22 Metaphors, needs and new product ideation

Jeffrey F. Durgee and Manli Chen

Background
Marketers have been using metaphors for many years in marketing and marketing
research in all three stages of the marketing process: need finding (Zaltman, 2003;
Rapaille, 2001), new product idea generation (VanGundy, 1988; Cougar, 1995; Schon,
1979; Dahl and Moreau, 2002) and marketing actions including advertising (Mick and
McQuarrie, 1999), product naming (Durgee and Stuart, 1987) and new product design
(Dumas, l994). In each phase, marketers, consumers and new product development
people use metaphors to understand each other better, and they use them to see needs,
new product concepts and other marketing actions from fresh perspectives, perspectives
which help marketers and product developers conceive new variations on these needs and
products.
Looking across the range of marketing activities, there is particular pressure for mar-
keters of goods and services to answer the question, ‘what’s next?’ Inevitably, they face a
lot of pressure to come up with the next version or definition of that good or service that
will fire consumer imagination and generate sales.
Consequently, in this chapter, we are concerned with the question of how marketers can
creatively redefine or reconceive their offerings. We review the metaphor concept as well
as literature dealing with the way market needs and metaphors are used to generate new
product ideas. We also describe a series of exploratory projects aimed at improving the
effectiveness of metaphor usage in new product ideation, in particular how needs might
be incorporated more directly in the metaphor-seeking process.

Metaphors
Hunt and Menon (1995) define metaphor as ‘a literally false, declarative assertion of exist-
ential equivalence that compares two concepts or things, where one concept, called the
primary concept, is claimed to be another, the secondary concept’ (p. 82). A metaphor
depends upon the drawing of implications grounded in perceived analogies of structure
between two subjects belonging to different domains (Black, 1962, 1979; Ortony, 1979),
but it needs to be recognized that a metaphor also stretches beyond a declaration of simi-
larity in order to be a heuristic device of value. As Bacharach (1989) describes it, ‘the
imagery contained in the metaphor must assist the theorist in deriving specific propos-
itions and/or hypotheses about the phenomenon being studied’ (p. 497). In order further
to understand the role of metaphors and their significance in qualitative marketing
research, Cornelissen (2003) argues that ‘in drawing implications grounded in perceived
analogies of structure between two subjects, belonging to different domains, a metaphor
always implies a statement of similarity as well as a hypothesis of comparison between
disparate concepts’ (p. 209). When a metaphor is generated, similar attributes of phe-
nomena, subjects or domains are actually identified to form an analogy (the implied
simile), whereas dissimilar attributes of the referents are identified to produce semantic

291
292 Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing

anomaly (Mac Cormac, 1985). However, these dissimilar attributes, while being semantic-
ally anomalous or grammatically deviant when taken literally (Mac Cormac, 1985; Stern,
2000), might nevertheless provide fresh and previously nonexistent insights into the reality
of marketing by offering a hypothesis of the dynamics and identity of a marketing phe-
nomenon (Cornelissen, 2003). As Kaplan (1964) maintains, the use of analogies and
metaphors to point out the awareness of resemblances serves ‘the purpose of science’, and
it is his recognition of using metaphors that led to the increased attention in the market-
ing domain to the role of metaphor in theory and research (Hunt and Menon, 1995).
After Nataraajan and Bagozzi (1999) reviewed the introduction of new metaphors and
terms to understand marketing phenomena, they viewed them as plausible progress ‘as
new terms not only add to the existing explanatory power in marketing, but also revamp
the discipline with a sense of excitement’ (p. 634). Despite the increasing enthusiasm and
attention for the potentials and development of metaphors within the marketing arena,
Weick (1989) states that, with a few exceptions (Hunt and Menon, 1995; Zaltman, 1997),
there has been little in the way of prescriptions or methods to aid theorists in being ‘more
deliberate in the formation of these images and more respectful of representations and
efforts to improve them’ (p. 517).
Nowadays, with the increasing recognition of significant usefulness of metaphors, we
can see a lot more examples of metaphors in qualitative marketing research. In projective
methods (see the Rook chapter in this volume), respondents are asked to describe some
category A in terms of non-related categories B, C and D. In consumer research, categor-
ization studies examine how consumers understand new product introductions by inter-
preting them in terms of categories of objects they already know (Moreau, Markman and
Lehmann, 2001), and interpretive research uses metaphors to capture and explain con-
sumer behaviors and lifestyles (Mick et al., 2004).
Good qualitative marketing research is research that is creative, that facilitates new, excit-
ing understandings, theories and interpretations. Creativity is about banging two previously
unrelated things together (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) to bring new meanings into the world,
so the study of metaphor fits perfectly with creative and qualitative marketing efforts.

