THE IMPORTANCE OF CONCEPT STIMULI IN INNOVATION RESEARCH
Henry Ford famously stated: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Similarly, Akio Morita, co-founder of Sony, is often quoted: “The market research is in my head; we create markets.” Both quotes reflect a sceptical view of the role of market research in innovation at the time. Despite this, both the Ford Model T and the Sony Walkman effectively addressed the need for faster travel and music by ‘on the go’ ideas that were ‘new to the world’.
More recently, Steve Jobs from Apple has expressed a similar sentiment: “People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” This statement emphasises the importance of presenting innovations to consumers throughout the development process, from initial concepts to pre-launch products. At each step, you emphasise the benefits rather than asking customers what product they want.
THE CHALLENGE OF EFFECTIVE STIMULUS DEVELOPMENT
But how can we present the ideas in the right way? This is a common question in innovation research projects, such as product concept tests. Which information should be included in a concept stimulus? How much of it? In which style and format should it be presented?
These questions are crucial as they influence consumer responses, such as claimed Purchase Intention or other performance indicators. The ‘scores’ are often compared with norms to assess the likelihood of future market success better. Consequently, the quality of a product idea might not solely determine the decision to proceed with an innovation initiative; the presentation of the stimulus plays a significant role as well.
From a methodological perspective, there is a strong case for standardising stimulus material. This minimises the variation and influences how the concept is presented. Keeping everything else constant ensures focus on the underlying product concept, enabling rigorous comparison with norms and interpreting performance against other similarly tested concepts.
However, it is rare that a product is marketed and sold in the real market in a standardised way. So, the question arises if standardisation distorts market realities. To illustrate this, think about products and their marketing having very different characteristics:
– Many standards for concept writing include the provision of so-called Reasons-To-Believe (RTB). RTBs aim to obtain consumer confidence by “grounding” an innovation with supporting evidence and shared information that the product will deliver on its promised benefits or claims. However, many tested innovations are next-generation types with small, incremental improvements compared to current market products. Therefore, the necessity of RTBs is not always evident, unlike with ‘new-to-the-world’ innovations. This can sometimes appear irritating to consumers and respondents alike. Consequently, the characteristics of a product—next-gen vs. new-to-the-world—should reflect these differences.
– Products themselves cannot be considered without their marketing and sales. Therefore, in addition to product characteristics, marketing mechanisms must also be considered. For instance, an FMCG product sold in grocery stores and a financial product sold through direct sales require different approaches.
Consumers seek, get informed, and purchase very differently in different categories and markets. It would be naive for an innovation research project to use a single standardised format, amount, style, or structure without respecting these differences.
BEST PRACTICES FOR STIMULI DEVELOPMENT
Considering the above, we can formulate the following golden rules for stimulus development in innovation research:
1. Show the innovation to the consumer: What Steve Jobs famously said also applies to innovation research.
2. Use the best representation possible: While it isn’t always possible, especially in the early stages of the innovation process, aim to approximate the new product as closely as possible. This is particularly important in markets and categories where marketing and sales mechanisms significantly influence future market success.
3. Adapt stimulus to product characteristics: Acknowledge the product characteristics in its representation and adapt the stimulus accordingly using a ‘fit for purpose ‘standard.
4. Consider the seek-inform-buy process: Think about relevant representations of the seek-inform-buy process, which characterises consumer behaviour in a particular category or market. Both the stimulus and the overall research design and flow should reflect this process.
5. Standardise for methodology and comparability: Standardise as much as possible for methodological and comparability reasons but respect the need for differentiation based on the above considerations.
Following these guiding principles balances the value obtained from data quality and analysis interpretation. Approximating market reality as closely as possible ensures high research quality and improves reliability. Working with appropriate standards enhances data comparability (benchmarking) and provides additional interpretative value and comprehensive overall learning.
© Getty Images
