|
Post by the light works on Oct 21, 2014 22:13:23 GMT
Humm, you could certainly test to see how much peoples opinions can be affected by wording - 'We've heard that this type of washing powder contains something that bleaches colours' compared with 'We'd like you to test and see if one of these powders bleaches colours'. I'd say that it would need a somewhat larger context though, as in it would probably have to be part of a larger myth - Maybe something about the power of words? I can envision problems in content though, by which I mean getting shots that are TV friendly and not, well, rather dull. Come to think on it they could always do something they have never done before and have a live test - introduce the episode as something else (or word the title and introduction in a slighly misleading way) and see how many people tweeting/Facebooking during the show realise what is or was really going on. Of course the biggest stumbling block might well be Discovery Channel. They might be very wary of doing something that highlights advertising tricks. In part because that would annoy the advertisers, but also because Discovery uses many of the same tricks when advertising their shows.... and they need to with most of their lineup.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 22, 2014 0:18:31 GMT
Humm, you could certainly test to see how much peoples opinions can be affected by wording - 'We've heard that this type of washing powder contains something that bleaches colours' compared with 'We'd like you to test and see if one of these powders bleaches colours'. I'd say that it would need a somewhat larger context though, as in it would probably have to be part of a larger myth - Maybe something about the power of words? I can envision problems in content though, by which I mean getting shots that are TV friendly and not, well, rather dull. Come to think on it they could always do something they have never done before and have a live test - introduce the episode as something else (or word the title and introduction in a slighly misleading way) and see how many people tweeting/Facebooking during the show realise what is or was really going on. Of course the biggest stumbling block might well be Discovery Channel. They might be very wary of doing something that highlights advertising tricks. In part because that would annoy the advertisers, but also because Discovery uses many of the same tricks when advertising their shows.... But isn't advertising really just a matter of carefully planned wording? To me at least, it seems to be all about the words you use, the ones you avoid and the way you choose to say them. Like I said about the Cillit Bang commercials, the intonation of the speaker and the choise of "fantastical" wording instantly made it sound too good to be true, making me not even want to try it, because I associated that kind of speech with someone trying to con me. Finding out that the product actually worked 90-95% as promised was a complete shock to me because of that. I half expected it to just be a mix of water and dish soap with added perfume to make it smell like a stronger product.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 22, 2014 0:52:41 GMT
Yeah, the last part would, but that was only an evolution idea, not a part of testing the original myth about advertising tricks. I still think you could do this without people being unaware that they're part of an experiment. You just have to make them think the experiment is about something else that won't interfere with their normal reactions toward advertising. Product testing. The individuals have been tapped to participate in a product testing exercise. They are read the pitches and shown the boxes for two or more items, and then they are asked to sample each one of the items. In order to avoid fatigue or confusion, a "break" is given in between each sample; for example, a glass of water between sips of soda or a slice of white bread between food items. We go with the twist that each item being sampled is the exact same thing, just with a different pitch and packaging. The team could even skimp on fancy "new" packages, as blank white packages with plain black text could be employed to represent a product in the early stages of development or a "generic" competitor. Regional grocer H-E-B actually used to use white packages & black text in lieu of a proper store brand at one point, back when it was still attempting to market itself as a "down-home Texas" company; when it decided to shift to a "low-cost leader" strategy, it suddenly became all about store branding. I'm an MBA with specialization in marketing and I've been doing product testing for several years now (at least since 2008), and so I know how product testing works from both sides of the equation. As far as a test of this nature goes, I'm thinking a commodity that can be acquired in bulk for a fairly cheap cost, such as pizza. In this situation, people can be asked to taste-test a pizza from a chain, a "heat-and-eat" frozen pizza, and an "artisan" pizza. Whoever was serving as the person in charge of the testing would play up the "high quality" of the "artisan" pizza in their canned pitch. The idea would be to make people think that the "artisan" pizza was made using fancy ingredients and by high-end "chefs" for "maximum" personal enjoyment. In contrast, the pitch for the chain pizza would emphasize "more bang for your buck" (giving the impression of being "cheap") and the pitch for the heat-and-eat pizza would emphasize "at-home convenience" and "the ability to just pick one up from any grocery store" (which could raise questions about freshness). Recording devices are common enough at these tests so that only a basic consent request should be needed. Footage could be recorded and compared later on for trends. Specifically, we'd be looking for how many people could "taste" the difference between each sample pizza correcting for such issues as the pizza getting cold and/or being reheated at points. If enough people can "taste" the difference in enough samples despite all pizzas being literally the same, then we can confirm the power of careful word choice in manipulating people in the marketplace.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 22, 2014 2:01:21 GMT
Ahh, consent forms...that would be a problem I hadn't considered.
