Tag Archives: corporation

Market segments slice us up: why I care little about your age, race, sex

I hate market segmentation. At best, it’s boring. At worst, it’s misleading. I don’t trust it. I especially hate using market segments for small studies. How much do you really have in common with someone just because they are your same age and race? And why should I care? I’m not talking about cultural identity, that’s a different story. I’m not talking about large studies. Market segments can be OK when we’re looking at 1000s of people. The US census is a good thing – how much are people making, what is their education level, is this skewed by race or income etc. Great!

I’m talking about making and selling products to me and some other folks just because we’re the same on paper. I do research studies of small sample sizes for companies to give them information about their customers’ lives and daily experiences in order to help make good products and services for them. I’ll interview 6, 20, maybe 40 people to get a sense of their daily lives, their struggles, their goals and whatever else they feel like is worth sharing on a particular topic – anything from driving sedans to eating organic foods to using office furniture…whatever the company wants to know more about.

Why market segments suck ass for small sample sizes is that they’re not representative of the larger population. Let’s say my project was to study writers who publish articles online. I might interview a handful of writers with a wide range of backgrounds – range of years of experience, age, ethnicity, gender, location, topics they write about, ways they publish – I want to catch a wide variety. I want to look at a big range because similarities will be all that much more interesting if we compare people that initially appear to be different. If ten writers of different backgrounds tell me, “it takes 2 years of  publishing for free before anyone will pay you,” now, wow, that’s surprising. The juicy part is looking across market segments and arbitrary categories to get to the meat of what people are saying and doing. I couldn’t take three of those writers who happen to be black and who happen to write poetry and say, “black writers write poetry.” It’s not true, it’s not representative, it’s misleading.

 
And that’s why small, qualitative studies aren’t good at answering every type of question. If you want to know how big the market for self-inflating soccer balls is, I can’t help you with small samples. If you want to know what some barriers to exercising are in suburban American, then, Hello, My name is Ethnography. But don’t ask me for barriers to exercise and then ask how many people I talked to own soccer balls, and oh, were they Hispanic? Sigh.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Making Culture Through Experiments – Notes on Culturematic

I just read Grant McCracken’s new book Culturematic. (Finally, an anthropologist who writes like a human!) Here are some notes, not a review, just notes to help me keep track of ideas.

- A culturematic is a little machine for making culture. It is designed to test the world, discover meaning, and unleash value (p.3)

- Objectives of the book: 1. To catch up the cultural side of innovation to technology 2. To take innovation from trendy to practical 3. To save innovation from bureaucratic bludgeoning 4. To describe what’s happening “out there” 5. To create a new model of business creativity 6. To keep branding/marketing experimental 7. “Fix” startups so that they experiment more 8. Help individuals put things out in the world that will reward them (both monetarily and emotionally)  (p.5-8)

- Culture is changing faster than ever and the future is inscrutable. Old models and frameworks can’t help us predict what is to come. Corporations are in trouble if they don’t break old patterns/find new patterns. “An inscrutable future is antithetical to the corporation.” Only when problems are clear, are the systems within a corporation setup to efficiently manage and resolve them. (p.31)

- EXPERIMENT, EXPERIMENT, EXPERIMENT. Create a “photo pour, a stream of possibilities neither too formed by our expectations nor completely random.” “A series of experiments.” (p.42)

- Labs within larger institutions should not hold their ideas prisoner, but let their ideas go into the world. The more tests you throw out there, the more information you get back.

- Super interesting because I know a bunch of people living in France: “The French…have lost some of their feeling for cultural invention…Paris, with its centrist tendency, state sponsorship, and patrician intellectuals, is a dangerous place for ideas.” (Boom!)

- Culturematics do not have a clear objective, they capture our attention, are focused (limited scope – often bounded by time or place), they are doable by others, are exploratory but clever enough not to be 1000 random ideas hoping that something sticks. They are playful, yet serious, and aim to change the way we think about something, often by splicing together unexpected things/people/ideas.

