
Waiter, There's Pseudo-Science in My Soup - alexandros
http://www.fastcompany.com/1554158/waiter-theres-pseudo-science-in-my-soup?partner=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company+Headlines%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
======
rabidsnail
I know nothing about shipping physical products, but how difficult would it be
to make 50 different kinds of labels, ship each kind to a different set of
stores, and measure the sales of each store? That seems like it would be more
reliable than trying to detect differences in people's "emotional responses".

~~~
clistctrl
maybe, but I think there are forces involved besides the label which could
alter the results. For instance, what if the weather is colder in Test Space 1
so soup sales increase not because of label, but because of desire for some
warm soup. Maybe soup sales are down at test space 2 because that particular
location had a super sale last week so a large portion of the local consumers
are no longer in the soup market this week.

~~~
tel
You'd use the statistics from the likely huge amount of sales data that
Campbell almost certainly already has to adjust for things like that. You'd
also have a magnificent sample size to play around in.

------
petercooper
What an attitude the author of this piece has. He keeps referring to "pseudo-
science" and uses scare quotes all over.

 _Campbell's chooses "neuromarketing" over consumer feedback in rebranding its
iconic soup cans._

Of course it does. It's trying to sell as many cans of soup as possible, not
please a focus group. Implement what ultimately works, not just what customers
request.

 _Of course, this smacks of the same pseudo-scientific marketing bullshit_

Is this guy totally unaware that there _is_ an art to persuasion (some of it
grounded in results from scientific studies, though not all) and packaging?
It's not like astrology. There are psychological tricks and shortcuts that are
taken in most high end products and advertising to make them perform better.

~~~
mbreese
They used a sample size of 40 to determine the packaging for a multi-million
(billion?) dollar company. Even if they used every possible technique to
capture the "emotional attachment" to a label, it wouldn't be a large enough
sample size to be statistically significant.

If you're going to go to the trouble to run the tests, at least use a large
sample size. There is no way they could have gauged the entire soup buying
population with just 40 people.

Like what was mentioned elsewhere in this thread: they would have been better
off shipping 50 redesigns to various places and seen how they did in the
marketplace.