You may know marketing, but I know TV production - thank the Bothan for filling me in on those things I didn't already know (or guessed) about.
Anyone working on MB would be required to sign a disclaimer, not just to allow MB to use footage of them but also to state that they will not reveal any details as to what they were doing. Even without checking with the Bothan I can tell you straight off that there is zero chance of MB's legal department allowing them to do any filming what-so-ever before those forms are signed.
I think the only viable way to run such tests would be to pretend to be testing something else - maybe something along the lines of seeing if people can tell the difference between 'expensive' and 'inexpensive' products. (More or less as outlined above with the pizza, although it might be a lot easier to use something that doesn't have to be cooked.)
That angle could be mixed with the similar 'taste with your eyes' idea (that we tend to rate food by its appearance even before we take a bite).
Humm, what about using soda rather than food for the testing? They could mix up a large amount of clear soda and add coloring to one of the batches. That wouldn't work for the 'expensive' angle though, or for marketing/packaging idea since they couldn't actually use brand names - and the lack thereof on otherwise expensive packaging might tip some of the testers off.
*Blinks*
What about the power of suggestion? (Which is after all what marketing is basically about) several glasses of soda where the only difference is the color and say four tests. A base test where the victims are just given the drinks and asked to rate them and the flavor but no comments are made. A second where each drink is introduced in turn, but with 'leading' works being used as they are presented (such as relating the colors to fruits, lemon yellow for example). Another where negative comments are used (such as the yellow drink being called 'urine colored'). Those three tests would be done with each subject being tested in isolation. The last one would involve small groups doing the taste testing, the catch being that at least one member of that group would not be a test subject but someone they placed into the group. Their task would be to make positive statements about one of the drinks and negative statements about another to see if they can sway the 'ratings' that are given to some of the drinks by each group - and of course one group wouldn't have anyone planted it in. If that is a little to time consuming them A&J could always do one of the 'line' tests where they state that a particular color is their favorite or has proved popular with others. (They could do that test even if they go on to do the group tests)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2014 2:42:06 GMT
Ironhold's idea could be to compare whether store brands really are made by name brand manufacturers.
then you serve them two slices of pizza, and see if they can determine which is the store brand - with both slices coming from the same pizza to make them identical.
but really, the myth is more about the power of suggestion and expectations.
you could do a salsa test - with one that Grant said was too hot, and one that Tory said was too hot - and see which one the test noobs subjects felt was hotter. ohk, yeah - no more Grant and Tory... well, do something with Adam and Jamie both showing enthusiasm about something - see how that affects the test subjects.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 22, 2014 3:14:59 GMT
Ironhold's idea could be to compare whether store brands really are made by name brand manufacturers. Actually, in some cases store brands are made by name-brand manufacturers; the name-brand guys get to use excess production capacity and make money no matter whose brand people buy. For example, consider Maisto, a name-brand company that makes die-cast toy vehicles. Maisto makes and sells product under their own name. They also make product for H-E-B and Wal-Mart under specific store brands. In this case, it's pretty easy to spot once you realize that some of the same toy cars are being sold under multiple brands, especially if the individual store stocks them all in the same aisle. Myth Confirmed. edit - in my sample, I was looking at "delivery pizza vs. deli / frozen vs/ 'high-end' product" The test was to see if the assumption of quality interfered with the actual perception by subconsciously influencing people.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 22, 2014 3:56:17 GMT
I like the way this is going.....
Store packaging.... You ever open a pizza box and find whats inside doesnt actually look anything like the picture on the box?.... I have. And I have taken it back and complained...... (Aint I an awkward sod?...) Misrepresentation that is., and its bloody illegal isnt it?.. or at least it should be....
Now thats selling a lie if the person knows the packaging is liable to exaggerate the contents already.... But if they dont know, its just damn lies.