- My new fave word: jejune.

- Examples of culturematics: James Franco, Dan Harmon’s Channel 101, SNL Digital Shorts, whysoserious.com…many, many more. So many great examples in this book.

Anthropology love

I love how McCracken puts culturematic successes into (mainly US) context, bringing in examples from post-WWII  food consumption (p. 82) to the rise of “low brow” taste in middle class suburbs (p. 127).

I also love how he makes anthropology accessible to the masses by explaining what it can do in plain language, sometimes explicitly citing anthropology/-ists and sometimes injecting it directly into the culturematic concept.

- Challenging assumptions. “Designed to dig down into the cultural assumptions that organize our world, and then rework these assumptions to create new value.” (p.88) AND “for the CEO…find the assumptions inside” (p.225)

- “Bad is often better than bland.” (p. 124) Working with designers, I noticed that they are much more concerned with “good” and “bad” behavior and “good” and “bad” design, outcomes, etc. than any anthropologist I know.

- Breaking down categories, splicing them, mixing and matching (p. 136), blurring boundaries (p. 159)

- “Be an anthropologist” and write your own local ethnographies (p. 191)

- Discussion of “third places” (p. 214)

Questions:

“Culturematics…should aid the corporation, encouraging it to play, embracing even projects that are quirky and inconsiderable.” I’ve worked in corporations where play was limited to keep up appearances. Especially during a recession, it was not appropriate to even seem like we were having too much fun while working because it could be misconstrued as wasting time. How do you build play into corporate culture if it’s not there from the beginning?

Does a culturematic have to be successful to exist? How is success or value defined? What is a failed culturematic?

——

Now time to make my own…

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Over-personalized. Google, I need some space.

Google’s constantly being praised and criticized for its products and policies. This means it’s right where it should be, on the edge, always pushing the boundaries of technology and users’ comfort levels.  In general, I love Google products. “Googling” is probably my main go-to internet activity. What’s the population of Argentina? Google it. How many ounces in a pound? Google it. I’ve been using gmail for years. Picasa, YouTube, Google docs, even google+ a little bit.

However, this recent bleeding of services so that all Google products are connected and they are all personalized to me is too much, too fast. This goes much further than feeling as if my privacy is being invaded, because I actually don’t mind most of their privacy policy. What they’ve done by making everything hyper-personalized, is that I no longer know what data is private, shared, or completely public. This is highly anxiety-producing.

When I search [embarrassing key words here] and two pictures I took and three of my contacts’ profile thumbnails show up in the search it freaks me out!! I know that Google’s been personalizing and filtering searches for a long time, but I at least had the impression that my searches were private. And I especially had the impression that my photos and my contact lists were private. I even had a false comfort that my Google search results were more or less similar to others’ searches, and by googling my name I might get a sense of what others might see. Yes, Eli Pariser, I know that it was a false comfort, but it felt comfortable, nonetheless. Now, My google+ images that I have not shared with anyone come up in my Google searches and it feels as if they’ve been leaked, made public somehow. Just last night I tried to privately share photos from my friend’s bachelorette party on Picasa, and they automatically uploaded to google+, not Picasa. Maybe they weren’t shared with anyone, but it felt like they were. And I definitely don’t want them coming up in my searches without my control. It made me so uneasy that I deleted the album.

I need more control over what is shared or not, public or not. And I need visual cues that assure me that my stuff is either public or not. Let’s make some walls around what is mine, what is yours, and what is for the world. OK? Physical stuff, a house for example, is divided into public and private spaces. Guests know to stay in the public spaces (which may differ from one culture to the next). They don’t usually go digging through your underwear drawer the first time they come over, but they probably stay in the foyer and living room, for example.

My Google house needs major renovations. The load-bearing wall is crumbling, my bathroom is in the backyard, my closets are open for all to see. I don’t trust Google to keep different types of data separate.

Good news, this can be fixed! Let’s do some user research, some participatory design so that users help create the blueprints for their Google data houses, and let’s put the walls back up where they belong.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: