Perception Analyzer Dial.Log

Nature Favors the Extremes

As a follow-up to my Q&A with Laura Ries a couple of months ago I recently asked for her thoughts on a particular case of a company going to the extreme - Hardee's and its Monster Thickburger with 1420 calories and 107 grams of fat.  Here is what she had to say:

"I do believe that Hardee’s new burger is an example of the principle that nature favors the extremes. People either want to indulge in high-calorie, tasty food. Or restrict themselves with diet and lower calorie items. Items in the mushy middle are in trouble. Note the failure of C2 and Pepsi Edge, Coke and Pepsi’s mid-calorie line of drinks.

People shop the same way. High-end luxury stores like Neiman Marcus are doing well. And low-end stores like Dollar stores are doing well. The ones in the middle like Macy’s are in trouble."

Thanks for the insight, Laura.

Business Blog Book Tour: The Origin of Brands

For the fifth Business Blog Book Tour, I had the opportunity to ask Laura Ries a few questions about her new book, The Origin of Brands, which she co-authored with her business partner and father, Al Ries. The book offers an interesting look at how brands evolve and thrive from divergence (as opposed to convergence). Here is my Q&A with Laura:

DP: Big companies like Kodak and Polaroid face very unique problems in that their entire business models (namely camera film) are withering away. Kodak's answer has been to enter the digital photography space under the Kodak name, but as you point-out in your book, they are late to the game and not a name people associate with great cameras (or digital photography or electronics), only great film. The suggestion you make in your book is that companies not use their established brand names to launch new brands or categories, but companies like Kodak have so much equity in their names. What is a company like Kodak to do when they have a name they have spend years and hundreds of millions of dollars to build, only to now have it's core association (film) relatively decimated and its new association (digital photography) not clicking with consumers?

LR: I should point out that Kodak invented the digital camera. When you put an existing name on a new category of product, you are bound to wind up a loser.

You need the courage to use a new name. Should Toyota have called its luxury car, the Toyota Supreme? I think not. Lexus is a much better name.

Sony most profitable product is not called Sony, it’s called PlayStation.

DP: You say mega-brands, like Virgin, are rarely effective because they put every product line (i.e. Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Mobile, Virgin Mega, etc.) under the main brand name as opposed to a brand like Tide that is solely associate with laundry detergent. Virgin however, as a whole, has been effective (with some exceptions, of course) and I'm curious what it is about that company that makes it unique in that regard? That's not to say that Virgin's methods are advisable for the marketplace as a whole, but what can we learn from what Virgin has accomplished?

LR: Very little. Just because Virgin is successful doesn’t necessarily mean that your company can be successful with a similar strategy. There are some fundamental reasons for Virgin’s success starting with Virgin Atlantic, an airline that enjoys monopoly status (along with British Airways) at Heathrow airport outside of London. With enough “slots” at Heathrow, any airline can be successful.

The truth is that most companies that brand everything with the corporate name are not successful. (GE is another exception.)

DP: In the book you use the Segway as an example of effectively using PR to generate buzz for a new brand. The product was leaked on the Internet, was formally introduced on Good Morning America and was featured on evening new shows and in national newspapers. Despite all that however, the Segway has failed to take off. The price point ($3000 - $4500 at last check) is pretty steep for most people and it's everyday uses are somewhat limited. Commercial sales (for use in warehouses, etc.) seem to be a bit stronger, but still nothing like what the initial fanfare led us to expect. Considering that, what caution do you give to those who have a "cool" concept and can generate buzz about it, but may be missing other key components to success?

LR: You should read one of our previous books, Focus. Segway generated a lot of publicity with their launch of the product and then they made a mess of their marketing by trying to be all things to all people.

We would have started with one market and then moved on to other markets after the first one was successful. Our suggestion: country clubs. Use the Segway as a replacement for golf cards.

DP: In the book, you use Rock/Paper/Scissors as a model for how the opposite strategy to that of your opponent (or competition) is often the best strategy. You discuss how emulating a leader is dangerous because they will still be perceived as the leader and a better strategy is to go for second place with the opposite strategy (what you call Survival of the Secondest). In fact, in the book you say, "'That's not the way it's done' is usually a good indication that an idea has merit. Don't ask, does the idea make sense? Ask whether the idea is the opposite of the leader's strategy." It would seem though that 'opposite' doesn't necessarily equal 'good' or 'better.' The risk is that the leader may have truly found the best way and the opposite could backfire. What insight can you offer about the risks of doing the opposite?

LR: In theory, you’re right, but in practice, it almost never works that way. Charles Darwin said “Nature favors the extremes.” Elephants and mice, for example.

Our research shows that there is never only one way to do anything. Wal-Mart and Sacks Fifth Avenue are both successful, but Sears is getting crushed in the mushy middle.

