DS Forums

 
 

Why on Earth did Lord Sugar say not to listen to the market research?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20-06-2013, 13:04
slouchingthatch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
Quote from slouchingthatch on another thread:

'On the subject of focus groups, it appeared from the edit that Francesca launched in and asked the group what they thought of their concept, which then led them down the "I don't like it" line.

This is totally the wrong way to conduct a focus group. You don't just launch in and ask them the big question because it's a totally leading question.

The way to approach it is to start with some gentle open questions about whether they have used such sites before, what they would be looking for, what sort of things would reassure them or put them off. Then, once you have warmed them up and established a baseline, you show them the concept and ask them to comment. (Again, open questions, not "Do you like it, then?")

The problem with launching straight in is that if you jump straight to the concept cold you will only ever get surface reactions - and, worse than that, a conversation dominated by one or two people's immediate reaction to it.

I get the sense this is what Francesca and Neil did - indeed, it's what most Apprentice teams seem to do when conducting research. Focus groups are not about jumping quickly to a yes/no answer, they're about getting to understand people's deeper motivations and preferences.
'

Maybe Lord Sugar's comment did make sense after all then. Maybe he meant less that they shouldn't listen, but that they handled their focus groups wrongly and didn't get the right information out of them. As I said, if they'd done what Ashleigh did last year - just go out on the street and talk to people - they could have done a lot better.

Lord Sugar's comment was very confusing though. It definitely implied that they shouldn't listen to the market research, and that makes no sense because it's the polar opposite of what everyone is taught.
Heh. I will admit I'm extrapolating a lot from what Sugar said. And yet he himself will know that in the past he has often said that teams should listen to what research is telling them and that this is an apparent contradiction. He's not an idiot, obviously.

If he had the time to explain it further - and let's face it, 90% of viewers couldn't care less about the finer point of it - I suspect he would say that market research, like any other form of business data, is valuable information that any sensible businessperson would be a fool to ignore. But data should never do more than inform a decision - you should never assume it means you should switch off your common sense.

An analogy - market research as sat navs. Sat nav systems help us to get from A to B. But sometimes they go awry. If your Tom Tom tells you to drive off that cliff ahead of you, do you follow it slavishly, or do you use your common sense to realise that it must be wrong and you should therefore ignore it? What Evolve's focus group told them last night was the equivalent of driving off a cliff - be really dull, really boring and make it utterly unexciting.
slouchingthatch is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 20-06-2013, 13:06
slouchingthatch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
I think the advert was attacked unfairly to be honest, because I've seen enough daytime tv to know that 50+ advertising is often in a similar vein. Also, I have a hobby of reading lonely hearts ads (I find it fun to match adverts together ), and the line that comes up most often is 'friendship, maybe more'. If they'd gone for a slightly more friendship-orientated angle and upped the tempo, there'd be no room for complaints at all.
You have a point. But where Evolve fell down for me was that they heard the words, but didn't draw the right insights from them. And there is no excuse for producing an ad as excruciatingly dull as theirs was.
slouchingthatch is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 13:12
thefairydandy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,842
You have a point. But where Evolve fell down for me was that they heard the words, but didn't draw the right insights from them. And there is no excuse for producing an ad as excruciatingly dull as theirs was.
Eh, when I have a sick day (or watch ITV3 of an evening), none of the adverts seem a great deal more out there to be honest (better produced and more refined of course, but then they wouldn't be produced in a coupe of days either).

I agree about the insight though - they pretty much took the market research 100% percent literally, rather than building their own ideas on top of it.
thefairydandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 13:21
slouchingthatch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
Eh, when I have a sick day (or watch ITV3 of an evening), none of the adverts seem a great deal more out there to be honest (better produced and more refined of course, but then they wouldn't be produced in a coupe of days either).

I agree about the insight though - they pretty much took the market research 100% percent literally, rather than building their own ideas on top of it.
I know the kind of ads you mean - they're not exactly shining examples of advertising brilliance either, mind you!

