Questions raised in this month's column about the possibility of an era of marketing productivity based on innovative research techniques evoked a number of skeptical comments. However, in defense of such techniques, B. V. Krishnamurthy pointed out that research has shown that "95 percent of new products fail within five years ... To the extent that a few, well-chosen customers might provide valuable insights into what would improve the quality of life, Professor Zaltman's ideas might be just what marketing has been looking for..."
A more common line of thinking among respondents concerned the misuse of such techniques. As Tom Henkel put it, "I'm sure the same companies that wasted time and money on poorly designed surveys and focus groups will engage in similarly misguided neuroscience and psychological marketing initiatives."
Svetodar Yosifov raised an equally interesting question of whether it is more important to obtain the thinking of a few potential customers or to focus on dissatisfied current users of a product or service. As he said, "Improving the ways in which a company listens to its customers and actually implements the customers' 'voice' into action is the way to reach a 'golden era' in marketing productivity."
Whether the real potential for improvement in marketing productivity primarily lies in the minds and behaviors of existing or potential customers will be a continuing source of debate. To the extent that both groups are important to a marketing organization, which group is addressed most effectively by emerging techniques relying on neuroscience, particularly the exploration of the subconscious feelings that may or may not drive behavior? Will such techniques enable an organization to anticipate the desires and needs of significant numbers of customers? Or will it lead to the introduction of new products and services that fail because they are ahead of their time or based on misinterpretations of consumers' subconscious thoughts? What do you think?