https://researchopenworld.com/optimizing-consumer-involvement-in-cosmetics-at-point-of-purchase-a-mind-genomics-exploration/#

We present a novel approach to understand what women want when they go to a high-end store to buy beauty products. We embed a survey into an experiment, presenting systematically varied vignettes about shopping for beauty products. Different messages are combined in a systematic way, with the respondent required to assign a rating to the entire combination. A deconstruction of the responses to the contribution of elements reveals different points of view held by those who respond. These four segments are Focus on self-confidence; Focus on the product/expert; Focus on the experience; and Focus on nothing specific. These four mind-sets can be identified by a short interaction with the salesperson, or with a computer tablet, smartphone, and appropriate, sales-driving message given to the shopper. Introduction During the past two or three decades a swell of interest in the shopping experienced has swept over the world of consumer package goods. Whereas in the 1960’s to 1980’s it sufficed to know what consumers liked and wanted to hear, and what packages would appeal to them, attention in the late 1980’s and onwards has turned to the experience of shopping. By experience we do not mean just the perception of packages on the shelf, but rather on the experience, such as the interaction of the shopper with the store, and with the people who work there. Our focus here is the experience of the department store, and specifically the make-up counter found in high end department stores where specialists, individuals paid by the cosmetics manufacturers, sell their expensive make-up products to women shoppers. One need simply visit any high-end department store around the world to see these make up professionals competing for the shopper’s attention, often gifts, expertise, or just an easy way to purchase. The question motivating this research was quite simple. It was ‘just what does it take to make a shopper interested in purchasing from a specific vendor, with a stand at the store?’ In more concrete terms, what does the shopper want, and what specifically must one say to the shopper to drive purchase at the vendor’s stand. The approach is this study is motivated by the emerging science of Mind Genomics, focusing on the relation between messaging given to consumers/customers, and choice. The objective of Mind Genomics is to uncover the persona of an individual for a given experience, such as shopping for cosmetics. Often the unspoken hope is that somehow by minding terabytes of purchase data, one might figure out exactly what to say to a specific individual about a specific product. The result is an explosion of methods using pattern recognition and artificial but rarely the simple prescription of what exactly to say to a specific person who presents herself at the cosmetic counter and will only 30 seconds of her time before moving on. By uncovering the mind-set of a shopper at the time of shopping in the store, the salesperson or company representative can use the proper language to drive interest and a sale. In a sense, Mind Genomics identifies the mind-set of a shopper for a topic, and prescribes what to say, following the way an experienced salesperson ‘sizes up’ a customer and knows what are the word which might sway the customer. Mind Genomics is based upon the approach in mathematical known as Conjoint Measurement [1,2] and Information Integration Theory [3]. Many of the traditional uses have been methodological in nature, showing the power and application of new variations of the technique. It is only in the past three decades that conjoint measurement, in the form of Mind Genomics has been used to create banks of knowledge, rather than one-off exercises in method. Mind Genomics has been used for more than three decades in the consumer products world [4–6], as well as finding use in the world of health to communicate the right messages with patients [7], along with efforts in car sales and insurance sales (unpublished data from author HRM.) The application of Mind Genomics is thus appropriate. The objective of this study is to determine whether a woman accustomed to shopping in a high-end store for cosmetics could be understood in terms of the messages to which she respondents, and whether, in fact, is there more than just one mind-set for shoppers. Howard Moskowitz (2019) Optimizing Consumer Involvement in Cosmetics at Point of Purchase: A Mind Genomics Exploration ARCH Women Health Care, Volume 2(2): 2–11, 2019 Discovering a shopper’s mind-set in almost an instantaneous way (15–30 seconds) might well help to increase the sales. Furthermore, the interaction would go a long way towards removing the fear of being ‘followed’ on the web through cookies, and having intrusive advertising pushed as one traverses the internet, either for shopping or for information. In today’s world, where information is overflowing, there is no dearth of information about a person. There is, however, a massive lack of actionable data for specific situations encountered every day. Moreover, there is an absence of methods which quickly ‘understand’ the mind of a consumer in virtually any area, methods based on experimentation. Mind Genomics provides one way to generate that data. The ingoing premise of Mind Genomics is that for virtually any situation that can be dimensionalized, one can uncover the relevant personas or mind-sets which co-exist in a population of consumers, mind-sets. One needs to do small experiments to uncover these mindsets. These mind-sets cannot easily, readily, quickly and inexpensively be uncovered simply by KNOWING WHO A PERSON IS. That is, KNOWING WHAT A PERSON THINKS is different, and often elusive, not easily captured by today’s technologies such as Big Data. The research, in spirit, is based in part on the breakthrough ideas of Nobelist Daniel Kahneman, who talked about the two modes of thinking, the rational thought, System 2, and the more typical mode in shopping, System 1, where impulse leads [8]. Method Mind Genomics begins by identifying the topic, then asking a set of questions, and for each question providing a set of six answers. For this case of Mind Genomics, we proceed with the creation of six questions, each of which is given six answers. The questions and answers are shown in Table 1. There are no fixed questions and answer, but there is the stipulation that the questions should ‘tell a story,’ in the same way that a reporter uses the ‘what, how, where, why, and who’ to tell a story. The questions are never shown to the respondents, but only used to develop answers. It is the answers or really the systematic combination of answers that are shown to the respondent. As Table 1 shows, the questions and answers do not rigidly fit into a framework. The real reason for the format is ‘bookkeeping.’ When two answers or elements are put into the same silo or answer the same question, they never will appear together in a vignette. The bookkeeping system is totally transparent to the analysis, which ends up looking at the 35 answers or elements as completely independent ideas. Mind Genomics combines the answers in Table 1 into short, easy-to-read vignettes, using an experimental design [9,10]. The experimental design stipulates the specific combinations to be tested. Each respondent evaluated 63 unique combinations, the vignettes. The design is structured as follows: 1. Each question contributes an answer from its five answers 30 times in the 63 vignettes, and absent from 33 vignettes. 2. Each answer appears 6 times in the 63 vignettes, and absent from 57 vignettes. 3. The vignettes are of unequal sizes. The underlying experimental design calls for 31 vignettes comprising four answers, 22 vignettes three answers, and 10 vignettes comprising two answers. 4. Each respondent evaluated a unique set of combinations. That is, the experimental design was fixed mathematically, ensuring that all 35 answers or elements were statistically independent of each other. However, each of the 251 respondents evaluated a unique set of 63 vignettes, enabling the experimental design to cover a great deal of the so-called design space of possible combinations. Running the Study The 251 respondents who participated were selected to be beauty product shoppers. The study used a commercial e-panel provider, specializing in these types of on-line studies. The respondents had already signed up to participate in various studies and were incentivized by the panel company. No one from the researcher group ‘knew’ the identity of the panelists, who could only be identified by their answers, and by an extensive, self-profiling questionnaire administered AFTER the evaluation of the 63 test vignettes. Figure 1 shows the orientation page. The page provides very little data about the purpose of the study, and the nature of the test stimuli. The reason for the paucity of information is that we want the respondent to be free of any expectations, so that the answers reflect her attitudes alone. The only information of any relevance beyond the topic is the fact that the orientation page reinforces the fact that all vignettes differed from each other. Although this might seem a bit excessive, the reality of the Mind Genomics studies is that the same elements repeat in different vignettes. Some respondents are upset, feeling that they have ‘already evaluated that vignette.’ The orientation page dispels that worry. Figure 2 presents an example of a four-element vignette. No effort is made to connect the rows of text. The objective is not to present a densely worded paragraph containing all the information, but rather to throw the different ideas at the respondent, and let the respondent evaluate the combination. The respondent often does so in an intuitive manner, rather than in a considered, intellectual manner, precisely in the manner desired. The objective of Mind Genomics is to pierce the intellectual veneer and move to the emotionally-driven aspect