The desire for control is a marker which defines us as individuals, and for kids it is all the more important as a definition of their growing up: from the young baby who makes a grab for the milk bottle or Cheerios, to the toddler who insists upon putting on his own shoes. It is only much later on in life that we also learn to appreciate handing over control – at appropriate moments – and letting someone else make the decisions, fly the airplane, or do the hard work!

In our work with kids around the world, we aim to hand over the reins to kids as much as possible when working through a research project with them. This is an important that enables us to take a step back and pick up on what genuinely makes the kids tick.

I was particularly reminded during a project some time ago, just how important it is to create a context which enables the participants – in this case kids aged 10 to 12 – to take charge, willingly (and of their own accord) shed their inhibitions and hone into a given activity. We were testing new food flavourings. The young people’s involvement was based on their mixing various flavour components, testing them out and doing research amongst themselves to develop new and exciting flavour directions for the category in which we were working.

Setting the context was key, with the right balance of structure, but with enough freedom to allow the young people to blend and mix and create. They worked in teams in real labs and wore real lab coats – giving them a genuine feeling of being in control, but also fitting their aspirational drive of wanting to be treated as older. They became the food technicians for the two days, had a great deal of control and they were intently serious.

Some might call it play acting, and to a certain extent this is what it was. But play acting is vital in recreating scenarios which give the participants a desired sense of control and the freedom to create. As a direct result of conducting these flavour creation workshops we were able to deal with the kids’ innate fear of the new (neophobia) by allowing them to be a ‘partner’ in the research and development process. This in turn allowed our client to innovate and deliver desirable, healthier and nutritious foods – built on flavour directions of familiar and popular foods within the realm of the young people’s current diet.

A little control went a long way.

If I look back on the heady years, when we first started working with kids and their families, mum was generally one of the central figures in our research. Received wisdom was that she made most of the key decisions about feeding, clothing and educating the family. She had the key role to play. The kids pretty much did what she asked them to do; they toed the line (or dealt with the sometimes painful consequence). Am I giving away my age?

Mum was the primary influencer and motivator. Dad played a role – certainly – but it was usually mum who played the strong-handed roles of controller/organizer, disciplinarian, and so on… As a result, our research questions were aimed at her, with back-up and feedback from the kids of course – we looked to them for some of the finer details. The big decisions – the larger brush strokes – were all provided by mum. So when did the changes start happening? When did the roles begin to reverse? Indeed, what was the paradigm shift that has meant we now take our lead from the kids and look to mum to fill in the gaps and reinforce what we are hearing from the kids?

I guess it started when we realised that mums were increasingly becoming interested in being ‘friend’ as well as mum, they wanted to raise children differently, and no longer were kids ‘seen and not heard’. In a way, this gave the kids more power, and thus they learned to know their own minds best.

As we continued to dig deeper into what kids were telling us, we saw a whole new set of creative thoughts and possibilities unfolding, un-tethered by prejudices and unedited – quite fascinating raw material. There is no doubt that working with kids is exciting as well as challenging, their incredible candour means we can rapidly grasp at that which they are aspiring.

Having said that, we are also aware that mum has never been far behind the scenes. As her kids have seemingly taken over the reigns, a dimensionalised role of mentoring is coming to the fore. Now we see that we need to deeply understand this emergent power so as to get vital viewpoints from her mentoring perspective.

We have talked about a mother’s many facets or modes, from caring, to nurturing, educating, motivating, admonishing and releasing, and time and again we are struck that when deeply involved in getting our heads together with the kids that there still is this great force behind them: mum. She is now a new type of filter through which we should run our new-found ideas.

She again has a final word (but in a new way; a new style) and we should not forget to ask her for it!

My biggest challenge – and indeed frustration – is when research is actually used as a sledgehammer to kill new ideas, rather than to nurture and nudge good ideas along. This is not done deliberately, of course. But when research is used as a crutch; if the people involved feel unsure; if they don’t really allow the research findings to speak clearly for themselves – then research is going to be worthless at best, and damaging at worst.

In my years of working in research I have seen contrived research used to force through new (ill thought-out) ideas and I have attended numerous meetings where all the participants regale themselves with all different types of research and tangle themselves in confusion. I have also seen evaluative research kill ideas before the idea is really understood. It is these very mis-uses of research that strangle the NPD process and (sadly) give research a bad name.

Simplicity, clarity and trust in the tool box of distinct methodologies required for a given research question are key to creating a context in which NPD is more likely to flourish. We also need to understand the roles of different approaches and use these wisely. We need to know when to do exploration and when to do evaluation. Sadly, we often get these needs mixed up.

What is your research – murderer or nurturer?

Parents may struggle with it on a daily basis, but so too do those involved with food and beverage products for kids – from the new product developers, to the manufacturers, to the marketers. Somewhere in between we come along as researchers and attempt to throw some light and clarity on the subject.

One of the biggest hurdles appears to be in kids’ and parents’ understanding of nutrition and the core definition of a proper ‘balanced diet’. It will surprise you how elusive the concept of ‘balanced diet’ really is. Inevitably, on any research regarding more healthful food options, parents and kids alike explain the idea of balance as ‘as much good as bad’ – a sort of 50/50 equation. One can almost picture an old-fashioned scale, with confectionery and crisps on one side, and vegetables on the other.

What seems to be most important is to teach kids the actual concept of ‘good eating’. In other words, moving away from the referencing ‘good food’ vs ‘bad food’, but rather, focusing on the basic understanding that all foods are okay, some need to be eaten in moderation whilst others need to be consumed more frequently and in greater amounts – and in so doing, one’s physical and mental abilities are enhanced. (Wow – I was trying to simplify the statement, and found I got caught in a muddle – no wonder kids and parents have difficulty with the concept, too!)

In our years of working with children on and around healthier food issues, we have found that the most accessible concept of nutrition to kids is about the ‘big picture’, not individual products. Unfortunately, too many brands are forced to try and sell the concept of ‘nutritional’ or ‘good for you’ in one single product. It appears that this is a contributing factor in parents’ and kids’ current lack of real understanding about food and how it fits into a healthy lifestyle.

Kids need to see the bigger picture. They are motivated by numerous factors that make up this overview: from flavour and texture of the food, through to healthy role models and even peers playing important parts in their choices. We have seen this very successfully played out with the likes of LazyTown (a popular TV series for very young children) where healthy eating is portrayed as fun and funky, to kids’ more personal involvement in sports in which healthier choices and their benefits come to the fore.

Health is a personal choice of course and kids will struggle with a concept that impacts on them later in life, however there is no doubt that ensuring ‘healthier’ is delivered in the most appealing and accessible way possible is everyone’s responsibility for the sake of future generations.

And perhaps we all need to get our head around a proper definition of ‘balanced diet’…

I was recently reminded of this when researching new food ideas with young people aged 8 to 16 years. Whilst research typically tests each facet of a product idea and then brings them all together at the end, we realised early on in this project that this would give us a very unrealistic understanding of what the kids really were conveying.

Kids, tweens and teens buy into the whole product experience, not an individual part.  Most consumers – especially young people – are buying the total proposition, not usually only a part. The taste of the food is important (it always is – ‘taste’ is a cost of entry for food), but eating the product out of its packaging in the context of the young person’s real life gives much clearer guidance.  Importantly, the sum of the parts, in product development for kids, does not always equal the whole.  

Breaking down the elements that make up a brand is not how kids operate. They take a holistic approach and view the overall ‘experience’ through a wider lens – they need it to work in fine detail, but also want the big brush strokes and the immediate connections.

In order to get an accurate result the entire experience should be seen (and ideally experienced) in totality.  In the specific project about which I am referring, our overall objective relied on the fact that no element was taken unnaturally out of context;  we had to clearly demonstrate how all the elements worked together toward a total solution.

Simple as this may appear, it is sadly not how research is usually conducted. By re-aligning the entire way we delivered these new ideas to be experienced and evaluated, we were able to tap into how the kids related immediately to what we were referring – we had their interest and their engagement – something which is not always that easy to achieve with adults let alone young volatile minds.

Let’s think about things differently – or more correctly – let’s think about things the way consumers do. The whole, rather than the sum of its parts.

I don’t think I will ever cease to enjoy the thrill of exploring something new with young people. They are most often very open and curious, yet can also be at the same time quite cautious, too. This paradox is critical for us, as researchers, to understand. Our role in exploration is two-fold: firstly to establish a setting and context that will allow young people to be curious; and secondly, to reduce their fear. At the same time, we must tread a fine-line so that we don’t lead or guide our young participants to any conclusion.

One behaviour of young people that can skew research results, is when they are presented with something new and they want to appear cool and ‘grown up’ about it. This is particularly true when it comes to food and beverages. There is no doubt that a new type of X Box or iPod will immediately trigger a surge of genuine interest and curiosity. The same cannot always be said of a new flavour, a new texture or a new eating experience. Instinct immediately seems to leap in – kids will suddenly put their guard up when it comes to something new for their taste buds – a common manifestation of neophobia.

There are times however, and we have seen this happen, when product development teams get excited at the prospect of having found a new flavour combination no one has previously marketed to kids. One time I remember hearing of a group of the older kids claiming sushi was something they had tried and enjoyed. The younger kids in the setting were visibly impressed by these ‘cool’ kids who ate sushi and they too said they thought they would like it – some even venturing so far as to say they were pretty sure they had had it.

Because of the younger kids innate aspiration (the desire to be treated as older; to have the benefits of being older), they talked themselves into a really positive attitude about sushi, when many of them had no idea what it really was. If they had been told ‘raw fish’ I am sure there would have been increased recoil.

Needless to say, experience of sushi did not live up to their expectations and when the products were really explored, the young participants demonstrated a clear dislike for the sushi – despite how cool it made them feel to say they ate it.

Though ‘cool’ can help get kids interested, at the end of the day, being cool doesn’t always rule the final evaluation.

Marketing-speak calls this age the beginning of ‘tween’ years because it is beTWEEN child and teen, and covers the range between 8 – 12 years old. This age is more than marketing-speak, though. It is an important transitional age.

At around the age of 8 or 9 years, there is a brutal interruption in the fast-paced and ongoing development of children. The black and white world of the younger child opens up – this is the world in which ‘yes’ and ‘no’, ‘on’ and ‘off’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have much more understanding than ‘perhaps’, ‘maybe’ and ‘sometimes’. Importantly they start to realize that the world is not all black and white, and appreciate the ‘grey’ world. In stories they look for 3-dimensional characterizations; they get excited by dramatic conflict and challenges. They start to shun stories that they consider ‘baby-ish’ in which there is no challenge or in which the problem to be solved is ‘lame’.

In this age, the child begins to draw even greater attention to detail. It is not that these details weren’t noticed previously, but she/he will now more actively comment on them. Those comments can often be very amusing, and may be sharp and can shock or astonish adults. From these new observations, the young people of this age begin to make new rules for themselves (“if I lay on the left side of my bed, the monster won’t get me”) and the emotions are just beginning to be managed by the intellect.

In the past few days I have observed exactly this. I heard children take simple ideas and develop amazing, in-depth and complicated stories from their own imaginations. They took good ideas, added their own spark, and made constructive suggestions to heighten the story-telling. In doing so, they also kept me laughing and helped me really to enjoy their unique takes on the world.

Imagine an age, standing straddled between the innocence of childhood and the vying for independence of teens, and you see the world of the tween.

This, to me, was so much more evident as I hopped from one project with very low income consumers, and then immediately into the next with those that are considered affluent.

If I was to compare levels of life satisfaction and genuine positive attitudes, I would have to say that those with less, had much more. The smiles were warmer, the appreciation of what is truly important was deeper, and a more genuine sense of satisfaction in the success of others was really evident. In our discussions we laughed more, we cried more, we felt more – and we more quickly connected. My job as moderator was also easier in many ways – I didn’t have so many layers to work through to get to true insight.

Before you get bent out of shape, please understand that I am NOT suggesting that we need to be (or to keep other people) at or below the poverty level. I am firmly resolved to be a part of society that does something to help people from struggle and pain, and to work with them to become self-sufficient, strong, and a contributing member of society. I do feel, though, that sometimes when we have a lot we can forget those things that are truly valuable. We can learn from those that have a lot less and can still find joy and peace in the most basic things.

My next question for myself – and admittedly for my clients that provide products and services to those with less – is how can we build something that keeps the values and insights of the poor, but without the struggle and pain. Maybe we don’t need the direct answer to that question, but merely the work toward finding that answer IS the answer?

Recently I have been working on a series of food projects, each for very different brands and categories. What I find quite remarkable is the different tones and styles expected from various brands and how well known they are, particularly in the case of the more successful brands. Interestingly, with those brands that seem to be struggling, the consumers (even the avid consumers of that brand) have a more difficult time discerning the tonality, personality and style of the brand.

Those struggling brands have no trouble eliciting rational responses – awareness is not the issue. I have heard numerous, detailed explanations of how a product is used, and even the best context in which to use it. What regularly is lacking is the emotional connection – the (dare I say it) IRRATIONAL reason for choosing the brand over another.

Successful brands on the other hand have quirky, almost embarrassed responses as to why someone would choose (successful) brand A over brands B, C and D. Those embarrassed reasons tend to be related to fun, experience, and/or perceptions of others when they see the individual consuming/using the brand. I now actively dig deeper into exploring these irrational choices, and find that they ladder to a feeling, style, tonality, aspirational quality or even comforting memory about the brand experience.

How do we build irrational connections with consumers? Paradoxically, it is by listening for the clear, distinct, emotional message that resonates with and from the target consumer – and start from this point. Instead of looking only for logical and rational, we need to find the situations and experiences that are not only in the head, but rather in the hearts as well. Only when we do this can we build an enduring brand experience that has a ‘texture’ that is distinct, differentiating and ownable.

This does not mean that rational is unimportant – no, we need both. And we need to stop worrying when the rational is in conflict with the emotional. As in life, we live in paradox and deal with the tension between rational and emotional all the times. In order for brands to truly live, they need to do the same.

It has been fascinating in recent years to see just how much young people are at the forefront of the current evolution towards hyper-personalisation. Years ago we were promised that customization would continue to be a growing trend, and it is taking on renewed meaning in this technological age.

Facebook and MySpace are just a couple of examples where kids have taken to creating their own distinguishing identities. It was children who introduced me to Avatars and enlightened me on how they often use them to develop virtual personas.

If you have read the various blogs and articles I have written, or heard me speak about kids’ innate neophobia (fear of new), you may think this new trend is contrary to the concept. I believe that it is actually neophobia that is helping to fuel the interest. What better way to deliver ‘familiar’ than to create familiarity based on a personal expression of oneself?

I think back on my childhood which was so very different (yet not so long ago!). It seems extraordinary to me that many of the 4000 plus kids I work with every year, in numerous countries and diverse cultures, generally expect to be able to ‘create’ their own worlds. It is a powerful and liberating attitude, although at times I do wonder where it will lead. Are expectations being reached?

Certainly keeping in step with personalisation is vital for brands and we should relish the opportunities it offers. One thing I am finding out for
sure is that hyper-personalisation is all about predicting what the consumer wants before they even realise that they want it…. and then helping them understand that it was their decision in the first place. Now that sounds just right for kids!