Tag Archives: decision making

Wake Up or Die. Research Automation – The Future of Market Research Corinne Sandler, Fresh Intelligence #NetGain2015 #MRX

Netgain 2015Live blogging from the Net Gain 2015 conference in Toronto, Canada. Any errors or bad jokes are my own.

Wake Up or Die. Research Automation – The Future of Market Research

Corinne Sandler, CEO of Fresh Intelligence

  • No war in the world has ever been won without intelligence
  • we are needed more and more as competition among brands intensifies
  • Where is market research on the Montclare SaaS250 list? Salesforce is the closest one.
  • We need to think outside the fishbowl
  • We play a consultative role, we see a brief that goes from analyst to director and we consult all along the way. What if the brains were integrated into technology.
  • We need to move from consulting on research to dispensing research.
  • Progress depends on the unreasonable man – George Bernard Shaw
  • Intelligence needs to be accessible to the world
  • You have only two choices today – you can use a third party or you can do it yourself
  • What about combining brains with an automated component, fully automated turn-key platform with consultants
  • Buyers of research have specific needs, and automation suits those needs well.  Quality is a cost of entry, must believe that is what consumer is truly saying, need to rely on that right data.
  • Buyers need to prove value of every dollar they spend. Priorities don’t always allow them to share the wealth among several brands.
  • These methods allow you to do all the work without reveal proprietary information
  • For instance, what if you told the provider 5 brand names, and the system automatically plugged them into a pre-programmed survey with pre-programmed charts.
  • How do you create an app that adds value for toilet paper, because EVERYONE has an app. “Charmin Sit or Squat App” – tells you where the closest washroom is and how clean it is. [My mom would LOVE THIS!]
  • 90% of our decisions are based on intuition

Bring Insights to the Table and Keep Them There with Behavioral Economics by Stephen Paton, AGL (Australia) #CRC2014 #MRX

CRC_brochure2013Live blogging from the Corporate Researchers Conference in Chicago. Any errors or bad jokes are my own.

Bring Insights to the Table and Keep Them There with Behavioral Economics
Stephen Paton, AGL (Australia)

  • We bring understanding, we show how to influence situations, we help predict the unknown
  • While everyone else is walking along the beach, we’re stuck looking at one single rock
  • Try to do at least one new methodology every year. They just tried using apps for the first time
  • we need good presentation skills so we can share our results
  • we need better, faster, cheaper – we have indeed done this with going online, better technology, no more paper, online communities, crowd sourcing
  • Is this a race to the bottom?
  • We’ve gotten so much better at what we do but salaries don’t show it
  • Research used to have mystique and mystery – how do you collect data? what sample sizes got used?
  • Context is important to decision making and outcomes
  • “We are to thinking as cats are to swimming – we can do it if we have to” ~Daniel Kahneman
  • Dan Ariely – books are easy to read “Predictably Irrational”, register for his course
  • We take a lot of shortcuts, we have biases, we deal with social norms, omission bias, restraint bias, attention bias, ambiguity effect, validity illusion,  – we aren’t logical
  • book “Psychology of Price”
  • Use traditional insights AND behavioural paths as well

Thinking Big: Innovation in Decision-Making by Garry Kasparov #ESOCong #MRX

… Live blogging from the 2013 ESOMAR Congress in Istanbul Turkey. Any errors are my own, any comments or terrible jokes in [] are my own…


Thinking Big: Innovation in Decision-Making
Garry Kasparov, World Chess Champion and author, USA

