Insight is over-rated: Why ‘why’ is less important than ‘how’

Posted Oct 14 in Opinion, Uncategorized tagged Uncategorized

Comments

1. Ken

   Oct 14th, 2009

   Doesn't how always require some assumptions about why, and the more that you know about why, the more likely that how will work. Approaching any problem without some understanding of the underlying processes seems a good way to waste a lot of effort. I do agree though that overdoing the why also wastes a lot of time.

   

2. Fritz Bachen

   Oct 14th, 2009

   hi ken. right u are, but its a question about focus.

   

3. Marius

   Oct 20th, 2009

   Hi Fritz! I have recently discovered your blog and have thoroughly enjoyed reading through the archives.

   The type of insight you talk about seems to have suited an age where mass media ruled the earth, and while I think there was a time when branding campaigns had an impact, the rise of social media has put an end to this. Brands are now expected to demonstrate what they previously got away with telling use. Technology has allowed us to find the next black monolith of communication; we can now 'skip a step' and focus on action from the beginning. This provides companies with an opportunity to develop the most effective brands:

   According to symbolic interactionism (Mead and Blumer), people define the world and themselves based on interaction with each other. We interpret people’s reactions to our own actions, and adjust our personality accordingly. I guess we ultimate strive to be popular whilst staying true to our values and beliefs. It therefore seems that the most effective way for a company to develop its brand – i.e. personality – is through interaction with their consumers (facilitating interaction between their consumers is equally important, but for other reasons). The value of traditional research cannot be compared to that of the immediate and honest feedback received in interaction with empowered consumers; not to mention the improved ethos and respect of a company willing to do so.
   Lastly, when consumers invest time and intellectual energy in a brand, they will feel obliged to justify these investments. This increases the chance of consumers becoming brand advocates.

   Fritz, can you please explain to a Scandinavian what you mean by “rounded insights” (in your third reason for why there isn’t more interaction at the end of the article)?

   I hope this wasn’t too long

   Cheers
   Marius

   

4. hidden persuader

   Nov 16th, 2009

   It might sound as a post-hoc fallacy, but I still think you can't have a "how" whithout understanding the "why". You might incentivate consumers/audiences to change their behaviours (media or tangible products consumption, for ex.). But you still need to understand why they should go on that direction … and err, tell them why.

   

5. Fritz Bachen

   Jan 7th, 2010

   Hi Marius, taken a while to reply -sorry. Agree with your sentiments.By rounded insihts I simply meant having a broader focus on human behaviour as well as a deeper one (the why).

   Hidden persuader. Your right. Its a level of focus / degree Im discussing.

   

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

About Me

Fritz Bachen is a Consumer Psychologist and Founding Partner at Naked Communications. Fritz can be seen, read or heard at; The Gruen Transfer, ABC Radio (Sunday nights), Adnews columnist, as well as The Australian, Cleo, Mumbrella, Shop Till You Drop and so on. He speaks at numerous conferences on marketing, ideas, contemporary culture, and consumer behaviour. Fritz has degress in clinical psychology and commerce (marketing). A registered psychologist and has worked in private practice, forensic settings, advertising (Saatchi & Saatchi) and marketing consultancy (Added Value). He was also state under 12 chess champion on WA, and has a board game called The Analyst selling well in the Benelux countries.

Contact