THE DIFFICULT ART OF CHOOSING PATHS AND MAINTAINING IMPARTIALITY, CORRECTING THE LENSES OF MYOPIA

BETWEEN OUR CHOICES, THERE IS ALWAYS THE MIDDLE PATH

Between innovation and disruption, the dichotomy between the analog and the digital is present in the immediacy of the world, with a duty to be present, to take a position, and to choose.

I have always worked with discrepancies, desires, and consumer choices, as well as those of lovers and professionals, focusing on understanding and predicting human behavior. Understanding what trends are, what is here to stay, what was only a fad, and what had no effect at all. Always in motion: needs, desires, and the updating of our abilities to manage our searches.

We come into the world observing, repeating, and learning. We have patterns that are harder to change, core issues that will hardly yield to drastic changes, but in a way we are always seeking improvement.

With the transformation of the current world into a virtual structure, accelerated by the disappearance of the models we used to rely on, there was not much choice in the transition.

Some innovations came along for the ride, while others established themselves by taking advantage of the opportunity, crossing old habits and exploring new forms of delivery and satisfaction for an audience that lost the ability, albeit temporarily, to have direct contact with the provider, its brand, friends...

The world of market research was strongly shaken by the new demands and offerings that emerged in this virtual and possible scenario.

The world could not stop, sales could not stop, human beings could not give up relationships. We had to understand how to reach and engage people in this new world, how to relate, be supportive, and create solutions in order to establish new parameters and convince everyone that life goes on.

Concepts changed; in-person interaction is no longer mandatory. What had already been taking shape over the decades now hardly makes sense anymore. It is striking how much progress has been made and how many relevant substitutions there have been in our daily tasks, which have taken over our time — an asset that is increasingly valued and scarce and, also because of technology and related factors, has been stealing our privacy and rest time/quality time.

I think about the richness of tools that have been incorporated into market research. In-person focus groups have decreased in research plans. On the one hand, we can conduct online groups in less time (both in travel and in execution), at a much lower cost. We no longer have traffic or commuting problems, and we can invite people from all over the country to the same event, which often makes the discussion very rich. On the other hand, we lose that visual contact, the nuances of how people sit, their posture, and their reactions to comments, which we can only capture in person.

We left behind manual transcriptions, where we hired someone who came with us into the room and then, after about two days, delivered the transcription. Today, with AI, we can get transcripts immediately after the group ends, along with a summary of everything discussed!

With an infinity of loose data out there, some collected and some discarded, companies have been looking for ways to access and connect with consumers’ needs, behaviors, desires, and hearts.

Tools, techniques, structures, environments, and platforms have changed, but the questions remain the same: Are you satisfied with the product? The service? The information?

What does not change are the protagonists: someone buys, someone sells, relationships are usually established, bonds, feelings: satisfaction, regret, ...

With the rush of change in the world’s modus operandi, combined with the need for survival and coexistence with the new, the new world order was established.

But the metrics used are not necessarily measuring the results delivered to the consumer, or the relationship between the company and the human being. This bond still retains basic human characteristics that must be studied, understood, and considered when analyzing the health of the brand and the company as a whole.

I leave you with a final provocation in this text: how far is the consumer’s view of your brand/product from the brand’s actual performance? Is there a relationship between the internal and external view of your brand?