BrandSavant

Gaining Insight From Social Media Data

How To Know You’re Asking The Wrong Questions

by Tom Webster on April 2, 2012

HamburgerMy brilliant other half, Tamsen, recently brought this article to my attention, which details recent menu changes at Burger King. Do read the article–but the gist of it is this: Burger King has introduced a number of “new” items to their menu that are directly cribbed from the menu of their arch (see what I did there?) rival McDonalds.

Burger King has perennially been the second-largest fast food restaurant in America, but they recently lost that position to Wendy’s, and now occupy the #3 spot. The article reveals that Burger King did some consumer research, and discovered that what consumers wanted was essentially the McDonald’s menu – or, in the King’s own words:

“Consumers wanted more choices,” said Steve Wiborg, president of Burger King’s North America operations. “Not just healthy choices, but choices they could get at the competition.”

Critics of Burger King’s “me, too!” strategy will no doubt point their scolding fingers at market research. “Research only tells you where you’ve been, not where you are going,” or so the proponents of the “golden gut” would have you believe. However, I’d posit an alternative viewpoint here. When Tamsen pointed this out to me, she noted that it sounded like a case of “asking the wrong questions,” and that “of course people are going to say they want to see McDonald’s-like things on Burger King’s menu. But that might not (and likely is not) where Burger King’s real opportunity lies.”

See, this is why she’s my other half. Burger King did, indeed, ask the wrong questions–but it’s an easy trap to fall into. It certainly wasn’t asking questions that got Burger King into trouble, and asking questions is surely the way out. But asking the wrong questions is more dangerous than not asking questions at all. How could Burger King have avoided this trap–and how can you ask the right questions going forward?

Three Types Of Research

I’ve been in the question-asking business for two decades. There are essentially three kinds of research:

1. Comparative research. Categories are set, and you want to see how you measure up.

2. Fire-Fighter research. Your comparative measures didn’t go so well, and you’ve dug yourself a hole.

3. “Blue Sky” research. You want to redefine your market and occupy a brand new positioning ladder.

It is the latter type of research that is most fulfilling from my perspective, and also what Burger King should have done in this instance. No doubt their comparative measures found their offering wanting (demonstrably true from their declining market share) so the powers that be took a conservative approach, and did a little “fire-fighting” research.” I have no doubt that, when asked what kinds of foods they wanted, fast-food consumers spat back answers like “snack wraps” and “caesar salads” and “smoothies.” These are all items on McDonald’s menu, and, given the clear #1 status of McD’s on the fast-food chain, they’ve set the agenda.

But here’s the thing: when you ask customers what menu items they want, and they tell you all the items on your competitor’s menu, this is the sign that you’ve asked the wrong questions. Whatever ladder McDonald’s occupies, they are at the top of that ladder, and merely replicating what they do will doom you to the lower rungs. As soon as Burger King got the results of that research–the research saying, in essence, that when it comes to fast food, McDonald’s has set the agenda–Burger King should have filed that particular study next to the Lost Ark, and gone right to research type #3: Blue Sky research.

Features Vs. People

Comparative research and Fire Fighting research both have something in common–they assume that the playing field has been set, the game selected, and the criteria for success in that game (in this case, the menu items and prices) are set. The game is wide open, in flux, and there is value in trying to out-hamburger the other guy. So you research features. How many chicken strips should be in a box? How large should a milkshake be to not engender guilt but not feel like a rip-off? What combination of side orders will make the best combo meal? And so on. When the game is in play, you research features and benefits, and you win on those.

But when Burger King got their research back, and saw that the fast food market was not in flux, they should have changed the game. The fact that the game is no longer in flux is demonstrably true from their research–when market research tells you that the specific things they want are the specific things your competitor offers, you’ve lost that game. Trying to replicate those specific features and benefits forces you to compete on taste (do fast-food patrons really value this???) or value–which, in this business, is price, pure and simple, which is the last refuge of the marketer.

You compete on features when those features are important to the game, and the outcome of that particular game is in doubt. But when Burger King got the McD’s menu back in response to their “features” research, that should have been a clear sign that they were, as Tamsen noted, asking the wrong questions. When “features” research merely spits back your competitors’ menu, it’s time to stop researching features, and start researching people.

Better Questions

When Lexus launched in this country, they didn’t play the “features” game. Had they done so, they would have tried to out airbag Volvo, or out cylinder Jaguar, or be cheaper than BMW. They didn’t research features (or if they did, they didn’t make that research the crux of their decision-making process). They researched people. They didn’t ask people how fast they wanted their car to go, or whether or not it had anti-lock brakes, they asked people about their lives. They interviewed scores of affluent Americans about their day, and tried to learn how they could solve the problems of their customers, not fill a menu of features on ladders that other car manufacturers already occupied.

If they had merely asked prospective customers what features they wanted, Lexus would have build a Jaguvolvercedes. Their target market was affluent, and what they learned was that affluent market typically had long commutes from exurban mcmansions to urban offices, and that their lives were stressful. They launched not based upon how many cylinders their customers required, but on what would solve their most pressing need: quiet.

