Messages les plus consultés

mardi 24 mai 2011

How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps ?

A nice novel, a true story...

Have a look at this paper written by Rick Trebino from Georgia Institute of Technology School of Physics. rick.trebino@physics.gatech.edu


He isn't a consumer, but his job is scientific research. The power and the essence of science are ideas, methodology, discussion and results. But also debate. So, if you don't agree with something reported in a scientific paper, you can write a “Comment” on it. But curiously, editors are reluctant to publish comments. 

Why ?

Rick Trebino gives us some interesting insights :

"Some believe that this is because Comments reveal their mistakes—papers they shouldn’t have allowed to be published in the first place. Indeed, scientists often complain that it can be very difficult to publish one. Fortunately, in this article, I’ll share with you my recent experience publishing a Comment, so you can, too. There are just a few simple steps:
 

1. Read a paper that has a mistake in it.
2. Write and submit a Comment, politely correcting the mistake.
3. Enjoy your Comment in print along with the authors’ equally polite. Reply, basking in the joy of having participated in the glorious scientific process and of the new friends you’ve made—the authors whose research you’ve greatly assisted.


Ha ha! You didn’t really believe that, did you? Here’s the actual sequence of events:
 

1. Read a paper in the most prestigious journal in your field that “proves” that your entire life’s work is wrong.
 

2. Realize that the paper is completely wrong, its conclusions based entirely on several misconceptions. It also claims that an approach you showed to be fundamentally impossible is preferable to one that you pioneered in its place and that actually works. And among other errors, it also includes a serious miscalculation—a number wrong by a factor of about 1000—a fact that’s obvious from a glance at the paper’s main figure.

3. Decide to write a Comment to correct these mistakes—the option conveniently provided by scientific journals precisely for such situations.
 

4. Prepare for the writing of your Comment by searching the journal for all previous Comments, finding about a dozen in the last decade.
 

5. Note that almost all such Comments were two to three pages long, like the other articles in the journal.
 

6. Prepare further by writing to the authors of the incorrect paper, politely asking for important details they neglected to provide in their paper.
 

7. Receive no response.
 

8. Persuade a graduate student to write to the authors of the incorrect paper, politely asking for the important details they neglected to provide in their paper.
 

9. Receive no response.
 

10. Persuade a colleague to write to the authors of the incorrect paper, politely asking for the important details they neglected to provide in their paper.
 

11. Receive no response.
 

12. Persuade your colleague to ask a friend to write to the authors of the incorrect paper, politely asking for the important details they neglected to provide in their paper.
 

13. Receive no response.
 

14. Ask the graduate student to estimate these parameters herself, and observe that she does a very good job of it, reproducing their plots very accurately and confirming that the authors were wrong by a factor of about 1000 and that their conclusions were also wrong.
 

15. Write a Comment, politely explaining the authors’ misconceptions and correcting their miscalculation, including illustrative figures, important equations, and simple explanations of perhaps how they got it wrong, so others won’t make the same mistake in the future.
 

16. Submit your Comment.
 

17. Wait two weeks.
 

18. Receive a response from the journal, stating that your Comment is 2.39 pages long. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.
 

19. Take a look at the journal again, and note that the title, author list, author addresses, submission date, database codes, abstract, references, and other administrative text occupy about half a page, leaving only half a page for actual commenting in your Comment.
 

20. Remove all unnecessary quantities such as figures, equations, and explanations. Also remove mention of some of the authors’ numerous errors, for which there is now no room in your Comment. The archival literature would simply have to be content with a few uncorrected falsehoods. Note that your Comment is now 0.90 pages.
 

21. Resubmit your Comment.
 

22. Wait two weeks.
 

23. Receive a response from the journal, stating that your Comment is 1.07 pages long. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.
 

24. Write to the journal that, in view of the fact that your Comment is only ever so slightly long, and that it takes quite a while to resubmit it on the journal’s confusing and dysfunctional web site, perhaps it could be sent out for review as is and shortened slightly to 1.00 pages later.
 

25. Wait a week.
 

26. Receive a response from the journal, stating that your Comment is 1.07 pages long. Unfortunately, Comments can be no more than 1.00 pages long, so your Comment cannot be considered until it is shortened to less than 1.00 pages long.
 

