Is it me?

Is it just me, or do orange juice brand managers seem more likely than just about anyone else to think their brands have the ability to come to life with distinct human personality traits and characteristics? Is it just one crazy person who keeps using Greenfield for this? Is it the whole industry? Someone help me understand this.

This is at least the third time I’ve seen one of these:

another juice grid

(Also, “warm?” You really want me to think about whether or not any of these refrigerated products could best be described as being “warm?” Because, ew.)


OH, COME ON. This is just ridiculous. I’m almost too fatigued looking at this to copy and paste it here, let alone fill it out. In fact, I think the only reason I’m continuing at all is so I can see what fresh horror awaits. How do they expect real people to answer things like this? Oh, right — because they promise us a sweepstakes entry in exchange for 35 minutes of our time. (No, really, they do:)

35 mins

Anyway, here’s what I’m yelling about now:

minute maid COME ON



Filed under answer choices, bad user experiences, Greenfield, incentives/compensation, Market Research, matrixes make me cry, web research

6 responses to “Is it me?

  1. Research_Vendor

    Ha. Idiots. It’s typical all right, but you can bet it is being driven by the moronic clients more than anything else. The other funny thing here is they probably decided they absolutely needed to do this immediately right now.

  2. *sigh*

    I know (or: I hope) we’re with a lot of people all trying to do our very best… But that does not prevent us, “the industry”, to come up with stuff like this! I mean; if you’re making your very first survey during a course in college you wouldn’t come up with something like this, but apparently “research methodology” doesn’t really matter to some people when it’s for real. (Or maybe they just don’t care about data quality, just about getting a lot of cells with data in the database.)

  3. ubu.roi

    It’s probably because of standardized questionnaires inherited from as much back as the ’80s. Concept tests, sales forecasts are serial offenders.

    You see, the questionnaire template has a brand variety awareness question, or whatever they call it. The wording is standard (the claim is that we need consistent wording because of the norms and databases – we don’t want to ruin 20 years of work because of a word change, do we now?). The client sends their full range of varieties, the researcher pastes it into the template and the scriptwriter imports it. This is how it ends up on yourscreen.

    It’s a process, a workflow, a procedure. It’s standardized and automated for efficiency and low costs. Nobody actually sits down to think about what they’re doing or take a good look at how it looks for the commodized panelist.

    Of course, it’s not always like that, but sometimes it is, and the results are apparent.

  4. ubu.roi

    …and it’s not just the clients, it’s the researchers as well, and research directors, and client service directors, and product managers who come up with research products (cheaper because they’re standardized!)

  5. Pingback: Greenfield: They’re Just Weird. (And why are they plagiarizing recipes from the BBC?) « Bad Research; No Biscuit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s