In truth, neither ad was great. Endeavour's at least had some semblance of a message to it, and while Evolve's wasn't Octi-Kleen bad, it seemed clear to me that they just hadn't got it right and could have done so much better. You're probably right, though, it was made to sound a million times worse than it actually was in the boardroom (and at the presentation).
slouchingthatch is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 13:48
Philip Wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: South Wales
Posts: 5,865
Its the voice overs I never understand, don't they get actors to act or are they just extra's who don't get paid to speak.
Philip Wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 13:56
lightdragon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Rebel County
Posts: 17,761
I'm flummoxed as to why they bothered with the market research.

If the initial idea was to set the dating site up as they would to their own age group, but make it for +50s, then they should've had all the ideas from what they would like.
lightdragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 14:10
CaroUK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,168
The focus group they talked to was all wrong.

The participants seemed to be much older than 50 - more like 70+ than 50+, and also didn't actually LOOK like the types of people who would be interested in an online dating site. I'm in my my mid 50s, and to be honest, if I wasn't happily married, would be looking at a site more like CuffLinks than Friendship and Flowers to find a new relationship.

Like most Baby Boomers, I feel like a recycled teenager, have the attitude that 50 is the new 30, dress fashionably, try to look my best, have a fair bit of disposable income and definitely don't feel quite ready for God's Waiting Room just yet. I couldn't believe the naffness of the ad they produced it was like one of of those cheap locally produced adverts shown on regional telly, rather than a mock up of an ad to anchor a major campaign.

Open a site called Bubbles and Bonking aimed at the 40+ market and you'd have a winner!
CaroUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 14:11
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
With respect - that is a load of cods wallop!

Ad agency staff are generally young, and manage to create material suitable for all age groups be it babies, children, their peers or older people...... Having personal knowledge of all markets is impossible - which is why focus groups are used.... To give the perspective which the creative team lack!

In the real world, something like this would be developed over weeks if not months, and would involve more than one focus group to ensure that skewed results didn't send them off in the wrong direction. On the limited evidence they had, their focus group (which did seem to be from the upper end of the age range) were saying that they didn't like what was proposed - although as we saw very little of the actual questions they were asked its very possible that they were asked leading questions.....
The problem with that argument is the fundamental one that the people on the Apprentice in the real world are not ad agency staff - with training, experience and/or academic qualifications in the field. .

And in the real world you wouldn't do market research by talking to 4 unrepresentative people in a pub.

The candidates were completely right in their analysis that they had no idea what "old" people did. They didn't realise that their market research was useless because they had nothing else to judge it on, and had no experience to judge how to do that. You would hope that a PhD student would realise that "over 50" would need definition, and would lead to lots of subgroups - but Jason appears to be someone who has stayed in the pure history field, and doesn't venture into practical areas. He seemed to fit the stereotype of someone who has narrow skills, is a bit unworldly, and is more suited to spending 3 years researching an issue - rather than making quick decisions. Thats probably why they cast him.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 14:11
Philip Wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: South Wales
Posts: 5,865
I'm flummoxed as to why they bothered with the market research.

If the initial idea was to set the dating site up as they would to their own age group, but make it for +50s, then they should've had all the ideas from what they would like.
Agree people in their 50's now were only born early 60's late 50's so it's not as if their "old and set in their ways" they grew up with the "Summer of Love" and all that.
Philip Wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 14:21
lightdragon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Rebel County
Posts: 17,761
Open a site called Bubbles and Bonking aimed at the 40+ market and you'd have a winner!
I'll do your ad.

Dramatic voiceover "Too young to be put on the shelf? Too old to be picked up by some sleaze in a bar? Then you need... Bubbles and Bonking!!!"

Cue some good looking +40 in a bubble bath with a glass of champagne. And Herbert comes splashing up gasping for air.
lightdragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 14:29
lightdragon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Rebel County
Posts: 17,761
Agree people in their 50's now were only born early 60's late 50's so it's not as if their "old and set in their ways" they grew up with the "Summer of Love" and all that.
You're right, making a play on Generation X would've been the business.

Simply call the site GenX, and had an ad being a bit of a joke on trends like love-ins and punk, and you're set.
lightdragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 14:33
candyfloss2000
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,128
The focus group they talked to was all wrong.