Using metaphors in new product ideation

Designers and planners use metaphors in a variety of ways to come up with new product
ideas. At one extreme are the approaches that involve totally random metaphors, trigger
words or ‘random objects’ (Leith, 2004). A designer simply starts with the product cat-
egory, takes a random word off of a trigger word list and asks, ‘Would it be useful if X
(the starting category) was more like Y (the trigger word)?’ For instance, if the starting
category was toothpaste, the designer might pull the word ‘parachute’ from the trigger
word list, and then might start thinking of ways that soft fabric might be used to protect
teeth. This is generally a good method for opening up the creative process to maximize
creative possibilities.
More common methods (e.g., VanGundy, 1988; Cougar, 1995) are the ones that involve
generating a list of objects, persons, situations or actions that are similar but unrelated
to the starting category. If the starting category was vacuum cleaners and we want
ideas for new vacuum cleaner products, for example, the list might include things like
brooms, waste baskets, garbage disposals and fish that suck on pond bottoms. The
designer then selects an individual item from this list, and breaks it into separate
 Metaphors, needs and new product ideation 293

properties, anticipating that each property might suggest a way to redesign the original
category. A garbage disposal unit, for example, breaks up garbage. Would it be helpful if
the vacuum cleaner broke down dirt into smaller particles? The garbage disposal can also
accommodate a lot of different food (and nonfood) items. Would it be useful to have a
vacuum cleaner that could suck up a wide range of small and large things?
More interesting approaches tie metaphor usage more directly to consumer needs.
Michalko (1991), for instance, suggests phrasing the starting problem as a challenge, then
using a key word in the challenge to help search among ‘parallel worlds’. If the challenge is
to ‘make a vacuum cleaner quieter’, the key word or need might be ‘quiet’. Michalko pro-
vides a list of 150 parallel worlds; for example, biology, library, cemetery, finance, flying,
cartoons, fishing, Germany, calculus, ballet and grocery stores. The researcher scans
through the list of worlds, and selects four or five that relate to the ‘key’ word above.
Suppose, for example, the parallel worlds included ballet, library and cemetery. Next, the
researcher examines each of the parallel worlds individually for properties which might
apply to the starting category. The next task is to scan one of these for all of its properties,
which might suggest improvements to vacuum cleaners. Thus ballet dancers dance on
padded feet. Would vacuum cleaners be quieter if they had padded wheels? Ballet is also all
about movement. Could the movement of the vacuum cleaner be designed in a way so that
it is more efficient and needs less time – and therefore makes noise for a shorter time period?
Schon (1979) argues that, in the case of generative metaphors, designers start with a
product design problem then suddenly see a metaphor for it which suggests new product
ideas. He claims that, in these cases, product planners are not focusing on relevant needs
but rather on sudden epiphany-like similarities they see between the starter object and
some metaphor. One example he describes is a story about some product developers who
wanted to redesign a new paint brush, which had synthetic bristles. As it turned out, the
bristles would not bend and would not spread the paint like a regular brush. Apparently
one of the designers suddenly said ‘a paint brush is sort of like a pump’. This led the team
to look for pump-like attributes in paintbrushes, and they reasoned that the channels
between the bristles can act as channels to carry paint if the bristles would ‘pump’ the
paint. In short, Schon argues that, when developers have a problem, they should look for
a metaphor which directs their attention to new design ideas. They start with the problem,
come up with a metaphor, and then see the connecting attributes or needs.
Dahl and Moreau (2002) conducted an interesting study in which they used two
samples of student designers to understand the use of metaphors to create new car-based
products, which would make it possible for people to eat while driving. The first sample
was specifically instructed to use metaphors, the second, standard brainstorming. Note
that, although the metaphor group was told to use metaphors – and that the new product
should meet certain criteria, including ‘practical and effective, safe, reusable, portable, and
easy to assemble and use’ – respondents were given no specific instructions on how to use
metaphors in new product ideation. In one wave of the tests, samples were enjoined to use
‘far’ metaphors (seemingly unrelated to the starting category, as car is to truck, as opposed
to car is to monkey), but received few step-by-step directions in terms of using metaphors
in the ideation sequence. The resulting ideas were rated in terms of originality by a panel
of three design experts and were rated in terms of product value by a panel of consumers.
(Value was judged in terms of how much money these consumers said they would spend
on the product.) Product ideas from the metaphor group scored significantly higher than
294 Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing

