ok the conversation was about the validity of insights and not about buyers you morons. i think the guy who likes to pick out random points from others arguments just to disparage what seems like a design group is somewhat butthurt about something. research is only data pure and simple. take away your butthurt feelings and see things for what they are and there is always something to learn. it's a guide to make a decision. not the decision
14 replies (most recent on top)
But like it or not the buyer decides what the consumer is offered, not you. Learn to convince with reason and evidence.
Must be a sales guy's comment who always over ships to pad his own numbers. In case you were wondering, being a buyer doesn't necessarily make you smart or able to see the future. So slow your flow angry joe.
ha ha - dumb buyers are only dumb if they didn't buy your product, or dropped it after it didn't sell. Because it was either a crap toy, or there wasn't any marketing behind it. Productivity is what rules buyer's decision - if they're making more money per foot with another brand or item than your toy, yours gets cut.
"Dumb Buyers"? Why - because they don't like the crap you designed and slaved over? Grow up. Get used to working hard and suffering - it's what grown ups do to build a career and life. Learn WHY the buyer said no and understand their perspective - you'll be better off for it.
Let's do some more testing on the idea of testing to see if testing works run by the testing dept.
So what you're saying is that testing works great in a controlled environment, no shipping problems, idiot buyers, economic factors, unexpected competition or general acts of god.
So pretty much works in non-real world conditions then.
if you treat research like god's word then you're gonna get b--ch slapped by reality every time.
Research can give you insights on play patterns, needs of kids that can then help give insight and inspiration to designers. In all my years of viability tests, they were very good at picking out the crap toys that no one wanted - but that the teams or part of the teams didn't have the balls to kill before viability. Radical virtual tennis? Some of the dumber HW sets also would S&#t the bed in testing. What testing can tell you is that if kids prefer a toy over other toys, if your distribution is optimal, you have advertising (TV, print, in-store) and that there's no disruptors in the marketplace, your toy could do well. The challenge is when every brand wants to have tons of segments (looking at the Girls team here) where there's only a few pegs of product - that won't work.
So like most things, it does still work, but many times design and marketing don't like being told that they spent months on a toy concept that kids think s---s, and will then question viability and research vs. s---ing it up and realizing some toy concepts (Shorties) should have been killed at MDR (or whatever the hell it's called now)
Is MS still the head of research?
Does not make a lick of difference nor does it guarantee success any more than a coin toss.
All it provides is cover for spineless execs and visionless leaders. You don't need the stein report to tell you where things are going. No one wants stem toys. Shut up already. Its homework disguised as a toy. Kids know this. There is no phygital. Just stop. You're better off reading tarot cards and wired magazine. What the shore is providing is his expertise in nothing.
It is all smoke and mirrors. I worked at another toy company that used the same "experts" and had an inside research office. We never had one decent concept come out of all that expense. Same here. It is all useless talking and back slapping.
Liars figure and Figures lie. It's like baseball stats - you can always be #1 if you can control who you compare yourself to.
It's all speculation. The math behind it can be made to look however you need.
Time for the dr. to move on.