The participants seemed to be much older than 50 - more like 70+ than 50+, and also didn't actually LOOK like the types of people who would be interested in an online dating site. I'm in my my mid 50s, and to be honest, if I wasn't happily married, would be looking at a site more like CuffLinks than Friendship and Flowers to find a new relationship.

Like most Baby Boomers, I feel like a recycled teenager, have the attitude that 50 is the new 30, dress fashionably, try to look my best, have a fair bit of disposable income and definitely don't feel quite ready for God's Waiting Room just yet. I couldn't believe the naffness of the ad they produced it was like one of of those cheap locally produced adverts shown on regional telly, rather than a mock up of an ad to anchor a major campaign.

Open a site called Bubbles and Bonking aimed at the 40+ market and you'd have a winner!
that sounds terrible.
candyfloss2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 14:35
General Lunacy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Sticks
Posts: 711
that sounds terrible.
Personally, i'd sign up for it.
General Lunacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 15:28
HarkAtHer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,077
I'll do your ad.

Dramatic voiceover "Too young to be put on the shelf? Too old to be picked up by some sleaze in a bar? Then you need... Bubbles and Bonking!!!"

Cue some good looking +40 in a bubble bath with a glass of champagne. And Herbert comes splashing up gasping for air.
HarkAtHer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 15:33
Reggie Rebel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 629
Personally, i'd sign up for it.
Me too
Reggie Rebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 15:37
candyfloss2000
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,128
Personally, i'd sign up for it.
'Bonking'???? Its the most un-erotic/ghastly word in the english language. Omg lol.
candyfloss2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 15:43
General Lunacy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Sticks
Posts: 711
'Bonking'???? Its the most un-erotic/ghastly word in the english language. Omg lol.
You're quite right, but they'd have sold me on the idea of bonking itself, rather than the word

I'm quite pro-bonking.
General Lunacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 15:48
dubest
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 147
The main problem is if one makes and sells a product they have to have some idea what its about. It has noting to do with market research. Dating sites need all ages. Since they were far from the age they went for and had no idea about it, what people that age are looking for, or better put how they go about looking for it they had a disaster on their hands.
dubest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2013, 16:45
candyfloss2000
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,128
You're quite right, but they'd have sold me on the idea of bonking itself, rather than the word

I'm quite pro-bonking.
Haha, Well personally, the word would have an opposite effect on me. It would stop me wanting to do any bonking for a good while.
candyfloss2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2013, 08:44
ivory tower
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 361
Self-contradiction and hypocrisy is like a mantra for him.
ivory tower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2013, 09:05
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Self-contradiction and hypocrisy is like a mantra for him.
Hmm, well you'd say that, but up until now I've always understood his point of view, even if I don't personally agree with it. Even on this occasion, listening to some of the things that the people on here have said, I'm beginning to see his point. I think it's not about listening or not listening, but talking to a good number of people and making sure that you get representative results. Just asking a few people 'do you like this?' doesn't really do the trick.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2013, 09:09
Philip Wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: South Wales
Posts: 5,865
I agree with LAS on this one when he said why did you listen to a focus group who were actually not really your target group, but I blame the producers for making up that focus group and Neil and Fran for not actually realising they were the wrong group and hitting the streets.
Philip Wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2013, 09:11
DariaM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,009
Simple answer.... Mr Alan Sugar, for he has never earned anything other than a few mediocre grades at O level, is a sheer idiot.

Quite a pathetic plebutente.
DariaM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2013, 09:26
slouchingthatch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
Simple answer.... Mr Alan Sugar, for he has never earned anything other than a few mediocre grades at O level, is a sheer idiot.

Quite a pathetic plebutente.
A very wealthy sheer idiot who made his own fortune from nothing. Which, much though he rubs me up the wrong way, surely suggests he can't be that stupid?
slouchingthatch is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2013, 09:26
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Simple answer.... Mr Alan Sugar, for he has never earned anything other than a few mediocre grades at O level, is a sheer idiot.

Quite a pathetic plebutente.
He's not a sheer idiot! I appreciate that that's your opinion, but I totally disagree. And I don't think exams equate to intelligence. Too many people these days think that they do; I think that there are academic types and there are streetwise types, but there isn't a huge amount of difference in the intelligence, insightfulness and wisdom of either. It varies from person to person, regardless of exam results.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31.