Better Wrong than Right? Delivering the “Bad” Market Research News (A)1 Under most circumstances Larry Rogers, Product Marketing Manager, would not have asked his product marketing team to change their market research results before reporting them to Senior Vice President of Marketing, Sean Morrison. But these were not “normal” times. Global Personal Technologies’ “HandsOn” personal digital assistant (PDA) product line had taken off and there was pressure from above to expand sales even more. Senior leadership wanted to move aggressively on one of two product line enhancements: they expected the first of them to have a shorter time to market and a higher profit margin but the other would deliver a better quality user experience. The market research results were suggesting that consumers preferred the latter product line extension. Larry knew this was not what leadership and in particular Sean Morrison, wanted to see. All Larry needed was a slight shift in the data preference points on the consumer map that he would present to senior management. Sean would be happy and Larry and his team would not have to withstand Sean’s likely intense questioning and criticism. Larry Rogers had joined Global Personal Technologies (GPT) shortly after receiving his MBA. An engineer by training, he wanted to bring together his technical background with a passion he had developed in his MBA program for marketing. GPT turned out to be a very good fit for Larry and within 6 years, he had moved through the ranks of his division to take a leadership role as Product Marketing Manager with responsibility for their PDA product line. Larry never expected the PDA product line to explode as it did. A product that had been selling about 3,000 units a month sold 75,000 units in the first month after launching GPT’s new entry – the “HandsOn,” so named because it was the first GPT PDA to be truly compact, with a price point that put it in direct competition with the product leaders. Great pricing, combined with a premium quality product that perfectly filled a consumer need, sent monthly sales of the Hands-On soaring and within two years, the division was selling millions of units each month.
As sales increased, pressures mounted in Larry’s division. The division had become critical to GPT as a source of revenue and profits. Sean Morrison was a demanding, driven executive with little tolerance for views different from his own, and he had strong ideas about how to keep sales strong through Hands-On continual product enhancements. While Larry had a good relationship with Ellen Robinson, the amiable division general manager to whom he reported, he found Sean intimidating. For his part, Larry tried to handle these pressures and the unprecedented growth of this product as best as he could. He urged both his own team and senior management to keep their focus on how to best respond to what customers wanted and cautioned against losing sight of the fundamentals that would allow sustainable profitability in the service of quick growth spurts. And he tried to ride the wave, finding himself unexpectedly at the center of a marketing opportunity that while exciting, pushed his engineer’s soul to work at a pace and with a set of objectives that went well beyond simply creating and promoting great technology. In general, Larry’s seniors, peers, and direct reports viewed him as a highly competent professional. He relied on a collaborative style of management and worked closely with a talented and capable staff to meet the market challenges confronting them. Many of his staff came to GPT with strong corporate marketing experience in other firms and MBAs from elite business schools. They were technically sophisticated as well, and Larry prided himself on his efforts to demonstrate that he valued their insights, encouraging them to play an active role in decision-making. The most pressing and immediate issue facing Larry and his marketing team was the evaluation of which of two Hands-On product enhancements GPT should pursue. GPT was considering adding a removable battery feature. One option involved minor product design changes. Leadership strongly favored this option because of the relatively quick time to make this product change, and introduce the product to the market. The other option was for a removable battery with a longer life, a feature consumers might like but one that would require more significant product redesign and a longer period for getting the product to the market. Larry asked his team to conduct some market research and report their results back to him. When consumer preferences were mapped according to price and product features, consumers preferred, by a small margin, the removable battery with the longer life. Larry dreaded having to present these results and endure what he knew would be an assault by Sean. And as Larry well knew, in the end Sean would do what he wanted to do, despite what the market research results revealed. Sitting in a small conference room and reviewing the market research results, Larry struggled with what to tell his team. Larry wondered whether it was worth it for him and his team to stand by these results. Even Larry felt in his gut that going with Sean’s preference might be the better option. Larry turned to his market research manager and two of his product managers and said, “Let’s just make a small shift here where the shorter-life removable battery shows up on our consumer preference map – it’s really not much of a change at all.” The market research manager nodded her head in agreement with Larry’s suggestion. But the other two product managers seemed surprised and said nothing immediately. Just then, Larry’s assistant appeared at the table and let Larry know that his 1:30 p.m. conference call was ready to start. Larry nodded at him, and turned back to his team: “I have to run now. See what you can do with these data as we were just saying and then let’s take a look at the presentation again.
Thanks!” He stood up and walked off briskly to take his next call, feeling both uncomfortable at what had just transpired and relieved for an excuse to escape. The three managers looked after him for a moment and then turned to face each other. Although the market research manager had nodded assent to Larry’s suggestion, the two product managers were not comfortable with the idea of falsifying data. After all, what’s the point of doing rigorous research if one could just “fictionalize” the results to suit pre-existing preferences? And frankly, they felt all the more strongly precisely because they had observed and learned from Larry’s own commitment to treating data with integrity. They had observed and understood the pressures on Larry, as well as the team, as a result of the phenomenal success of their product. They wanted to believe his suggestion was due to the very real stress that they all felt whenever they met with Sean. Apparently, Larry would do many things to avoid yet another confrontation with the irascible senior vice-president but they felt convinced that his latest request was not a reflection of his true values. What could they say to make this point? What arguments could they make and what support could they offer Larry that would enable him to change his direction?
Questions:
What are the main arguments the team is trying to counter? That is, what are the reasons and rationalizations they need to address?
What’s at stake for the key parties, including those with whom the team disagrees?
What levers/arguments can the team use to influence those with whom they disagrees?
What is the team’s most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations they need to address?