Few Questions For...Howard Varinsky

Renowned jury consultant Howard Varinsky, of Varinsky Associates, took time from his busy schedule for a few questions from me this week. Trained in psychology and having practiced jury consulting for 25 years, Mr. Varinsky is an expert in developing winning trial strategies, voir dire and jury selection, witness preparation and courtroom communication. He is a lecturer, author and has appeared as a commentator on programs such as Nightline and Larry King Live. Mr. Varinsky has consulted for some of the most high-profile trials in recent years including for the prosecution in USA v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic and USA v. Timothy McVeigh and for the defense in State of Michigan v. Dr. Jack Kevorkian and State of New York v. Bernhard Goetz, among many others. I was interested to learn more about what makes Mr. Varinsky so successful and how his techniques may help others.

DP: Getting a mock jury together of people matching the profile of those you expect will serve on the actual jury is one thing, but how do you account for the individual personalities of the actual jurors and how those personalities will impact deliberation?

HV: In getting a mock jury together it is extremely important to match the demographics of a typical jury in a given venue. It is nearly impossible to account for and anticipate individual personality characteristics and differences of actual trial jurors, since the variety can be nearly infinite. It is much more important to match the socioeconomic status, politics and belief systems of trial jurors than their personalities. Actual trial juror personalities become more important when selecting jurors. They are not as important in pre-trial research.

DP: Much of what you do is based on persuasion - advising your clients on how to most effectively persuade a particular group of 12 people. Many who will read this interview are in sales, marketing and PR and they practice persuasion every day - getting clients to buy their products/services, choose them over the competition or see their company in a certain light. What, in your experience, are the keys to effective persuasion that would cross-over from jury consulting to sales, marketing, PR and business in general?

HV: For persuasion to be effective in any given area whether it is sales, marketing, or trial work it is imperative to be as knowledgeable as possible about your target population. In sales, marketing or PR the target population may be the general public or a particular demographic segment of the general public, where as in trial work the target population is twelve trial jurors and two or three alternates. By knowledgeable I mean that the [person] selling the product [or message] needs to understand the needs, values, and motivations of their target audience as well as how they feel about given "hot button" issues such as politics, economic issues, and current events. It is a lot easier to persuade once you have some intimacy, understanding of and connection to the recipients of a message than otherwise.

DP: What was the most surprising outcome of a trial for which you consulted and in hindsight, if the outcome was not in your side's favor, what would you have done differently?

HV: It is always impossible to accurately predict how any given person will vote in a particular case. We can only try to ascertain probabilities based on observational data and cues. However those of us who excel at our craft should be correct much more often than not. If it was baseball the batting average should be around .900. Having said this, I remember one case where close to a billion dollars was at stake and I miscalculated on one juror who looked like he would be favorable to our side, but who in fact hung the jury against us. Our client prevailed at the retrial. However, I still go over that jury selection in my mind trying to figure out what cues that particular juror was exhibiting that I may have missed.

DP: During your 25 years in jury consulting, what tools, techniques and technologies have evolved that have had an impact on how you conduct your research and consult with your clients?

HV: Twenty-five years ago when I first started in jury consulting the field was mostly known for only jury selection. Our knowledge at the time was extremely primitive and our field has advanced tremendously. Our knowledge base on jury behavior is light-years beyond what we knew in the early 1980's and nowadays we utilize sophisticated techniques such as focus groups, mock juries, and community attitude surveys and so forth.

DP: Thinking about the many high-profile trials in recent years, does one move by the prosecution or defense stick-out in your mind as a red flag moment - one in which you knew that event was going to be a liability for them?

HV: My most important red flag moment in a high-profile case was at the end of jury selection in the OJ case. At the time, I was a media commentator and guest on a variety of national talk shows and was not involved in the case. However, it was obvious to me that the case was won in jury selection. The prosecution blew it before opening statements ever began.

DP: Would you please elaborate on that? What was it about jury selection in that case that you believe doomed the prosecution from the start?

HV: In OJ, Marsha Clark thought black women would be great jurors for the prosecution. In actuality, they were great for the defense. As a homicide prosecutor, her experience was as an advocate for family members whose sons had been killed by gang violence. Her job was to bring the killers to justice, thus earning praise from black community and church members, and especially from the victims' mothers. She approached the OJ jury selection from this perspective. She didn't factor into her thinking the fact that OJ was a hero in the black community, or that in high profile cases, all standard ways of thinking usually do not apply because of the unusual dynamics of intense media attention. The defense conducted pretrial research and was fully aware of these factors.

DP: In your years of conducting research, what traits of human behavior prove consistent time and again and conversely, what continues to surprise you to this day?

HV: In my many years of jury consulting what impresses me most is the degree of consciousness jurors bring to deliberations. Nearly everyone rises to the occasion when meting out justice in civil or criminal trials. Contrary to popular belief, jury verdicts are correct in 999 out of 1,000 cases. If you find yourself disagreeing with a jury verdict you see or read in the media, it is a good bet you did not see the amount of detail with respect to the evidence or personally observe the witnesses in that trial. If you did, you probably would have voted the way the other jurors voted. Juries might be the last vestige of true democracy in our society.