27. Shorten your Comment to 0.80 pages, removing such frivolous linguistic luxuries as adjectives and adverbs.
 

28. Resubmit your Comment.
 

29. Wait three months, during which time, answer questions from numerous competitors regarding the fraudulence of your life’s work, why you perpetrated such a scam on the scientific community, and how you got away with it for so long.
 

30. Read the latest issue of the journal, particularly enjoying anespecially detailed, figure-filled, equation-laden, and explanation-rich three-page Comment.
 

31. Receive the reviews of your Comment.
 

32. Notice that Reviewer #3 likes your Comment, considers it important that the incorrect paper’s errors be corrected and recommends publication of your Comment as is.
 

33. Notice that Reviewer #2 hates your Comment for taking issue with such a phenomenal paper, which finally debunked such terrible work as yours, and insists that your Comment not be published under any circumstances.
 

34. Notice that Reviewer #1 doesn’t like it either, but considers that its short length may have prevented him from understanding it.
 

35. Also receive the topical editor’s response, pointing out that no decision can be made at this time, but also kindly suggesting that you consider expanding your Comment to three pages and resubmitting it along with your responses to the reviews.
 

36. Expand your Comment back to three pages, replacing adjectives, adverbs, figures, equations, explanations, and corrections of author errors you had had to remove earlier to meet the 1.00-page limit. And, in an attempt to enlighten Reviewers #1 and #2, include a separate extended response to their reviews.
 

37. Resubmit your Comment.
 

38. Wait three months, during which time, receive condolences from numerous colleagues regarding the fraudulence of your life’s work and how sorry they are about it having been debunked.
 

39. Fail to enjoy your colleagues’ stories of other deluded scientists in history whose work was also eventually debunked, and try to explain that, in fact, you feel that you don’t actually have that much in common with alchemists, astrologers, creationists, and flat-earthers.
 

40. Read the latest issue of the journal, which includes another detailed three-page Comment, almost bursting with colorful and superfluous adjectives and adverbs, some as many as twenty letters long."


The end of this story :  How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps  ?

mardi 17 mai 2011

Evian Roller Babies : two years after, the viral effect goes on !

Evian launched its viral video campaign, Roller Babies, on the web, first in July 2009, in the Los Angeles area and in New York. This video illustrates the youthful effect Evian mineral water has on the body by showing a bunch of babies freestyle roller-skating. The ads have also appeared on television in Belgium, France and the United Kingdom.

One year after, the Evian Spot received the honor of being inducted into the Guinness Book of Records for  Most Viewed Online Advertisement. Adding up views for various versions of the ad across video sharing websites, the Guinness Book of Records has bestowed the honour on the ad for having :

45,166,109 views on November 9th, 2009. 

Some others, like Social Times, claimed 102 million views, 130,000 comments and 500,000 Facebook fans. 

Evian Roller Babies has won a special Award "Grand Prix" Effie, last december 2010 in France.


video 

May, 16th 2011,  You tube : more than 40 260 000 views 
Agency  : BETC (Euro RSCG). 

 

Special Bonus : a strange (and funny) making off..

video

  

Evian reimagined a new viral effect in January 2111.  

" Roller baby yourself"

How ? In an very easy way :
Step 1 : Add 2 ou 3 personal photos to create your own video. 
Step 2 : Adjust your photos. 
Step 3 : Share your videos on your social networks.

Now it's closed ! But you can see some interesting results at "Evian Let's baby dance"




lundi 16 mai 2011

Cocréation : comment et pourquoi les consommateurs participent


Une thèse de doctorat a été soutenue, il y a quelque temps déjà, à l'Université Paris-Dauphine, par Fanny Reniou. Elle traite de la participation des consommateurs aux opérations marketing.


Pour faire quoi ? 

Les marques sollicitent les consommateurs pour plusieurs objectifs : recherche de nouvelles idées, comme dans les expériences  Starbucks, Kuoni, Siemens, création de design (Collissimo), prototyes de produit (Nivéa) ou de service (SFR),  choix d'un produit parmi différentes options possibles, création de tout ou d'une partie de la communication publicitaire (Microsoft)... 

Sur des plateformes internet, spécifiquement dédiées à ces opérations de co-création, chacun peut participer et regarder les autres participer.