So Lexus launched in the US on one word: quiet. This word not only informed the marketing of Lexus, but the engineering of Lexus. They built the car around this insight–they didn’t take an existing pig and apply lipstick. In short, when they couldn’t sit atop the same ladder that BMW and Mercedes occupied, they didn’t optimize rungs. They moved ladders.

They researched people, not features.

The Path To Irrelevance

So, two take-aways from this example. First, if you ask people what they want, and they tell you that they want what your competitor is already giving them, you asked the wrong questions. You researched features, when you should have researched people. But second–and more importantly, from my perspective–it isn’t market research that got Burger King into this predicament. It was asking the wrong questions. When you are the #3 fast food restaurant in the country you might have some issues, but you aren’t going to overcome those issues by not asking questions. Not asking questions is the path to irrelevance.

Ask better questions.

And if you’d like help asking better questions, I know a guy.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • sarachi

    Bravo Tom! How I love “research people, not feature” !!  So often we overlooked many aspects of business, be marketing, be content, be measurement; but have forgot people.  

    People buy based on their reasons/choices, not what business tell them to; for 15+ years I’ve been helping to find information to answer the questions asked, and quite frankly, you are not gonna get the right answer if you ask the wrong question. 

    Say hi for me to the guy knows how to ask better question, tell him I admire him very much :)

  • http://www.businessesGROW.com/blog Mark W Schaefer

    Allow me to play devil’s advovate.  Respectfully, you are writing this in a one-dimensional world of questions and response. But there is a bigger world out there that also must look at timing, cost, resources and delivering something to shareholders next quarter.

    I have no stake in these companies, but allow me to provide a scenario that defends Burger King (which has been struggling on so many fronts). They go out and do the precise research you are suggesting and find un-met customer needs — their version of “quiet.” But re-creating a brand, just like re-creating an automobile is very costly and may be many months off in the future – but they put it in the works for late 2012.

    But let’s say they also found some short-term insights (“copy McDonalds) that help stem the share loss they have suffered to Wendys. Why not do it?  It’s not easy tweaking a Lexus, but it’s a little easier tweaking a burger. They have nothing to lose and might rertain some core customers during their transition. 

    All I’m saying you are just viewing just one data point and in the larger context of strategy, this might make good business sense in the short term.

    I recall driving lousy Amercina-made rental cars a few years ago and wishing they would just copy the Japanese! Just get that good, as a start — and THEN worry about differentiation. MIght be what is going on here, but who knows?

  • http://www.edisonresearch.com Tom Webster

    You have picked apart my straw man strategy. I got nothin’. I’m sure that’s what they are doing, actually, but it sure can’t sound good to shareholders.

  • http://www.businessesgrow.com Mark W. Schaefer

    I don’t follow this business carefully other than to know Burger King is losing share. They probably need to do some triage! : ) 

  • http://www.edisonresearch.com Tom Webster

    It’s sad, actually – they used to compete on *burgers*, making the distinction between greasy-fried and “Flame-Broiled”, along with Have It Your Way. Those were effective. In recent years, they have completely lost the plot with the chicken, that creepy “King”, and lifestyle messaging. McD’s is cleaning their clock on *food*.

  • http://nickhuhn.com nickhuhn

    I’ve consumed a lot of content over the years. This post may be my ultimate favorite gem. 

    Having worked for a few giants in the food service industry, I’d say your assumptions and conclusions are spot on. It always distressed me to know that “research” was typically conducted with HFFUs (heavy fast food users — yes, they’re endearingly referred to as *users*) rather than those outside the circle of the customers the company already ‘knows’. 

    With that said, I’d be most interested in understanding why a customer would choose to NEVER, ever, visit a restaurant like Burger King.  e.g. “What could we do differently, dear stranger, that would invite you to sample different foods and/or a refreshed dining experience?”  

    When they answer with, “You know what I HATE…?” -  in the vein of Lexus vis-a-vis quiet - you’re onto something.

  • http://www.edisonresearch.com Tom Webster

    Thank you, Nick! While I agree with Mark Schaefer’s point here that they might not have had much choice, I am aware of the “heavy user” bias in this sort of research. I suspect the reasons why potential fast food consumers DON’T frequent Burger King has less to do with the availability (or not) of a particular menu item, and more with something deepy rooted in their brand perception. Smoothies seem like a band-aid (and again, with a nod to Mark’s point, a necessary one) but a band-aid nonetheless.

  • http://twitter.com/ScottPValentine Scott Valentine

     I like your (Mark W Schaefer) response in playing devil’s advocate, and this is a very thought provoking article. Saying that, let me come at this from a different point of view in response to Tom Webster’s article ”
    How To Know You’re Asking The Wrong Questions”.

    I really don’t believe that customers truly know what they want. I most instances, customers can’t explain how, what or why they did something because most decisions are made at the subconscious level.

    For example: I have a 1.5 hour drive home everyday, and there are times where I can’t remember half of my drive. I was on autopilot. There are a lot more examples than this, but I think this is a commonly shared experience.

