In the last wave of expansion of the producer-consumer conversation, the trend was all about “Green.” Green was the future, and we could solve our problems with green materials and sources. Most importantly, consumers wanted it, making it worth significant investments in green-for-its-own-sake.

Well, guess what? Green stuck around, even when its marketing value began not to fade, but to be reevaluated in the light of consumer responses to, principally, the cost of buying green.

But smart companies realized quickly that not all efforts to be “green” were created equally. Reducing the use of unrecyclable plastics led to the reduction in use of recyclable plastics, which led to the lightening of bottles, which reduced materials cost, transportation cost, and led to advances and efficiencies in manufacturing—all of which added up to billions of dollars in gains for consumer products manufacturers who managed to eliminate waste throughout their business, while crowing about their environmental good deeds.

Other initiatives, such as Levi’s use of small amounts of organic cotton in its jeans (saving massive water resources and causing a significant reduction in total fertilizer use, as well as cost), and laundry detergent “concentrates” that pay back enormous dividends in terms of water usage and shipping costs, go either unheralded, or passed over in favor of promoting the utility of the change, rather than peddling the company’s green cred. Waste is, well, a waste… it doesn’t do anyone any good, least of all the producer of the product. So, who needs it?

Apply the same concept to shopper marketing for a moment: Are the things you’re developing, manufacturing, shipping across the nation, installing in stores, and eventually throwing out really worth the investment you’re making in them? Are you putting out POP materials, mailers, and displays that are having the impact you want? What is your return on investment, in terms of your bottom line? Sometimes, the best thing for your company also turns out to be the best thing for the environment. Not only that, but what is the return on your investment with regard to your brand value?

Some time ago, we had the opportunity to evaluate a digital signage program for a specialized retail shoppe at the perimeter of a mass retailer. The client had developed dynamic content for three-screen displays, intending to use three large plasma screens at each location, and asked us to help them evaluate this strategy’s effectiveness in comparison to static signage and single-display strategies.

After the results of hundreds of intercept interviews and thousands of videographic behavioral records were in, it became obvious that, for the purposes of the client, the full-bore, three-screen dynamic display strategy provided certain benefits, but was actually working against them in other respects.

When presented with three-screen displays, ratings of “quality” for the services and products being merchandised went through the roof, with 83% of shoppers stating that the shoppe offered the “highest quality” products and services. This stands in contrast to only 71% of shoppers who were exposed to the static signage program. At the same time, ratings of “best value” dropped, from 80% to only 68%. And this in a store environment that was focused on value-conscious shoppers.

This is what we call the “Sharper Image Effect”: By overdoing it on the merchandising, the client had actually oversold their product. Ratings of expected quality went way up, but ratings of expected value went way down, meaning that the client had overshot their mark with the high-dollar display strategy.

As you might expect, the single-screen option outperformed the three-screen displays in terms of “best value” ratings, and it also outperformed the static displays in terms of “highest quality” ratings. This left the client with a clear direction to take: single-screen displays provided the necessary boost in quality perceptions, without damaging the value perceptions known to be important to the shoppers they wished to reach.

But the real take-home lesson here is the thousands of plasma screens that did not end up in these stores, damaging value perceptions while simultaneously costing millions of dollars in unnecessary manufacturing, transportation, energy, and disposal costs. The end result? Better for the environment, more effective, more efficient, and more profitable. What color do those things all have in common?

(CHM)

In studying consumer psychology and behavior from a neuroscientist’s viewpoint, it’s impossible to neglect the fact that there are aspects of consumer and shopper behavior and attitudes that are easily and straightforwardly understood by a neuroscientist with the appropriate background, but are neither seen nor understood easily by researchers with a pure marketing or anthropology background.

Certainly, this gives researchers like us a particular kind of value; it is not to say that other disciplines do not bring with them their own unique insights that perhaps many neuroscientists may not, whether for lack of focus on or exposure to particular aspects of behavior and relations between humans and the world. Being in the business of studying consumers, we see the contributions of current and past researchers coming from anthropological, sociological, or creative backgrounds.

Therefore, it is impossible to escape the fact that there are yet more disciplines with something to contribute to the goal of better understanding human behavior in relation to goods and services. And it’s interesting to go prospecting in the literature of related fields that might also have good reason for weighing in, if for no other reason than to gain the benefit of those fields’ perspectives and allow us to examine ways of improving on our own language when discussing and communicating about what is, after all, a shared object of study.

Take, for example, the discipline of Human-Device Interaction. For the last couple of decades, HDI research has been most visibly focused on (and is, as a result, widely thought of as) Human-Computer Interaction. This discipline concentrates on topics such as Human Factors and biomechanics, as well as more cognitively-oriented design considerations that affect how machines, and their interfaces, interact with human perception and motor abilities.

The goal of HDI is to assist in the improvement of device and interface design in terms of ease-of-use, usability, accessibility, and functionality. We interact with computers and machines every day. Many of these combine aspects of both computer and machine to form the many robotic devices that are now an integral part of our lives. Many of us own cars with robotic elements, or coffee pots that are programmable to greet us in the morning with our favorite coffee, prepared in our favorite way. No matter how elaborate and time-consuming that preparation might be, you can find a coffee robot able to accomplish it (for the right price, of course).

All of us share a long experience of automated doors, ticket kiosks, and soda machines. And after all, what is a store, but a dispenser of goods; a sort of expanded soda machine about which one walks and with which one interacts from the inside?

Indeed, with the rapid spread of self-checkout machines, this metaphor takes on more and more real meaning. Human-Device Interaction researchers focus on bridging the “gulf of evaluation” and the “gulf of execution.” That is, how can we design the soda machine so that it is easy to understand and use?

First, we know that the user has some concept of what it is that they want to happen: Insert money, receive soda. So the focus of study here is on the user’s internal model of the process in which she wishes to engage.

Second, we know that the internal machinery of the soda machine must be designed in a manner that allows it to perform its functions: Keep the soda cold and ready for dispensing, receive and safely store money, and dispense soda in exchange for that money. It is quite possible to create a massive variety of soda machines strictly from the viewpoint of the action sequences necessary to accomplish the machines’ functions. And, of course, most of these would be difficult or confusing, not to mention potentially dangerous, for consumers to use.

The trick, of course, is meeting somewhere in-between: to bridge what HDI researchers sometimes call the “gulf of evaluation” and the “gulf of execution.” That is, the machine must first make it clear what its purpose is, in a manner that correlates to the user’s goal: If the user wants a cold soda, it should be clear that the machine is present and capable of providing such. This is bridging the “gulf of evaluation”: the user must be able to imagine that the thing in front of him is able to meet her psychological goals.

Next, the user must be able to evaluate how the machine might be coaxed into meeting her goals. That is, the “gulf of execution” must be overcome by building perceptual-psychological bridges between the presentation, or state, of the machine, and the existing knowledge of the user. The goal is to make it clear how the user might bring about the desired result through her actions toward those parts of the machine that present themselves and provide opportunities for manipulation.

When all of this really ‘clicks,’ you get what is called “Pleasurable Engagement”… that hard-to-define thing that we readily identify as the key to, say, Apple’s success. Importantly, we note that pleasurable engagement seems to occur most readily when the task at hand makes sense, provides an outlet for agency, and has a predictably positive outcome.

You know by now where this is going: It’s not just the products you make or use that deserve attention from the viewpoint of bridging the gulfs of evaluation and execution. It’s also your packaging, shelving, and communications.

On one hand, you have to provide information to consumers that helps them know what to look for, as well as what to expect from your product. Knowing what to look for is really about evaluating the stimuli in front of you, in concert with holding in mind your goals. Bridging the gulf of evaluation is largely about understanding the form of the consumer’s internal representation, or internal model, of the problem or need state your product is designed to meet, so that you can present your product in a manner consistent with what consumers might expect from a solution.

On another hand, consumers need to know where to look for your products, and how to find the product that best suits their needs or desires. That is, consumers need help finding and purchasing the right item for their needs. Bridging this gulf of execution is about being where you might be expected to be, and being easy to differentiate, identify, and purchase.

Of course, the information necessary to answer these questions is very much in the purview of the neurosciences. Indeed, many cutting-edge HDI and HCI researchers now reside at the interface between their traditionally design-oriented, creative discipline and the modern neurosciences, which provide the data, methods, and disciplined theoretical framework necessary to make continued progress in the struggle to maintain the usability of ever more complex and befuddling technology.

The critical difference for our purposes in this post are differences of language: Considering your own products, services, and retail environments, what can you learn simply by looking at the interface between your business and your customers through the lens of these basic HDI terms in place of whatever language you use now? What is the “external model” that you present to your consumers? What is the “internal model” that your consumer brings to the identification and evaluation of your product, store, or service? What does the consumer expect; what does she think she’s looking for?

What form does your attempt to bridge the “gulf of evaluation” take, and how might you make your purpose and value proposition more clear? Are you communicating clearly about what your product/service/store is for? Are you making it easy for the consumer to find your  product, navigate your store, or engage your services?  What form does your attempt to bridge the “gulf of execution” take, and how might you make it easier for a consumer to execute on their intention to purchase something from you?

-Cyrus H. McCandless