Just to add in a few experiences.... Photography of "Product", I was invited along one time to do a photo shoot of food as part of a training thing for photography... I was getting to know DSLR.
We were taking shots of "Hot" food..... Which was anything BUT hot.
The food is "Styled"..... So you have a bowl of soup?... its strained, and all the BIG lumps are put back in the top to be centre stage....
Pizza, again, its taken apart and gently styled to have the best bits on show.
The "Hot" bit?... a small piece of cotton wool ball is hidden on the far side of the plate away from Camera, and just before you shoot, boiling water is pored onto the cotton wool.... steams nicely. Or they can use dry ice.
What you see on the box is always "The best they can find" example of whats in the box....
"Serving suggestion". You know its not going to come with hot chips and salad in the box dont you?.. but they sure look nice on the box.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 22, 2014 4:16:06 GMT
Companies selling their products with other brand names...
A lot of us know & love Girl Scout cookies Girl Scout cookies are made by a company called "Little Brownie Bakery" "Little Brownie Bakery" is a subsidiary of Keebler
Ever notice how a GS Thin Mint tastes so much like a Keebler Grasshopper??
The per unit price of the GS cookies is much higher than their Keebler counterpart but this seems justified because they are only sold once during the year...
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 22, 2014 4:28:17 GMT
The per unit price of the GS cookies is much higher than their Keebler counterpart but this seems justified because they are only sold once during the year... I'm thinking that it is actually a matter of "prestige pricing", in which people are conned into thinking that higher prices somehow confer exclusivity and/or higher quality.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 22, 2014 8:55:51 GMT
The per unit price of the GS cookies is much higher than their Keebler counterpart but this seems justified because they are only sold once during the year... I'm thinking that it is actually a matter of "prestige pricing", in which people are conned into thinking that higher prices somehow confer exclusivity and/or higher quality. Which is also pretty much what's going on with any other name brand manufacturer making store brand "cheap" products as well. They're banking on people buying the expensive stuff, just because it's expensive and then maximizing profit by also catering to those of us who don't feel our fabric softener gets any better by having a specific name and picture on the bottle to go with the TV commercials. TUM's link to the shoe collecting thing over in the "How Stupid..." thread shows us how Nike are forming lines outside Foot Locker every Saturday by releasing limited edition shoes. They're not necessarily better than other Nike shoes or even better than shoes made by other manufacturers, but the fact that they're limited edition creates prestige around owning a pair. Same goes for other name brand products that are essentially the same as the equivalent store brand product. Advertising creates hype around the name brand and some people just can't help themselves. They "can't be seen using low-end products", so they buy the more expensive name brand ones, even though some of them know full well that the store brand product is just as good. It's all about social prestige. "Look what I can afford."
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 22, 2014 11:18:57 GMT
I think there may be three potential myths to test here:
1) The honest liar: Experts, scheisters, and average joes...Who are the public most likely to believe a sales pitch from?
2) Statistics can lie: Manipulating data and charts to make your product look better than the rest because the public eats up data without having context
3) Only the best: People will buy the name brand/top of the line because of it's name or image regardless of whether or not it's actually better than any other version (or the same as the other version)
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 22, 2014 12:40:33 GMT
3 is not testable. MB can't use real brands - apart from anything else they would have their asses sued even if they blurred out the name - and creating their own would raise some flags. The people most likely to volenteer for duty are going to be fans of the show, who know MB doesn't do product testing.
Cooked food would have some production/cost issues. Figure that they would want a reasonably sized test group, and you would need at least two sets of cooked product per person/group. This would require a professional oven/kitchen capable of cooking enough product in a short amount of time, plus some way of keeping that food warm once it is out of the oven. Sure, such equipment is not hard to get hold of or hire but it limits options. In the case of an oven you are talking about hiring a resturant for the day, which might not have a floor plan that allows for controlled testing - as in being able to isolate the testers before and after the tests are done. You also end up having to spend more money than you want to, and limiting the date at which you can do the testing. One of the advantages I can see from this idea is that they should be able to film the whole thing in a day or maybe two - compared to two weeks for the average episode.