those from the brainstorm group in terms of originality and product value. Also ori-
ginality bore a statistically significant relationship to product value. The use of far analo-
gies was statistically related to originality and value.

Needs and metaphors in new product ideation

While all of these approaches have value, we most agree with Michalko (1991). Like
Michalko, we suggest that needs should play more of an initiator role in the new product
ideation process. To augment the strengths of metaphorical approaches in new product
ideation, it should be possible to use customer needs ‘up front’ to facilitate the metaphor-
seeking process.
Usually needs are well-known for most categories, and research and development
people work on developing new technologies which address those needs. There is a general
need for everything to be faster today, for example, so microwave technology provided a
huge leap forward for the kitchen ovens category. Other common needs today are for
products to be more personal, more environmentally sensitive, more powerful, more
mobile and more convenient (e.g. SUVs/hybrid cars, GPS, PCs/laptops, MP3 players
‘iPod’, sub-zero refrigerators, customized gifts, ‘Things Remembered’ [notes to oneself]
and mobile phones etc.).
Often needs have pointed to metaphors which shaped the development of the new tech-
nologies (Crawford and Di Benedetto, 2000; Cougar, 1995; Gordon, 1961; Goel, 1997).
Most people know the story about the need for a better, easier fastener – and a researcher’s
problem with burrs on his clothes on coming out of a field – leading to the idea of Velcro.
There are many examples of the way needs and metaphors might have been used over
the years to come up with many products that we take for granted today. For example,
imagine that it was 50 years ago, and we were looking for new offerings in a range of cat-
egories including retail banking, potato chips and bicycles. The first step would be to ask
consumers for properties that they would like to see in these categories. These properties
would include top-of-mind ones such as lower interest rates from the bank, and great taste
for the potato chips. It might also include secondary needs such as neatness for the chips.
Then, if we find metaphors which have those properties and combine the metaphors
with the original categories, we would see how the new products might have come about.
Just as Goldenberg, Mazursky and Solomon (l999) did, we can review a list of past new
products and look for patterns which might explain how they may have been conceived.
We identify a popular product or product design and think of how a combination of
needs and metaphors might have been used to conceive it.
In Table 22.1, for example, a metaphor which represents accessibility is the vending
machine. If it was 40 years ago, and we combined retail banking with vending machines,
we conceived the ATM. If it was 40 years ago, and we combined potato chips with the
neatly stacked Ritz crackers, we conceived Pringles potato chips.
In Table 22.1, note in the ‘Need’ column that most of the needs are focused on ease,
convenience and accessibility. As indicated above, these seem to be driving a lot of new
product development in many categories. Even today it is possible to see the evolution of
current new products in terms of desired attributes and metaphors. In the automotive
industry, for example, tire manufacturers (and car companies) are searching for ways to
make tires and wheels much more stylish. Stylishness and appearance have become much
more important car buyer wants in general (Nesbitt, 2002). Thus one tire company
 Metaphors, needs and new product ideation 295

Table 22.1 How metaphors and consumer wants might have been used to create many
of today’s products?

