Integrating the latest Behavior Economics
insights to evaluate brands.
Integrating the latest Behavior Economics insights to evaluate brands.
Overcoming the problems
inherent with traditional scales
Ability to capture more
Better insights, more
reflective of the market
The way we evaluate brands has not changed in decades.
There are so many problems with scales.
All of these leads to bad data and poor results.
Are we really trusting our brands and our programs to this type of measurement?
(hover over each tile to learn more)
Difficult for respondents
One respondent told me “I hate these scales. I’m tired, I want to be done, I just want my $5. ”How much time and consideration are these respondents really putting into these evaluations
Humans don’t make decisions on a scale
They make choices among a set of options.
The Likert scale is almost 90 years old. This is your grandfather’s scale. We have learned a lot since then.
The traditional approach is to ask a respondent to evaluate brands in isolation on a set of scales. But this is not how humans make choices.
“We focus on the relative advantage of one thing over another.” Dan Ariely.
Different cultures respond differently on scales
We know, for example, that Latinos give much higher evolutions on scales. So how do we compare one cultural group to another? How do we compare one country to another? How do we compare the same study over time but with a different cultural mix. We can’t. Our industry typically ignores this.
What if they don’t know the answer?
If we ask a respondent to evaluate a several brands on 20 attributes each, what is the likelihood that they will not know at least one answer? Pretty high. So how do they answer? A “3” on a 5-point scale is fundamentally different from a “don’t know.” The result – bad data.
It's not you, it's me.
As reported in Harvard Business Review, the “Idiosyncratic Rater effect” says more about the rater than what is being rated.
“Over the last fifteen years a significant body of research has demonstrated that each of us is a disturbingly unreliable rater of other people’s performance.” (“Most HR Data Is Bad Data,” HBR 2/9/15).
The latest insights from Nobel Prize winning psychologists reveal how we traditionally measure brands is not how humans make these evaluation
Humans make choices — based on evaluating a set of alternatives
“Humans rarely choose things in absolute terms.
We don’t have an internal value meter
that tells us how much things are worth.
Rather, we focus on the relative advantage of one thing over another…”
Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces
That Shape Our Decisions.
But current methods still focus on absolute scores on a scale.
“There is a way to overcome the limited resolution of adjective scales: Instead of using labels,
Our ability to compare cases is much better than our ability to place them on a scale.”
Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgement
But current methods still don’t have respondents compare.
Brands are presented in isolation.
Brand Insights is a better way to evaluate brands.
Consistent with how humans make these choices.
A short 3-minute introduction
We have led Fortune 500 Insight teams
Your entire experience working with True North will be different. Our focus is not giving you data but giving you management-ready insights. This is why we frequently present to the highest levels of management.
The project isn’t over until you
get what you need
We understand that delivering a PowerPoint deck is not the same as delivering insights. Our job is not complete until you get what you need. That may mean additional analysis or more presentations – without being charged more.