This is why I had the flash about using soda. (Alcohol is a none-starter, since you have to assume that the majority of subjects will be driving themselves to the test location). Soda doesn't need to be cooked, is something that they can most likely make in the shop in a day in large enough quantities for any test group they are likely to end up with and just as importantly because sodas usually come in the same bottle designs. In fact if the US is similar to the UK high-end sodas usually come in slimmer and smaller bottles which could be used to sub-conciously reinforce the idea that they are drinking something more expensive without having to have any label.
Soda would give them more options as to where to do the testing, as they are no longer limited to a location with a large kitchen, which in turn gives them more flexibility as to when they do the testing. A resturant would probably not be open to them testing on busy days and weekends, or would require that they leave before the afternoon/night crowd is due - which given the amount of equipment MB have would mean a very limited period in which to conduct all their testing before they have to pack up. (Figure two hours to set up and at least an hour to pack up. Which would give them about five hours in which to do all the testing and filming, while praying nothing goes wrong to delay them...because they will not be able to bring everyone back the next day if they miss anything.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2014 14:13:17 GMT
The per unit price of the GS cookies is much higher than their Keebler counterpart but this seems justified because they are only sold once during the year... I'm thinking that it is actually a matter of "prestige pricing", in which people are conned into thinking that higher prices somehow confer exclusivity and/or higher quality. they taste better because they are a symbol of how we support the program. that and the meth.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2014 14:18:00 GMT
3 is not testable. MB can't use real brands - apart from anything else they would have their asses sued even if they blurred out the name - and creating their own would raise some flags. The people most likely to volenteer for duty are going to be fans of the show, who know MB doesn't do product testing. Cooked food would have some production/cost issues. Figure that they would want a reasonably sized test group, and you would need at least two sets of cooked product per person/group. This would require a professional oven/kitchen capable of cooking enough product in a short amount of time, plus some way of keeping that food warm once it is out of the oven. Sure, such equipment is not hard to get hold of or hire but it limits options. In the case of an oven you are talking about hiring a resturant for the day, which might not have a floor plan that allows for controlled testing - as in being able to isolate the testers before and after the tests are done. You also end up having to spend more money than you want to, and limiting the date at which you can do the testing. One of the advantages I can see from this idea is that they should be able to film the whole thing in a day or maybe two - compared to two weeks for the average episode. This is why I had the flash about using soda. (Alcohol is a none-starter, since you have to assume that the majority of subjects will be driving themselves to the test location). Soda doesn't need to be cooked, is something that they can most likely make in the shop in a day in large enough quantities for any test group they are likely to end up with and just as importantly because sodas usually come in the same bottle designs. In fact if the US is similar to the UK high-end sodas usually come in slimmer and smaller bottles which could be used to sub-conciously reinforce the idea that they are drinking something more expensive without having to have any label. Soda would give them more options as to where to do the testing, as they are no longer limited to a location with a large kitchen, which in turn gives them more flexibility as to when they do the testing. A resturant would probably not be open to them testing on busy days and weekends, or would require that they leave before the afternoon/night crowd is due - which given the amount of equipment MB have would mean a very limited period in which to conduct all their testing before they have to pack up. (Figure two hours to set up and at least an hour to pack up. Which would give them about five hours in which to do all the testing and filming, while praying nothing goes wrong to delay them...because they will not be able to bring everyone back the next day if they miss anything.) with soda, they can also manufacture their own (or have it manufactured.) and bottle it direct from the fountain - so they can put it in the bottles of their choice.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 22, 2014 14:27:40 GMT