Product category Need Metaphor New product idea

Retail Banking accessibility vending machine ATM
Guitar louder amplified voice electric guitar
Videos accessibility library video library
Phone go anywhere walkie talkie cell phone
Potato chips neater Ritz crackers Pringles
Bicycle go anywhere dirt bike motorcycle off-road bike
Diapers easier to use band aids Pampers
Coffee easy, fast to make powdered milk Instant coffee
Car carry more truck, van mini-van
Bandage stick to wound Scotch tape band aids
Black and white TV color colorized movies color TV
Motorboat personal snowmobile jet ski
TV news more available round clock radio CNN

seeking stylishness has chosen the metaphor of running shoes, and is introducing a co-
branded line, which will be called the Nike Tire Line.
Also note in Table 22.1 that the metaphors that seem close to the category of interest
are ‘close’ metaphors. A generative metaphor which might have been used to redevelop
the phone (and invented the cell phone) might have been the walkie-talkie. A metaphor
which might have been used to redevelop the potato chip (into Pringles) might have been
the Ritz cracker.
Given the importance of needs in the metaphor-seeking process in new product
ideation, how could this process occur?

The needs–metaphor–ideation process

Needs or wants can be gathered by any number of research approaches, such as focus
groups, depth interviews, adjective checklists or ethnographic research. Many of the chap-
ters in this book describe methods for identifying both overt and latent needs and oppor-
tunities. The next step is to find metaphors which address those needs.
Metaphors come from brainstorming or lists of words in a thesaurus, or lists in books
like Word Menu by Glazier (1992) or the list of ‘parallel worlds’ of Michalko (1991). The
Word Menu book contains lists of thousands of items in different categories: arts, nature,
cooking, sports, home goods, etc. Jensen (1978) claims that most metaphors used in new
product ideation fall into one of five categories: restoration, journey, unification, creation
or nature. Restoration involves examples such as cleaning, medical (such as reconstruc-
tive surgery) or theft. Journeys are about barriers or clogged channels. Unification is
about teams, home or family. Creational metaphors fall into areas such as edifice, fabric
or music. And nature metaphors involve biological items, light or darkness.
In addition to brainstorming and books, another good source of metaphors consists of
some new computer programs. For example, IdeaFisher is a powerful computerized brain-
storming software package with a word-linking base to help generate creative ideas and
business solutions. It was also developed to help designers come up with many interesting
296 Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing

metaphors. In this dynamic system, each word and phrase is included for its relevance to
a topic and for its power to trigger associations. With IdeaFisher, the user types in the
desired adjective or attribute, and IdeaFisher extracts a list of words and phrases called
Key Concepts that have the property for the user. ‘From the Key Concepts, the user then
selects those ideas, which he/she likes the most or which seem to have the greatest poten-
tials. The ultimate goal of the questions and idea associations is to trigger new perspectives
and spark new ideas in a person’s mind.’1

An exploratory study

Phase one
To assess the needs-metaphor approach, we decided to try it in a small-scale new product
ideation project with two groups of university marketing and design students. The students
worked in teams of two. All students were asked to come up with new ideas for ‘a new shower
or bathing product for the home’. All teams were given 30 minutes to complete the project.
The first group, which consisted of 34 students, was asked simply to brainstorm and
submit two of their best ideas. The second group, which consisted of 32 students, was
asked first to list at least 10 needs, which the bathing/shower experience might address.
After they wrote these needs down, they were instructed to think up metaphors
for each need or property. This last group of students was then asked to look at the
metaphors and use them to come up with their new product ideas and submit their best
two ideas.

