jon puleston - festival of newmr - 2010

Jon Puleston, GMI Interac2ve, UK Part 2: Session 1, Convenor Sue York, Chair Dan Foreman, schedule = 9:58am to 10:22am (GMT/London)

The Eureka Experiments Exploring ways to stimulate and evaluate creative ideas in online surveys


Please note that this is a snapshot of an ongoing research experiment.

So I don’t have all the answers!

Also recognise this is an area where people

have already done a huge amount of thinking


Background •  For the last 2 years working with Engage

research exploring how to improve the quality of feedback from online surveys by making them more engaging

•  Published 2 papers on this topic and a case study with Sony Music UK


2 minute summary of our discoveries...


The importance of the introduction...

= 80% more Ime focusing on task


The role of imagery

What foods do you hate to eat?

Twice as many suggestions

+


The impact of projective techniques...

Evalua2on of a product

= 100% more feedback

+


Discovered value of humour...

Coming up with crea2ve ideas

= 30% more feedback

+


How showing examples can encourage respondents to give more feedback

Task

= 100%+ more feedback

+


The amazing impact of making tasks competitive...

Remembering ads

= 200%+ more feedback

+


What can be achieved with the right stimulus...

A 6 fold increases in feedback

x6


Turning our attention to the idea generation process


The challenge of creative thinking in online research

•  Harder –  Its not just a question of engagement, it is also an

issue of how to unlock creative thinking processes –  Most existing idea generation techniques are heavily

reliant on a moderator to implement them effectively –  The difficulty of implementing these techniques often

boils down to the limitations of existing survey technology


So how did we tackle this? •  Firstly we examined all the common idea

generation/lateral thinking techniques out there (well as best as we could, there are lots!)

•  Looked at which ones could be best adapted to the online survey environment

•  Set up a series of experiments involving a variety of creative tasks where we tested out each technique

•  Tried to measure and calibrate the volume and quality of ideas each generated


We are only partly through these experiments


What we have experimented with

so far...


Stage 1: Ice breaking

•  Critical part of the idea generation process is getting people in the right frame of mind

•  Techniques tested so far: 1.  Writing short film summaries 2.  Writing lines of limericks 3.  10 seconds to think up names game 4.  Silly uses for..

•  What we have measured: –  How many respondents joined in –  How much they enjoyed it –  How it helped stimulate ideas later on


Example: Silly uses


Impact

6 to 8 ideas But perhaps more importantly promotes more radical thinking.... e.g. Uses for a brick: a door stop, hammer, diving weight to Uses for a brick: Play catch with it, carry it around with you as your lucky talisman

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

With Stimulus

Without

Very imaginative

Quite

Not very


Value of this technique

•  Sends a message that this is not a normal survey –  By showing how far we are prepared to go, underlines

that we are taking this seriously ourselves –  Breaks down the rules of conventional surveying


Stage 2: Working on the briefing process


What if...

•  Instead of 10% intro and 90% questions •  90% intro and 10% questions


Case study: king of shaves

•  10 minute briefing process •  Explaining the basic

techniques of advertising development

•  Then ask respondents to have a go


King of shaves results

•  250 respondents generated over 1,200 ideas between them

•  8 of the brand proposition statements outscored the agencies & 3 of the ad treatments

•  87% cross participated in 2 follow up surveys to evaluate the ideas


1.  Perfectly in tune with your face 2.  A new angle on shaving 3.  Flexible smooth shaving 4.  A good shave hinges on design 5.  A smooth clean shave 6.  Lightweight. precise. flexible. 7.  Flex and flow 8.  Flexible close shave 9.  Better because it bends 10. No slaving over shaving

Top 10 brand proposition statements

Agency suggestion


Stage 3: Exploring specific Idea stimulation techniques... •  Techniques tested so far:

1.  Thinking rooms 2.  Idea for an idea 3.  Thinking through the minds of 4.  Random idea slot machine

•  What we have measured: –  The volume and quality of ideas each technique generated


Thinking rooms •  Technique often used by moderators is to

guide people to think about things in different ways

•  Online Methodology: –  An adapted approach using a set of freeform

rooms that people can explore –  Each room tackles the issue from a different

perspective –  A more free form less guided approach – they

choose what room to enter each time –  More like a game experience for respondents


Idea stimulation: Thinking rooms


Improvements in volume of ideas

0.7 to 6.9 ice cream names


Delivers richer and more creative ideas too...

Ask people to pick favourites and 7 of the top 10 came from this process


Idea for an idea •  At the heart of any brain storming process are ideas

that feed the generation of other ideas •  Online Methodology: –  A more serious version of the silly uses technique –  You come up with an idea, we then show you another

idea from someone else and then ask you to try and come up with more ideas, loop through stimulus until respondents get bored

–  Technical requirements are fairly basic - a random looping process feeding the seed ideas


Idea for an idea...


Improvements in volume of ideas

6 to 18


Thinking through the mind of...

•  A projective thinking technique

•  Methodology: –  Respondents are asked to think through the minds of

different people/brands –  Each respondent gets a random stimulus


Impact

1 or 2 thoughts increased to 10 to 20


What we have learnt so far?


All these techniques work


Highlights how powerful some ideas are at stimulating ideas v others...


Great ideas can unlock other great ideas


Good ideas act as Sparkplugs


Idea Generating Enzymes Our quest is to idenIfy the best...


Strength of these techniques in an online environment

•  Each respondent can be seeded with a unique random set of thoughts

•  A self levelling technique for each individual respondents attention span –  If the idea does not trigger an idea they just click “next” –  If they get bored doing it they can give up

•  Using iterative sample you can edit and refine the stimulation material as new ideas get generated

•  Easily adaptable to any thinking task •  A no brainer in terms of how effective they are


What it has highlighted though is...

•  The seeding ideas have critical impact of steering the process in the direction you wish to take it

•  A certain amount of creative thought is needed to get the ball rolling


Q & A

Jon Puleston and Dan Foreman

jon puleston - festival of newmr - 2010

Marketing