I'm thinking that it is actually a matter of "prestige pricing", in which people are conned into thinking that higher prices somehow confer exclusivity and/or higher quality. they taste better because they are a symbol of how we support the program. that and the meth. Yeah, about that whole "support the program" thing... My wife is a GS troop leader and I have learned a lot about the internal policies & such. The price of a box of cookies is $4.00, but the troop selling the cookies only gets to keep $0.75 (18.75%). $2.00 goes to the national "council" and the reminder pays for the product. It would seem that the troop that actually sells the cookies would do better if you just gave them the $4.00 without buying the cookies, but that is not allowed. If you "donate" $4.00 to the troop, they are required to purchase a "donated" box of cookies for veterans, disaster victims, or some other cause. So, in the end, the troop still only gets $0.75 out of the $4.00. (My wife & I help our daughter sell about 300 boxes/year. Face value=$1200. Troop's take=$225. My daughter gets a $2.00 trinket in exchange for selling so many.) What really bugs me (and bugs my wife that I keep mentioning it) is that the CEO of GS/USA received a $85,000 BONUS last year...an $85K bonus going to the CEO of a non-profit seems out of balance with the values of being a non-profit.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2014 15:14:25 GMT
they taste better because they are a symbol of how we support the program. that and the meth. Yeah, about that whole "support the program" thing... My wife is a GS troop leader and I have learned a lot about the internal policies & such. The price of a box of cookies is $4.00, but the troop selling the cookies only gets to keep $0.75 (18.75%). $2.00 goes to the national "council" and the reminder pays for the product. It would seem that the troop that actually sells the cookies would do better if you just gave them the $4.00 without buying the cookies, but that is not allowed. If you "donate" $4.00 to the troop, they are required to purchase a "donated" box of cookies for veterans, disaster victims, or some other cause. So, in the end, the troop still only gets $0.75 out of the $4.00. (My wife & I help our daughter sell about 300 boxes/year. Face value=$1200. Troop's take=$225. My daughter gets a $2.00 trinket in exchange for selling so many.) What really bugs me (and bugs my wife that I keep mentioning it) is that the CEO of GS/USA received a $85,000 BONUS last year...an $85K bonus going to the CEO of a non-profit seems out of balance with the values of being a non-profit. that is my feeling about coprporate bonuses as a whole - even in for-profit businesses. so you wait 6 months and then make the donation. what's the rule for that? or give the troop a thing. do they make them take the cash equivalent value of the thing and buy cookies with it?
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 22, 2014 15:26:02 GMT
that is my feeling about coprporate bonuses as a whole - even in for-profit businesses. so you wait 6 months and then make the donation. what's the rule for that? or give the troop a thing. do they make them take the cash equivalent value of the thing and buy cookies with it? Non-cash donations have to, essentially, be vetted by the Council. There are limits to the value of the item and the Troop must claim it as income on their Year End Financial Statement, which can have adverse effects on the amount of funding they can receive from the Council.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 22, 2014 16:35:04 GMT
I think there may be three potential myths to test here: 1) The honest liar: Experts, scheisters, and average joes...Who are the public most likely to believe a sales pitch from? 2) Statistics can lie: Manipulating data and charts to make your product look better than the rest because the public eats up data without having context 3) Only the best: People will buy the name brand/top of the line because of it's name or image regardless of whether or not it's actually better than any other version (or the same as the other version) 4. Can a sales pitch subconsciously convince people that the same product being sampled in a blind taste test is actually two or more different products?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2014 18:41:23 GMT
that is my feeling about coprporate bonuses as a whole - even in for-profit businesses. so you wait 6 months and then make the donation. what's the rule for that? or give the troop a thing. do they make them take the cash equivalent value of the thing and buy cookies with it? Non-cash donations have to, essentially, be vetted by the Council. There are limits to the value of the item and the Troop must claim it as income on their Year End Financial Statement, which can have adverse effects on the amount of funding they can receive from the Council. and they wonder why so many people see scouting as a farce. I don't know if girl scouts have a similar point in their code, but I remember reciting "a boy scout is honest, he does not lie, cheat, or steal" - which was related to my losing interest in the scouts (not coincidentally, right after the pinewood derby in which despite the fact I was nearly a photo finish with the winner, the second place trophy was given to a car that was handily beaten by a car my car handily beat.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 22, 2014 18:41:48 GMT
I think there may be three potential myths to test here: 1) The honest liar: Experts, scheisters, and average joes...Who are the public most likely to believe a sales pitch from? 2) Statistics can lie: Manipulating data and charts to make your product look better than the rest because the public eats up data without having context 3) Only the best: People will buy the name brand/top of the line because of it's name or image regardless of whether or not it's actually better than any other version (or the same as the other version) 4. Can a sales pitch subconsciously convince people that the same product being sampled in a blind taste test is actually two or more different products? I wonder if that would run into the same problems as CM pointed out that my #3 would as far as the products used. I suppose they could, theoretically, reveal both products to be Mythbusters brand (soda, chips, etc).
|
|