Pour Fanny Reniou, la co-participation du consommateur aux actions marketing peut s'envisager sous trois formes : donner son opinion, contribuer à la création d'un produit, effectuer une création publicitaire pour le compte d'une marque ou d'un produit.


 Source : F. Reniou (2009)

Qu'est-ce qui pousse les consommateurs à s'engager ?

La première question qui vient à l'esprit concerne les motivations qui amènent un consommateur à participer. En effet, alors que la contribution demandée peut être très importante,  la gratification proposée en échange  est souvent de faible valeur.

A partir d'une étude qualitative exploratoire, l'auteur identifie 5 grands types de motivations : utilitaire, expérientielle, besoin de reconnaissance, envie de partager, besoin d'accomplissement. 

Face à ces motivations, des freins existent : désintérêt, méfiance, peur d'être manipulé par le marketing, perception de compétences personnelles trop faibles.

Une seconde étude quantitative se concentre sur deux déterminants de la participation : le degré de contribution (faible vs fort) et la visibilité (non visible vs visible) de la gratification. Une expérimentation effectuée sur un site on-line a permis de recueillir 146 observations. Une analyse de variance montre que les effets du degré de contribution sur l’attitude à l’égard de la contribution et de l’opération sont validés ; il n’en va pas de même pour l’attitude vis-à-vis de la marque ; la gratification n’a pas d’effet sur l’intention de participer.

 Qui participe ?

Même si on en parle beaucoup, peu de personnes s'impliquent réellement dans ce type d'opération. Les experts estiment que moins de 5% s'impliquent à fond et 25% de façon superficielle.

 Source : F. Reniou (2009)

Qu'est-ce que les managers en attendent ?

La seconde question de la recherche concerne la finalité de ces opérations de co-création : les résultats montrent, de manière quelque peu surprenante, que les managers interrogés démarrent fréquemment ce type d’actions sans nécessairement en envisager précisément leurs retombées. Alors, la co-création, un simple effet de mode ?

L’administration du questionnaire a été effectuée sur Internet sur un échantillon de 116 individus. L'influence de la satisfaction de la participation sur le bouche-à-oreille, sur la continuité de la relation avec la marque, sur les croyances et l’attitude ont été étudiées. 

Autres résultats intéressants

Plus l'effort demandé pour la participation est élevé, plus l'attitude vis-à-vis de l'opération est jugée de manière favorable. Par ailleurs, le fait de demander une forte participation au consommateur n'a pas d'effet, défavorable ou favorable, sur l'intention de participer.

Mais attention ! Plus l'effort demandé pour la participation est élevé, et plus la gratification offerte doit être visible pour les consommateurs.


Pour aller plus loin (thèse téléchargeable) :

dimanche 15 mai 2011

Consumer Empowerment ou baisse de service ?


Un post du mois d'avril 2011 de Christophe Benavent sur Technologies du marketing me semble particulièrement intéressant. Il interpelle clairement les managers marketing en leur demandant de ne pas se cacher derrière un "pseudo" empowerment, pour tenter de faire passer une baisse de service.

Mettre le client au travail, sans véritable partage de la valeur créée, ce n'est pas de la co-production, c'est tout simplement réduire ses coûts sur le dos de ses consommateurs.

Alors, s'il vous plait, chers marketeurs, pas de cynisme !

Ne parlez pas d'avantage pour le consommateur, si celui préfère s'enregistrer lui même sur une borne à l'aéroport, plutôt que de devoir faire la queue au guichet d'une compagnie aérienne, parce que vous avez trop réduit le personnel de contact. Où alors, offrez-lui la totalité ou une partie de réduction sur le prix, mais là nous sommes dans une stratégie marketing low-cost

 Et quand sur nos autoroutes, nous devons nous tordre le bras pour introduire nos cartes bancaire dans les automates de péage, parce que les préposés ont disparu des caisses, où est la co-production ? Où est le partage de la valeur créée ? Qui est gagnant : l'actionnaire ou le consommateur ? Il fut un temps, dans les années 70, où la disparation du pompiste s'accompagnait d'une baisse du prix du super...