    Let me give you a quote from a book I recently read Consumer.ology: “Where there is fear of failure research is used to avoid getting the blame for a project that fails. People use different stages of research so that if the initiative fails, they can say ‘Look how thorough I was. I did my due diligence’.” I totally agree with this statement.

    Using the Lexus example, they stopped focusing on what customers where saying and focused more on what customers where doing. I think this is way more important and provides more long-term value to the customer because I don’t really believe that customers know what they want, most of the time. And that is why companies such as Apple have been so successful.

    Using the McDonald’s menu just seems like the easy thing to do. And that response from the customers indicates there is some mental fluency also. Just because it is the easiest thing to do, doesn’t mean it is the best thing to do. I hope BK didn’t pay a lot of money for their research. I think this will turn into a great case study of what not to do.

    Thanks Tom for posting such a great thought provoking article. I enjoyed reading it, and the responses.

  • http://www.edisonresearch.com Tom Webster

    Love the comment, Scott! It is true (I can tell you from experience) that research is often used either as scapegoat or as crutch for the faithless. But data doesn’t kill people, people kill people :) Both listening, asking and observing are all forms of research, and we use them all in my day job. But my main job is to be sure that my clients understand the *story* of the data. And make no mistake, good research tells a story. We can ignore facts, highlight details that support our argument, or challenge methods – but the story is the story.
    BTW: Despite the cult halo that they have engendered to the contrary, Apple does enormous amounts of consumer research. I got no fewer than three straight-up surveys from them last year alone (mostly about the Apple Stores).
    Thanks for stopping by, Scott!

  • http://nickhuhn.com nickhuhn

    I agree with Mark though I would hope that Burger King expects nothing more than an incremental impact in deploying incremental changes. When BK and other chains break free from the value/price spiral toward affordable albeit terrible food, I think true value is created (see: Chipotle).

  • http://www.edisonresearch.com Tom Webster

    Chipotle is a GREAT example. They are like the Saturn of casual dining chains. Saturn, to use another car example, was entirely created based upon research on people, and what they liked and disliked about the car buying process. So GM designed a decent enough car, but radically redesigned the dealership and purchase process around those insights. If Chipotle would have asked heavy users of similar tex-mex chains solely about “features” (food) they never would have hit upon the genius that is the ordering process of Chipotle.
    Super example, Nick!

  • http://twitter.com/ScottPValentine Scott Valentine

     I agree that listening to customers is important for all brands/companies. And inferences are probably the most important, yet ambiguous, part of research. As you are aware, you can provide the company with great inferences, insight and data they want, but what they do with it is up to them.

    It is only my opinion that observation (without the customer’s knowing) should be the primary research initiative, and using further conversations to help explain the behavior.

    I saw a great TED talk by Dan Cobley where he used a Physical Theory of Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) to build the bridge between Physics and Marketing. As the theory states, the simple act of measuring something changes it. So when it comes to research, I am always worried about things like leading, fluency, priming, inadvertent persuasion, endowment effect, extremes aversion, and risk aversion.

    You are so right about the Apple example I gave. I have never seen one of their surveys so I was completely wrong. I am curious and would like to know what did you think of the Apple survey? What do you think they were using it for?

    I think you give some really great insight and love the *story* idea.

    If you are going to take the time to write it, than I will take the time to read it and share it. I will share your posts on Twitter and Facebook within my network.

    Again, thanks for posting.

  • http://www.fanstap.com/ Meka

    that was insightful
    thank you for the post :)  

  • NatalieMin

    Excellent article – so many businesses fall into that copying the trendsetter trap.

  • http://twitter.com/InsightsDeliver Francis Diaz

    Great post. I was first introduced to the fundamental tension between reliability and validity through Roger Martin (Dean of the Rotman School of Business.) I recommend anyone trying to understand the nature of what can and cannot be done with research to look up his work.

    After watching his lectures online and reading his books, I am thoroughly convinced that the motivations behind the kinds of business decisions you describe can be explained through this lens.

    Breakthrough innovation often requires abductive logic–using available inputs to imagine/surmise/intuit what “might” be. Surveys (and other quantitative-based research) are categorical. They lose a lot of resolution in fully describing the phenomena of interest, not to mention there’s never any guarantee you’re asking the “right” questions in the first place.

    By contrast, first hand research, i.e. qualitative observations may lead to highly valid answers to the problem at hand. “Proof” and repeatability, however, are irrelevant. To creative types, those are just pesky encumbrances.

    Problem is, businesses are addicted to proof. Maybe its a vestigial holdover from the early industrial age, where sprocket #435 must be identical in manufacture to sprocket #2. Somewhere along the way, businesses have conflated the process that ensures repeatability with “certainty/validity” and expected it to do as well in arriving at never-before-seen innovation.

    Consider Kodak’s demise–a company with many times the resources and brainpower as Instagram. Ask yourself if Kodak could have arrived at the same conclusion as Instagram if they had ran a thousand surveys. And if, somehow, they were to realize social digital photography as an opportunity, would they have had the gumption to capitalize on it?

    Very thought provoking indeed. Thanks again for the post.

Previous post:

Next post: