From part 1… Current statistics vary depending upon the source but the failure rate for new product launches is somewhere between 67% and 90%. Has new product development research misclassified what success means for the brand? Are the right tools chosen to predict success or are the chosen relativities too formulaic such that all new products get judged as if one-size fits all?

But one size fits no-one, because different people have different needs.

When purchasing, consumers do not assess any single brand proposition against their needs but instead compare multiple competing propositions, both sequentially and simultaneously. And these comparisons are not made rationally in laboratory conditions but in the context of a continuously fluctuating environment shaped by the wider market tectonics of the marketing mix.

It is the confluence of consumers’ different needs and marketplace tectonics that shape the outcome of a brand’s potential, and hence its success or otherwise in the marketplace.

Of course, concept testing research cannot replicate this marketplace, but that does not mean that contextual observations should not guide what is considered to be a ‘successful’ concept – by both respondents and researchers alike.

Our experience suggests that there are some recurring considerations that, to a greater or lesser extent, shape consumers perceptions of products and brands and their suitability to meet needs – and that these considerations should therefore play a part in concept research design:

1) PRODUCT CONTEXT: the implications of a preferred choice in the context of other choices made (red wine with fish?).

2) INGREDIENTS: these considerations may be values based (organic, sustainable etc) or efficacy based (it does what it says on the tin). Much concept research only assesses ingredients rationally.

3) BRAND EXPERIENCE CONSIDERATION: reflecting a propensity towards the familiar and dependable (loyalty) or towards variety and inherent risk.

4) LEVEL OF EVANGELISM / INNOVATION: the passion for a category or need for novelty within it.

5) PROMOTION: the rewarding sense of a bargain; Some brands will only be purchased if they are on offer.

6) BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS: making limited resources go further.

7) PURCHASE JOURNEY LENGTH: a desire to shortcut decision making v enjoyment of the purchase process.

With different needs and consumer behaviours attached to every purchase journey, isn’t it time to change the way we measure the potential of new product success?

Coming next: Part 3 – How brand potential becomes brand reality.

Amazon has built itself both as a business and as a brand, and in an interview with Charlie Rose on PBS, Jeff Bezos demonstrated why it’s likely to stay that way.

Asked if Amazon was thinking of creating a bricks-based high street business to match its clicks-based internet business, his answer was clear a “Yes, but…”

“We would love to” he said “but only if we can have a truly differentiated idea. We don’t do a ‘me-too’ product offering very well. If a hundred companies are doing something and you’re the hundred and first, you’re not really bringing any value to society. And, typically the business results are not very good for something like that.”

Having identified the business concern he went to talk about the brand side of the question and the challenges Amazon would need to address if they were going to be successful “The question we always have before we were to embark on such a thing is ‘what’s the idea?’ What would we do that is different? How would it be better?  We want to do something that is uniquely Amazon, and if we can find that idea, and we haven’t found that idea yet, we would love to open physical stores.”

It’s a great example of an organisation recognising that decisions like this need to be a balance of business and brand and we applaud Mr Bezos’ clarity on the matter.

However if he would like some help in developing a differentiated and successful bricks and mortar concept, we would love him to call as we have a few ideas on how it might work in a uniquely Amazon way.

London is awash with pop-up shops these days. I don’t know how it is in other major cities in the UK but in the capital you can’t move for pop-up vintage shops, bars, restaurants, ice rinks, milkshake parlours and theatre shows. They are so cool that some have been officially recognised on TheCoolHunter blog http://www.thecoolhunter.com.au/article/detail/2118/movement-pop-up-cafe–london and so desirable that someone has gone to the arduous (and seemingly cool-defying) lengths of calenderising them http://www.londonpopups.com/. Most pop-ups leave within a month or so, and you are a fool to have missed them. Owners and consumers say that they like pop-ups because they have a grassroots feel and retain an element of surprise. Their offerings are exclusive and special.

Pop-ups strike me as a major shift away from the desire for security, safety and reliability which drives most companies’ investment in real estate. In the 1700s and 1800s, when high street banking came to be, sites chosen were impressive, sturdy buildings with a reassuring Greek or Roman influence, impregnable safehouses for bills and coins and the stoutest constructions on the high street.

Perhaps it’s a backlash fuelled by newfound lack of trust in these stony edifices that is driving interest in pop-up, unstable, fleeting and fashionable ways of doing business. The most respectable buildings on the high street have always been seen as slightly boring and behind-the-times compared to the edgiest of cafes and fashion stores housed in warehouses and squats, but now they are no longer seen as safe and secure, grand architectural statements have nothing left to say about the businesses and brands that they house. I wonder what the effect of a mainstream lean towards pop-ups might have for the high street at a wider level, and attitudes towards long-loved and flagship brands?

Our research predicted back in May that Obama would win a second term but also that he would win the swing states of Ohio and Florida (currently being processed Obama winning with 97% of votes collated) AND we also beat the pollsters and the bookies in all the states we tested in (Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Texas).

Why Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Texas? Because we knew that they have predicted the results of the election in 12 of the previous 13 elections.

Bookies had Romney as the favourite to win Florida and whilst it was continually polled in October, Romney was considered by most to be the eventual winner.

And we also know which parts of the candidates’ propositions drove voters’ choices!

Just think how our approach might be drive successful concept testing and portfolio management!

Disney’s purchase of Lucasfilm has stirred up a whole slew of worry and concern. Headlines like “When you wish upon a death star” and “May the mouse be with you” abound, but I have to admit that rather than “I have a bad feeling about this”, I have a good feeling about it.

From a brand perspective it seems an extraordinarily good fit; all-action family entertainment is the hallmark of the Star War franchise and is a perfect fit with what the Disney brand promotes. Indeed Disney has its own history of fantasy adventure films like “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea”

What’s more Disney’s record with some of its other purchases is pretty impressive.

When shortly after the takeover, the new Disney Pixar announced Toy Story 3, many were worried that Disney was just out to milk their new asset. The film however proved to be a huge box-office and critical success winning 2 Oscars and for some is seen as the best of the trilogy.

When Disney bought Marvel Entertainment, there were similar worries. Comic book fans worried about what the Magic Kingdom would do to its heroes and anti-heroes and yet Avengers Assemble allayed their fears and took £937million at the box-office globally.

Now the c