October 22, 2012
Consumers: Keep Explanations Short and Sweet
At least when it comes to novel products, a new study finds that consumers are more commonly "explanation foes," or those who "gain a strong sense of understanding and desire for products through shallow explanations."
By comparison, "explanation fiends" are those who "derive desire for products from deep and detailed explanations," according to the study led by the University of Colorado Boulder and Brown University.
"There are these two different types of consumers," said lead author Phil Fernbach, assistant professor of marketing at CU-Boulder’s Leeds School of Business, in a statement. "On these two sides, consumers differ in the amount of detail that makes them feel like they understand and — because of that feeling of understanding — the amount of detail that will make them prefer a product."
In one part of the study, participants were given varying explanations of a new tinted food wrapper product. "Explanation foes" highly rated their understanding and preference for the item when they read a simple description of how its "white coloring protects food from light that causes it to spoil, thereby keeping food fresh for longer."
"Explanation fiends" highly rated their understanding and preference for the food wrapper when they read a more detailed description of how "atoms in the tinting agent oscillate when hit by light waves causing them to absorb the energy and reflect it back rather than reaching food, where it would break the bonds holding amino acids together, thereby keeping food fresh for longer."
The authors didn’t delve into whether it was better to be a "fiend" or a "foe," but said consumers should recognize whether their intuition on whether they understand a product is based on objective information and "not just a feeling."
For brands, Steven Sloman, a study co-author and professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University, advises, "Marketers should target these different consumer groups with different types of explanations."
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are there ways to target consumers with new products based on their individual desire for “deep” versus “shallow” explanations? How should in-store staff juggle consumers’ varied informational requirements?
Poll
It depends on the product you are selling. If someone is buying a new car, than a deep explanation is required, as it is something car buyers want to know. Selling a new caramel kettle corn requires a simple sample, and whether or not it is gluten Free.
Don’t over bloviate, or you’ll lose the sale.
This says that in CPG, your package front should give the bare bones with the back of the package containing more detail. The front would need just enough to inform the explanation foes while the back contains enough to satisfy the explanation fiend.
I think a real world example is that for food products, there are those who want the deep sourcing and preparation information (foodies) so they can explain it to others, and those that just want to eat good tasty food. There is nothing inherently right or wrong, that’s is when staff should be equipped with short elevator pitches for the “shallow” and refer to cards or in-store interactive displays for the “deep” content.
There’s a perfect analogy here between the candidacies of Romney and Obama.
I think I have a definitive answer here. The selection of a man or woman to lead the country is a complex one and yet — as evidenced by the current election — all that’s necessary for most Americans to make a decision is the “shallow” explanation, “Hey, all you really need to know is that I’m not that other guy.”
So, if selecting the right can of beans is tougher than picking a President, maybe we should spend some time pondering “deep” solutions. If not, maybe more retailers ads should simply read, “At ABC Grocery we aren’t DEF Foods.”
Hey, it works at the highest level of politics!
You know which side I am on, either friend or foe, by my response to the poll. I prefer fewer but understandable explanations. Some of us simply don’t have the time or interest to read long or scientific explanations.
An aspect not covered in the CU-Boulder study is if individual consumers are consistently “deep” vs. “shallow” or if their receptivity to either approach is variable based on context and product.
It’s likely that expensive, considered purchases skew more shoppers to “deep” descriptions, but even that isn’t absolute.
A shopper with a strong brand affinity for a particular winery may buy the latest $100 vintage with little or no pre-shopping, and then seek a “deep” description before selecting a $10 paperback novel.
The key is to understand all the various paths to purchase (and pre-shopping rituals) for a particular product, and then provide tools to enable all of them.
Obviously, digital tools (digital signage, electronic shelf labels, mobile shopping apps, and websites) make it easier to custom fit the content to each shopper’s preference on a one-to-one basis. But it’s also possible to offer both types of content at various touchpoints in the store and allow shoppers to self-select which items they will consume. For example, you might have “shallow” fact tags and “deep” tear-sheets. Most classically the front face of product packaging is usually “shallow” while the back is “deep.”
The ancient Greeks understood there to be four personality styles as I explain in this short video.
The notion that different customers need to hear information differently isn’t news. But when, as a retail sales trainer I show it is the Analytical selling personality that finds self worth in giving minute details, companies are able to give those over sharers new tools so they can sell to anyone.
Consumers have limited time and in familiar CPG categories want to know the “end-benefit” of a product in order to make a purchase decision. Unless the retailer is a specialized store, or the employee a skilled professional (such as a pharmacist), consumers will not expect an elaborate explanation.
I do believe that when there is an opportunity to have an employee with more information or quick access to detail information is an asset to the store. For example, the concept of placing a health ambassador with an iPad in Rite Aid pharmacies for “deep” questions is brilliant and will pay dividends in the long term.
Einstein wrote that genius is a matter of simplifying the complex. Given this, should deep versus shallow be mutually exclusive?
The reality of course is that genius, especially in marketing, is often the exception and not the rule. It’s also hard, and mostly wrong, to treat all customers the same. It’s likewise challenging to lump all customers into only two segments such as “explanation foes and fiends.”