Results
This research has many obvious flaws and was just an attempt to get some initial experi-
ence in the metaphor research area. There was no way to control how hard each team
worked, and more work needs to be done to develop more thorough instructions for the
metaphor teams.
The list of the brainstorm ideas is shown below in Table 22.2. There were only 19 ideas
because many of the ideas were duplicates of other team ideas. The list of ideas submit-
ted by teams using metaphors is in Table 22.3. This group submitted 29 unduplicated ideas
in total. The needs that the metaphor students came up with for bathing products were
not particularly creative or unusual (Table 22.3). A lot of the bathing needs that they gen-
erated were to bathe faster, to feel relaxed and be more comfortable. A few felt that bathing
should be more ‘multi-purpose’, ‘entertaining’ and ‘exciting’.
Some of the connections between category, need and metaphor were rather direct. A
team that wanted showering to be more productive, like a PDA (Personal Digital
Assistant), came up with the idea of a shower with a PDA. Other teams used more imagin-
ation. The team, for example, that wanted their bathing experience to be more satisfying
said that they like the satisfying feeling a person gets after a good haircut, reasoning that
a good haircut is easily seen and assessed. This led them to the idea of a cleanliness gauge
for body and hair.
Next, all ideas from brainstorm and metaphor groups were mixed together in a long
list, which was administered to a convenience sample of 37 male and female adults ages
22 to 55. These adults were asked to rate the ideas in terms of originality, from 1, which
reflected the lowest originality, to 7, the highest originality.
 Metaphors, needs and new product ideation 297

Table 22.2 Ideas submitted by brainstorm teams and their ratings in terms of
originality and unwillingness to give up

Idea Originality Unwillingness to give up

Controlled temperature/Memory 3.3 5.2
temperature for bath/shower water
Water pressure control shower 3.5 5.1
Heated tub 3.5 4.5
Air filtration removes condensation from air 3.8 4.4
Vent built into shower to take steam away 3.8 4.4
Special feet washer in shower 5.2 4.1
Automatic soap-dispensing shower head 4.4 3.8
Soap foam available at the push of a bottom 3.1 3.8
Sensor shower: the shower head can sense 5.9 3.7
where you are and moves with you
Lie down shower: lie on flat surface, and 5.1 3.7
water jets and soap are sprayed on you
Sink in shower for shaving and brushing teeth 4.5 3.7
Automatic tub cleaner 4.9 3.4
Motion sensor; if no motion, shower stops 5.2 3.3
Antibacterial soap to use without water 2.9 3.1
Deodorant spray dispenser 4.4 3.0
Ultrasonic shower: uses no water 5.5 2.6
Shower brews coffee 4.9 2.2
Shower in the middle of a large empty room 3.7 2.1
Black light shower 4.5 1.7
Average rating 4.32 3.57

Note: The product ideas in Table 22.1 are arranged from the highest rating of ‘unwillingness to give up’ to
the lowest rating of the category.

The sample was also asked to rate the items in terms of ‘willingness to give them up
after they had used them on a daily basis for six months’. The scores ranged from 1, which
meant ‘very willing to give up’, to 7, which meant ‘very unwilling to give up’. This latter
question is important because many of the ideas sound at first bizarre, outside of the
comfort zone of most consumers. Respondents tend to give low liking ratings to products
that sound a little unusual or ‘too original/unconventional’ to them. So, instead of only
evaluating the liking ratings in this study, we asked respondents to imagine that they used
the item on a regular basis for six months and suddenly had to give it up. It was felt that
this might give a more accurate sense of how attached they might become to these prod-
ucts, even if the initial impression about these ideas may not be very positive. A good
example of a similar case would be, in the 1950s, if people were asked how they would like
heating food by zapping it with radio waves: they would have thought the researcher was
crazy. If they were asked how they would feel about using (and then losing) a new tech-
nology which heats their food in one-tenth the normal time (e.g. Microwave), they would
probably say they had become quite attached to it and would not like to give it up.
As the above tables indicate, students in both groups came up with a wide range of inter-
esting product ideas. Interestingly both groups of students came up with the idea of brewing
298 Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing

