Cogs in Whose Wheel?
by Kernon Gibes
Consumer products companies have grown to such size that specialization has occurred within the ranks of those charged with gauging the performance of their merchandise. Separate fields have sprung up to focus either on the product (sensory science) or the consumer (market research).
Sensory science is a fairly new field. It is arguably not a truly separate 'science' at all, but borrows hungrily from many, such as psychology, psychometrics, statistics, and food science. The orientation is toward the product, viewing people as a kind of measurement instrument used to provide product characteristics. Is the product too sweet, too hard, too greasy? The intent is to predict the effect of formula changes on product characteristics. Market research, on the other hand, tends to focus on consumers, viewing products as fixed entities ("black boxes"). How likely are consumers to buy it, or are there any broad groupings of preference (known as market segments)? The goal is to predict the effect of the product on market behavior. Sensory scientists typically work closely with product development whereas market research has a strong connection with marketing.
As a methodological approach, these different orientations have legitimately different interests, and different methods that best serve their goals. And yet, the two fields are merely different perspectives on the same totality. A product is not intrinsically too sweet --- it's too sweet to a person. A consumer doesn't come with a built-in propensity to purchase --- what they are willing to pay depends upon the quality of the product. Hence, to completely cleave products from people would be to create a false dichotomy (the products / people dichotomy, if you will). Because this division is one of focus, turf wars can ensue between the two camps. Market research is naturally interested in product details and sensory science is (or rather, should be) interested in consumers.
Actually, sensory scientists' focus on products, treating people as instruments, can readily engender problems. A recent case in point was a person who could not get employees to continue to come to her trained evaluation panels any more. These are specially designed research studies in which people are highly trained to evaluate products on a number of product characteristics, typically called "attributes" (This is not the same thing as an "expert" taster, such as a wine expert.). All sorts of suggestions and fixes poured in. Have management read them the "riot act," increase the fringe benefits --- carrots and sticks of various sizes, shapes, and denominations. One person said that there is no difference between adults and children in terms of getting them to "behave," and that the employees should be handled like kids.
One suggestion caught my eye, though. There was something different about it. One person had the temerity to suggest that the panelists be treated as people. They suggested the panel leader get to know her panelists. They argued that by learning about them as fellow human beings --- learning about their time constraints, their schedules, etc. --- that they would become "real," and would become, in turn, interested in the panel leader and her needs.
Treating people as if they were people and not merely the means to some end --- it shouldn't be such a novel concept. The second part of Galt's oath (from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged) ought to be a given in human affairs: "I swear by life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." But the idea that other people can be used to satisfy our goals without respecting their rights as individuals is frequently and falsely viewed as an integral part of egoism.
Focusing on one aspect of reality (products) and de-emphasizing another (people) can be a useful methodological approach. Discriminating differences is part and parcel of cognition. But when carried too far, when people ceased to be viewed as volitional, then the research train can run aground. Viewing people as cogs in a wheel is a dangerous distortion, for when the wheel breaks, the cogs will not happily be stuffed back into place.
Discuss this Article (5 messages)
|
