A research agency is doing research and is perceived to be credible; but their insights & recommended ideas are usually bordering obviousness and general knowledge! Research agencies have always had the credentials but sometimes they miss ideas and insights.
A creative person is developing ideas but many a times his ideas are set aside under the pretext that they are ‘wild’, ‘super niche’ or too ‘edgy’ and not based on real consumer insightCreatives have the ideas but sometimes they are seen missing the insights
A planner is trying to turn the obviousness of the research agencies findings into insights, ideas & executable consumer knowledge.Planners are supposed to have both (at least the insights) but they do not have research agency credentials to stake a claim to consumer knowledge
Given this from the above three, Research Agencies are best placed to own insights because they have the consumer credentials and the research processes. What they need now are some people who can think creatively and generate ideas as well - people who are at the cusp of ‘logic-analysis’ on one side and ‘magic-creativity’ on the other. There is a huge opportunity in deploying resources to own this cusp of creativity and analysis.
With these people in, the last three slides (before the thank you slide) in research presentations would start looking much more actionable that they ever did in the past.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The cusp runneth empty
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi, I totally agree with your analysis.
However, there is on point missing in my opinion:
Research companies just ask to generally instead of asking very, very specific. They do it because they want
a) to be non suggestive (which I is fine) and
b) they fear to have no overwhelming agreement.
What I mean is they ask stuff like "do you think company XYZ have a good quality?" and "do the company GFA have a good quality"?
So naturally most of the companies score well, but more or less equal.
It would be much better if research companies would include more questions which explains the same overall aspect (e.g. "quality"). This could be "do you think the company does only use organic ingredients?", "do you think the company does know their suppliers very well?", "do you think the company has many people who control the quality of their products?" and so on.
Then you would have more explicit and less obvious results any more.
Cu then,
Peter
Hey Saurabh I appreciate your eye for creativity. I believe you are a rational planner. You see wht other human beings see but not other planners. You r creative
Dont you think this tag of a "planner" is the biggest hindrance in blocking creativity in work.
Industry should start calling planners as "creative planners" or creatives as "strategic copywriters" :)
Post a Comment