Page 47 - Selling the Invisible: A Field Guide to Modern Marketing - PDFDrive.com
P. 47

actually	 called	 his	 department	 the	 Insurance	 Department.	 Product	 managers
would	 ask	 him	 for	 scientific	 support	 for	 their	 plans	 so	 they	 could	 go	 face	 top
management	after	their	product	bombed	and	say,	“Well,	hey,	the	Research	said	it
would	work.”

   Many	 people	 still	 give	 special	 weight	 to	 any	 statement	 that	 is	 highly
quantified,	as	if	they	believe	that	numbers	have	scientific	weight.	“Most	people
prefer	New	Coke	to	Old	Coke”	sounds	suspect	to	them.	“Five	out	of	six	people”
sounds	 much	 better.	 But	 “83.3	 percent	 of	 respondents”	 sounds	 like	 convincing
scientific	data.	Never	mind	that	the	last	two	statements—“Five	out	of	 six”	and
“83.3	percent”—actually	are	identical.	And	never	mind	that	all	three	statements
turned	 out	 to	 be	 totally	 inaccurate	 and	 misleading,	 as	 executives	 at	 Coca-Cola
learned	to	their	public	embarrassment.

   This	 aura	 of	 science	 has	 a	 remarkable	 ability	 to	 fool	 people.	 Consider
Stanford	 Research	 Institute’s	 introduction	 of	 the	 VALs	 (Values,	 Attitudes,	 and
Lifestyles)	 concept	 to	 marketing	 planning	 in	 the	 mid-1980s.	 VALs	 concluded
that	 there	 are	 seven	 types	 of	 people,	 a	 conclusion	 that	 many	 people	 initially
bought.	Did	those	people	forget	who	they	were?

   Like	everyone	else,	these	people	had	met	thousands	of	people	and	from	that,
learned	 that	 each	 person	 is	 unique.	 These	 people	 had	 searched	 for	 friendships
and	 found	 very	 few	 people	 with	 whom	 they	 shared	 even	 a	 few	 things	 in
common.	But	when	the	VALs	people	came	along—well-educated	people	linked
to	a	great	university—and	said,	“There	are	seven	types	of	people,”	many	bought
it.

   Before	 long,	 commercials	 were	 touting	 coffee	 as	 the	 drink	 for	 “the	 New
Achievers”	 (the	 largest-VALs	 segment	 during	 that	 Yuppie	 era)—the	 comic
highlight	of	the	mercifully	brief	VALs	boom.

   Today,	even	“hard”	scientists	confess	that	their	sciences	look	softer	every	day.
And	 the	 “soft”	 sciences	 have	 little	 claim	 to	 science	 at	 all,	 even	 when	 they	 offer
broad	generalizations	backed	by	numbers.

   My	 friend	 John	 Tillman,	 a	 brilliant	 student	 of	 the	 hard	 sciences,	 once
explained	why	he	never	studied	one	prominent	social	science.	“Sociology,”	John
insisted,	 “consists	 of	 systematic	 and	 fancy	 ways	 of	 describing	 what	 already	 is
obvious.”

   Mistrust	 “facts.”And	 don’t	 approach	 planning	 as	 a	 precise	 science.
Planning	is	an	imprecise	art.

The	Fallacy	of	Focus	Groups
   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52