Scientific American just emailed me a survey. An avid reader, I was eager to respond. (I admit that I was also eager for an excuse to take a momentary break from the project I was working on at the time.) 

A survey question asking readers to opine as to whether a gift offer would motivate them to subscribe troubled me. That’s no way to determine direct marketing strategy. So, I emailed them. Yeah, like they care what I think.

I sent the email to the link they provide for “feedback or concerns.” It bounced back as “undeliverable.” 

Not that my effort in writing it was wasted. My unasked-for advice might be useful to others doing market research, so I have pasted it below. If you know anyone at Scientific American whom you think might be interested, please send him or her a link to this post.

—Steve Cuno 

My would-be advice to Scientific American

May I make an observation about your survey questions regarding gift offers? 

Any direct response pro — which I happen to be — will tell you never to ask such a thing in a survey. People don't know and cannot accurately predict what will motivate them to purchase. The valid way to find out if a gift offer works is to test it in the real world and count the replies.

That said, I can already tell you the answer, because our industry has been testing gift offers nonstop for over 100 years. The answer is an unqualified YES. Gift offers always increase sales. 

Perhaps I should qualify that. The right gift offers always increase sales. Which is the right one? Again, don't ask your subscribers. Test various gifts and see which one emerges as the winner. Then, take that winner and "roll it out" to the rest of your market. Based on my experience, I'm betting that offering an item like a calculator, Starbucks gift card or duffle bag will outperform offering literature. But I've been wrong. Which is why I always test. 

In short, I recommend a more scientific approach. Which would seem to make sense, given who you are.

I love the publication. Please keep up the great work.
1 Comment
 
 
Beware statistics. Or at least beware how people wield them.

A friend was at work on a public service campaign aimed at meth abuse. Research had shown that young moms represented more addicts than any other demographic, and my friend's objective was to change that. I facetiously suggested that one way of attaining that objective would be to get other groups to increase their usage until it outstripped that of young moms.

As wisecracks often do, this one illustrates a problem. Statistics comparing where you are relative to where someone else is can be meaningless. A better question is, where are you relative to where you wish to be?

Utahans raise a fuss when they learn that their state spends less than any other per student on education. Yet by itself, this statistic isn't necessarily damning. If all other states suddenly dropped their spending to less than Utah's, would Utah's level of spending suddenly be OK? Never mind what other states spend. The real question is whether Utah spends enough, spends it wisely and spends it effectively. While I suspect the answer to all of the above is no, comparing Utah's spending to that of other states doesn't establish as much.

—Steve Cuno
1 Comment
 
 
One of my favorite clients is introducing a new product. He has strong opinions about the form it should take. So have I. But we both recognize that what his customers will buy is a question of fact, not opinion. So, together, we have devised a test to uncover the fact—before he goes too far in either direction. There will be no focus group or survey, because neither of these can reliably predict consumer behavior. Rather, this will be a valid, scientific test. Ah, for more clients like this one! Watch this blog. I hope to be be able to share the methodology and outcome soon.

Steve Cuno
Add Comment