically, let's make sure we find ways to immerse people in our topic in a personal, creative and solitary way before we ask them to talk about it.  Perhaps we should do more individual interviews and fewer groups. Perhaps more online interaction would be helpful. For sure, if we're looking for thoughtful, creative sparks from research we need to remove the extrovert bias from our approach.

The power of tactile play

These edible letters have combined two simple things from childhood into one. Both irresistible. Both incredibly tactile. Both can make even a type A stop to play.

You remember those letter magnets that help kids learn the alphabet? There's something about those chunky letters --solid lines so perfectly formed that you don't just experience the letter visually, you take it in tactilely as well. It's that tactile experience that creates an immutable bond. Put those magnet letters in front of someone and they have to touch them. They'll line them up. They will spell words. Put them in order. Organize them into groups. They'll touch and they'll play.

And Jello? It is beyond human capability to eat Jello without making it wiggle. You have to do it, Jello's wiggle is an irresistible force. Just like the letters, tactile play.

Put those two things together and you've got perfectly chunky tactile letters that will wiggle for you. I must have these letters.

http://mocoloco.com/fresh2/2012/01/12/sweet-letters-by-aranxa-esteve-and-lucia-rallo.php

Reverse innovation

Innovation is about changing the ways things are done. But, paradoxically, sometimes progress is achieved by going backwards. 

This can be a really hard concept for a company to embrace. We want to be seen as innovation not old-fashioned. We want credit for doing things that have never before been done. We want to dazzle. We want to shine. And we want technology to solve every problem.  But sometimes the most innovative thing we can do is go back to the old way of doing things.

In my opinion Chipotle is the most innovative fast food company in the U.S. --by going backwards perhaps fast food can actually progress.  

Foxes not so clever after all?

A recent study found that viewers of Fox News are less informed than people who say they don't watch the news at all. There are obvious conclusions one can jump to about this fact (and I admit to having done it myself) but there's actually some deeper human insight to be found in the data.

The research found that viewers who were the most informed were those who watch the Sunday morning news programs and um, that fake news program The Daily Show.

The researchers described it this way:

"Sunday morning news shows tend to spend a lot more time on a single issue than other
news broadcasts, and they are less likely to degenerate into people shouting at each
other," said Cassino. "Viewers pick up more information from this sort of calm discussion
than from other formats. Unfortunately, these shows have a much smaller audience than
the shouters."

"Jon Stewart has not spent a lot of time on some of these issues," said Cassino. "But
the results show that when he does talk about something, his viewers pick up a lot more
information than they would from other news sources." 

In other words, people will learn more through calm immersion or laughing than they will through anger and yelling.

You can find the study here.

Jogging memory

It's pretty commonly known that memory is jogged by sensory cues (the smell of cut grass, a particular shade of blue, a song from years ago).  Less known is that memory is also sparked by body position.  That is, people are likely to remember more if their body takes the position it took during a specific event or activity.  Can't remember the brand of floor cleaner?  Pick up your mop and it might come back to you.  Can't remember the name of the website you shop for travel on?  Put your hand on the mouse and wah la you remember it's Expedia.  

Our bodies hold a tremendous amount of information and sometimes we need to take the scenic route to access it.  When doing consumer research build this in, whenever possible.  If you do your learning will be much deeper and richer.