 Voici quelques extraits du post de Christophe Bénavent :
"La coproduction, la co-création sont des mots trompeurs (...) On peut se demander en effet si confier la responsabilité de la relation de service au client est moins une question d'empowerment qu'un abandon pur et simple (...) 80% des transporteurs aériens mettent leurs clients au travail. La coproduction, la co-création sont des mots trompeurs, la réalité est ce transfert d'activité de l'entreprise au client, la forme extrême de l'externalisation où on produit ce qu'on achète. Mais au delà du transport, la tendance se décèle ailleurs : le consommateur devient sa propre caissière, son propre conseiller de clientèle, à la condition qu'il en maitrise l'instrumentation. Et là est le problème majeur. Seule une partie des client la maitrise, pour les autres cela se traduit par une baisse de qualité de service, ni plus ni moins. (...)
Il reste que le client est désormais seul. Peut-on encore parler de relation quand dialoguant avec les machines le client décide en se regardant dans une sorte de miroir ?"

Dans un autre post de ce blog, nous disions, il y a peu : "Que le marketing ne s’y méprenne pas : s’il n’est pas prêt ou ne veut partager le pouvoir avec le consommateur, parler d’empowerment, de participation relationnelle, de management des communautés, de relations avec les leaders d’opinion, n’a guère de sens"

La question du partage de la valeur créée par une stratégie marketing d'empowerment n'appartient pas aux seuls hommes du marketing. Elle intéresse les stakeholders au sens large : managers, salariés, fournisseurs, actionnaires....et les clients de l'entreprise.

Alors, nos clients, ces consommateur qui nous font vivre, ne le traitons pas comme des vaches à lait, tout en leur laissant croire qu'on leur donne plus de pouvoirs !

lundi 9 mai 2011

Are you ready for the Desperados Experience ?

After, the interactive Tipp-ex Experience, another viral ad.

Get the Desperados Experience...


The rules :
1- Enter your date of birth (you must have the legal age to get in the party. Depends on your country)
2- Enter your location (don't choose France, sorry for you, but the french legal restrictions prevent you from entering this site !)
3- Choose your partner for the party : men or women?

Launch on April 12th, 2011

One month later, 1 517 907 views on You Tube ???
(Be careful with this figure : is it an incentive or a lie ?)

Desperados Tequila Flavoured Beer 2011 International Campaign
Client : Heineken International
Agency : Dufresne-Corrigan-Scarlet

Believe or not, 
Enjoy it or not ...



 If you want to see the difference with the non-interactive version, click below
 
video





vendredi 6 mai 2011

A New Consumer Empowerment : The "Emergent Nature" Consumer

The “Right” Consumers for Better Concepts: Identifying Consumers High in Emergent Nature to Develop New Product Concepts


Donna. L. Hoffman, Praveen K. Kopalle et Thomas P Novak propose in a recent article from Journal of Marketing Research (October 2010, vol. 47, pp. 854- 865) a new concept that they call “emergent nature" consumer.

They define it "as the unique capability to imagine or envision how concepts might be further developed so that they will be successful in the mainstream marketplace".


Main traits

- openness to new experiences and ideas
- an intellective self-focus, or “reflection”
- ability to synergistically apply both an experiential and a rational processing style
- ability to process information both verbally (rational style) and visually (experiential style)
- high levels of creativity
- optimism.

How to Measure "Emergent Nature" ?

Hoffman, Kopalle et Novak validate a new scale with the following 8 items (Likert Scale : Agree vs Disagree)

1. When I hear about a new product or service idea, it is easy to imagine how it might be developed into an actual product or service.
2. Even if I don’t see an immediate use for a new product or service, I like to think about how I might use it in the future.
3. When I see a new product or service idea, it is easy to visualize how it might fit into the life of an average person in the future.
4. If someone gave me a new product or service idea with no clear application, I could “fill in the blanks” so someone else would know what to do with it.
5. Even if I don’t see an immediate use for a new product or service, I like to imagine how people in general might use it in the future.
6. I like to experiment with new ideas for how to use products and services.
7. I like to find patterns in complexity.
8. I can picture how products and services of today could be improved to make them more appealing to the average person

Results

Authors show in multiple studies settings across two distinct product categories that "consumers high in emergent nature are able to develop product concepts that mainstream consumers find significantly more appealing and useful than concepts developed by typical, lead user, or even innovative consumers".