“Targeting” for new products needs to start at a brand level and then extend to customers (and prospects) according to their view of and level of engagement with the core brand. It’s a beginning of a journey and not an end.
Interesting that although many of us may limit this discussion to the food biz, this can definitely apply to all retail/CPG products. Packaging is everything. Store employees get empowered by the detail on a product package.
So, imagine apparel with product information on the label, just like the current care instructions contain. Things like material/fabric allergens, etc.
You need to address the “bullet point” consumers (like me) and the detail-oriented ones with the same products and the same store employees, so ensure the packaging is complete in order to satisfy as many shoppers as possible.
To keep this simple, the answer is already out there in force: Simple explanatory ads with a QR code that takes the explanation fiend to a site where they can get all the detail they desire. Of course the article is right, and of course the solution is simple — and already in use.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
It depends on the product you are selling. If someone is buying a new car, than a deep explanation is required, as it is something car buyers want to know. Selling a new caramel kettle corn requires a simple sample, and whether or not it is gluten Free.
Don’t over bloviate, or you’ll lose the sale.
This says that in CPG, your package front should give the bare bones with the back of the package containing more detail. The front would need just enough to inform the explanation foes while the back contains enough to satisfy the explanation fiend.
I think a real world example is that for food products, there are those who want the deep sourcing and preparation information (foodies) so they can explain it to others, and those that just want to eat good tasty food. There is nothing inherently right or wrong, that’s is when staff should be equipped with short elevator pitches for the “shallow” and refer to cards or in-store interactive displays for the “deep” content.
There’s a perfect analogy here between the candidacies of Romney and Obama.
I think I have a definitive answer here. The selection of a man or woman to lead the country is a complex one and yet — as evidenced by the current election — all that’s necessary for most Americans to make a decision is the “shallow” explanation, “Hey, all you really need to know is that I’m not that other guy.”
So, if selecting the right can of beans is tougher than picking a President, maybe we should spend some time pondering “deep” solutions. If not, maybe more retailers ads should simply read, “At ABC Grocery we aren’t DEF Foods.”
Hey, it works at the highest level of politics!
You know which side I am on, either friend or foe, by my response to the poll. I prefer fewer but understandable explanations. Some of us simply don’t have the time or interest to read long or scientific explanations.
An aspect not covered in the CU-Boulder study is if individual consumers are consistently “deep” vs. “shallow” or if their receptivity to either approach is variable based on context and product.
It’s likely that expensive, considered purchases skew more shoppers to “deep” descriptions, but even that isn’t absolute.
A shopper with a strong brand affinity for a particular winery may buy the latest $100 vintage with little or no pre-shopping, and then seek a “deep” description before selecting a $10 paperback novel.
The key is to understand all the various paths to purchase (and pre-shopping rituals) for a particular product, and then provide tools to enable all of them.
Obviously, digital tools (digital signage, electronic shelf labels, mobile shopping apps, and websites) make it easier to custom fit the content to each shopper’s preference on a one-to-one basis. But it’s also possible to offer both types of content at various touchpoints in the store and allow shoppers to self-select which items they will consume. For example, you might have “shallow” fact tags and “deep” tear-sheets. Most classically the front face of product packaging is usually “shallow” while the back is “deep.”
The ancient Greeks understood there to be four personality styles as I explain in this short video.
The notion that different customers need to hear information differently isn’t news. But when, as a retail sales trainer I show it is the Analytical selling personality that finds self worth in giving minute details, companies are able to give those over sharers new tools so they can sell to anyone.
Consumers have limited time and in familiar CPG categories want to know the “end-benefit” of a product in order to make a purchase decision. Unless the retailer is a specialized store, or the employee a skilled professional (such as a pharmacist), consumers will not expect an elaborate explanation.
I do believe that when there is an opportunity to have an employee with more information or quick access to detail information is an asset to the store. For example, the concept of placing a health ambassador with an iPad in Rite Aid pharmacies for “deep” questions is brilliant and will pay dividends in the long term.
Einstein wrote that genius is a matter of simplifying the complex. Given this, should deep versus shallow be mutually exclusive?
The reality of course is that genius, especially in marketing, is often the exception and not the rule. It’s also hard, and mostly wrong, to treat all customers the same. It’s likewise challenging to lump all customers into only two segments such as “explanation foes and fiends.”
“Targeting” for new products needs to start at a brand level and then extend to customers (and prospects) according to their view of and level of engagement with the core brand. It’s a beginning of a journey and not an end.
Interesting that although many of us may limit this discussion to the food biz, this can definitely apply to all retail/CPG products. Packaging is everything. Store employees get empowered by the detail on a product package.
So, imagine apparel with product information on the label, just like the current care instructions contain. Things like material/fabric allergens, etc.
You need to address the “bullet point” consumers (like me) and the detail-oriented ones with the same products and the same store employees, so ensure the packaging is complete in order to satisfy as many shoppers as possible.
To keep this simple, the answer is already out there in force: Simple explanatory ads with a QR code that takes the explanation fiend to a site where they can get all the detail they desire. Of course the article is right, and of course the solution is simple — and already in use.