  • don’t just try to win, try to make a difference
  • first non-chess book was How Life imitates Chess
  • when you hear general advice, throw it in the garbage
  • decisions made quickly are often based on instincts
  • we are often shy analyzing our own performance, it’s hard to recognize our own shortcomings
  • every team has different strengths that work better in different circumstances, know what you can do best and in which situations
  • sometimes you need computers to help you make decisions
  • first chess playing algorithm was invented by alan turing, and he did it without a computer
  • they believed computers solving chess would be a great indicator of a computer succeeding
  • machines have limitations, including being unable to identify the parameters of a task
  • Pablo Picasso – “computers are useless, they can only give you answers”
  • greatest disadvantage of a human is our natural complacency – once you recognize that the outcome is clear whether winning or losing, you’re relaxed
  • it’s impossible to find a human chess game without errors or inaccuracies
  • computers are always objective, they never fall asleep on one of the moves
  • launched a contest for chess players to cheat with computers in any way they wish – strong player with bad computer can easily win. But the winner was 2 average players with 3 average computers. They won because they had a better algorithm.
  • In 1906, Leonardo Torres y Quevedo demonstrated a remote control device by guiding a boat from the shore. He also demonstrated the world’s first computer game, a chess automation
  • we are living in the era of the greatest innovations – people line up to get a device that is almost the same as the one in their pocket
  • the zipper was only invited in 1914!  toilet paper was invented in 1877. aspirin was invented in 1897.
  • all we see today are incremental improvements of what was there before
  • the word risk jumped in usage massively starting in 1970
  • we never want the risk but we want all the benefits
  • we subconsciously deny or ignore anything that shows any risk e.g., penicillin would have been rejected because we would have found someone with an allergy
  • baby boomers are the first generation to not worry about food and wards
  • people say the space program is a waste of money and flying to mars is silly
  • many of us were born by the time all the massive innovations were invented – routers, computers, internet
  • we can not move forward as the human race if we only worry about risk, and we even worry about small risk with small things
  • the entire computer power of NASA in 1969 is less than what you have in your phone – when we went to the moon
  • you can choose to risks and put man on the moon, or throw bricks at birds (angry birds app(

Guest Post: Jam, introspection & decision making

Evolution of the New Coke/Coke II cans.

Image via Wikipedia

[tweetmeme source=”lovestats” only_single=false]

By Richard Shaw, @richshaw

Last Thursday I stumbled across an article: “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions“. The article described two experiments, the first experiment concerned itself with jam (or more specifically how introspection effects our jam related decision making). During the jam experiment, participants were given the tough task of tasting different brands of strawberry jam. The experimental condition then filled out a questionnaire about why they liked or disliked the jams whilst the control condition filled out a non jam related questionnaire. Both conditions then rated how much they liked/disliked each of the jams. Finally the ratings given by the participants in each condition were compared to the ratings given by a panel of jam experts.

It turns out that those in the experimental condition (who wrote down why they liked or disliked the jams) were more likely to disagree with jam experts than the control condition. The conclusion being that asking people to inspect their own thinking can impede the quality of subsequent decisions. In a market research context, this sort of behaviour could have led to the conclusions which supported the launch of the much maligned New Coke in 1985.

The jam experiment isn’t the only one to look at this effect, there are a number of studies that have investigated the effect of introspection on decision making (Tordesillas, 1999Wilson, Kraft & Lisle,1990; Wilson, Kraft & Dunn, 1988). These studies throw up some interesting challenges for market researchers investigating how or why people make decisions. The main concern is that asking people to reflect on how they come to a particular decision effects their subsequent answers to our questions. This is not to say we should stop asking people questions which cause them to analyse why they have come to a particular decision, indeed the changes caused by introspection highlighted above will be more prominent when people attempt to analyse decisions which would normally be made intuitively (Hardman, 2009). However it does highlight that we need to be careful, because the way we conduct our research can often effect our results in subtle ways which we may not be aware of.

So the jam experiment has given me food for thought, I’ll think twice when I’m next tempted to ask a “and why do you….” type question in a survey or interview. There are also some rather broad unanswered questions which require some brain time (or more likely the brain of someone who knows a lot more about the psychology of decision making than me): what is the best way of investigating why intuitive decisions are made, if we subscribe to a two process model of intuitive vs analytic decision making how do we distinguish which process is used and most importantly, is there any jam in the fridge, this all writing about jam has led to a huge craving for jam sandwiches.

Read these too

  • Permissible pie charts and 1 bar chart
  • Esomar Chicago: Day 1
  • Tagxedo for colorful shapeable saveable word clouds
  • Kama Sutra Statistics
  • What’s Your IQ?
  • %d bloggers like this: