Norms: Striving to beat the worst of the pack

August 5, 2010 | 4 Comments

Norms are among the most commonly used and sought after features of market research. They are a great way to compare how your brand is doing relative to other brands in the same space. You need them to see where the entire market place sits relative to your brand. You need them to see in which areas the entire industry is weak, areas where perhaps you could strive to excel. You need them to see where the entire industry is strong, areas where you must ensure you do well.

Most companies have spent years and decades creating enormous norms databases that allow any brand to instantly determine where their brand fits in without having to expand their research dollars to 10 or 20 competitive brands outside of their own brand. There is no doubt that norms are an essential part of our work.

But here’s something to ponder. What exactly is a ‘norm’?

Norms reflect the average of many brands. It’s a watering down of the fabulous brand in the upper 2% of the normal curve, the great brands in the upper 16% of the curve, and the 2% and 16% of brands at the bottom of the curve, those that desperately need to pull up their socks. Norms reflect the good, the bad, and the average, unassuming, nothing special brands.

Are those really the brands you want to compare your brand with? Is your ultimate goal to tell your boss that your brand is achieving consumer satisfaction scores that are better than all of the really terrible and somewhat terrible brands? Congratulations, our brand is beating all of the brands that went out of business last week! I suspect not.

Instead, is your ultimate goal to be the Coke of soft drinks, the Starbucks of coffee shops, or the Apple of computers? Wouldn’t you rather strive to beat the brands in the top 2% of the curve? The brands that are stealing market share and consumer awareness and consumer engagement? Wouldn’t you rather tell your boss that your customer satisfaction scores are better than the top contenders in your category? I suspect yes.

Perhaps market researchers ought to focus first on the category leader and then see how the losers are doing.

We would love to hear your thoughts on norms! Please share your comments.

1. by Tom

   On August 5, 2010 at 10:00 am

   Erm, I’ve never been a norm-using clientside researcher so I may be being fantastically naive here but presumably the point of norms is that you can say, right, we want to be in the top 10% or top 20%, and see how yr scores compare to that. Or there might be circumstances where simply scoring in the top 50% fits your strategy, where “good enough” is good enough. A “norm” isn’t a single score, it’s a continuum… isn’t it?

2. by Conversition Team

   On August 5, 2010 at 10:06 am

   Definitely. Sometimes striving for the top 10% or 20% or 50% is the end and sufficient goal. You may have financial or organizational or strategic reasons for that less than lofty goal. But, one of the ways to reach that goal just might be to strive to be the best.

3. by AJ

   On August 5, 2010 at 10:11 am

   I have some (!) experience with norms and databases and Tom is exactly right. It would be quite rare for a client to accept the average as their target score, they’d normally be after top 25 or top 10 percent range.

   But I do agree that norms aren’t the only game in town. It is essential that we put our results in some context and a huge database of norms is one way of doing that, but it’s not the only way.

4. by Conversition Team

   On August 5, 2010 at 10:14 am

   Excellent point. Just as you don’t live by one research method alone or by one opinion alone, you can’t judge a brand by one measure alone.

4 Responses to  “Norms: Striving to beat the worst of the pack”