Table 22.3 Ideas submitted by metaphor teams including bathing needs, metaphors,
and new product ideas as well as their ratings in terms of originality
and unwillingness to give up

Unwillingness
Need Metaphor New product idea Originality to give up
Fast Steam cleaner Push-button shower that 3.9 4.0
releases relaxing steam jet
Exciting Surfing Wave pool in the bath tub 3.6 3.9
Multi-purpose Microwave Shower that washes body 4.9 3.8
oven and clothes
Comfortable Leather seat Soft floor bath tub 4.7 3.6
Safer Airbags Airbags to protect seniors 5.7 3.5
and children from slipping
or falling
Fuzzy Fleece blanket Soft brushes spinning on 5.1 3.5
wall shower
Relaxing Being on beach Heat lamp like being on a beach 3.7 3.5
Fast Hair dryer Blow dryer for body and hair 3.1 3.5
Easier Massage Mechanical arms to wash you 5.3 3.4
Timely/Informed TV TV in shower behind glass 4.0 3.4
Satisfying Good haircut Shower with cleanliness 5.7 3.3
gauge for body and hair
Energy-free Pedal Walk-in-service conveyor 5.2 3.3
generator to pump water for camps,
if no pressure
Efficient Oil change Soap dispenser on long hose 4.0 3.3
to soap various body parts
Musical Concert Surround sound music shower 3.5 3.2
Relaxed Massage Reclining lounge chair in shower 4.2 3.1
Pleasant Spring meadow Scented shower 4.6 2.8
Invigorating Waterfall Gushing sheet of water shower 4.2 2.8
Fun Toys and Water games enticing kids 3.9 2.8
games to the tub
Lively Circus Water jets from floor, like 3.3 2.8
water slides in an
amusement park
Like swimming Pool Raised bathtub like a 3.2 2.8
swimming pool
Exotic Tropical Fish tank in bath walls, 4.9 2.7
island bath with fish
Clean Fountain Re-circulating water in bath 4.6 2.7
Helpful PDA PDA in shower for daily 4.8 2.6
briefing
Modular Train set Mini-waterslide kit for 4.7 2.5
children in bath
Relaxing Hot tub Coffee maker in shower 4.8 2.3
Touching & sense Bubbles, foam Bubble generator 3.7 2.3
Transparent Aquarium Large transparent 4.7 2.2
aquarium-like tub
Entertaining Club Flashing lights and 4.4 1.9
music, like disco
 Metaphors, needs and new product ideation 299

Table 22.3 (continued)

Unwillingness
Need Metaphor New product idea Originality to give up
Colorful Rainbow Soap that changes color 4.4 1.9
as you use it
Mobility Sensor shower – shower 5.9 3.7
head senses your location,
moves with you
Average rating 4.57 3.14

coffee in the shower. Therefore this idea was actually tested twice for ‘originality’ and ‘will-
ingness to give up’ and the ratings are very similar (4.9 v. 4.8 and 2.2 v. 2.3, respectively).
Some of the brainstormed ideas that gained high originality scores included a system
to wash feet in the shower and a sensor that stops the shower if the bather stops moving.
The top brainstormed ideas that received the highest ratings for originality included
sensor shower (5.9), ultrasonic shower (5.5), special feet washer (5.2) and motion shower
(5.2). Among the metaphor group, the ideas that got the highest originality scores
included a shower with a cleanliness gauge for hair and body (5.7) and a system of airbags
in the shower (5.7) to protect senior citizens and children from slipping and falling as well
as the mechanical-hand body washer (5.3).
Among the brainstormed ideas the products that the respondents felt the most unwill-
ing to give up were a control temperature for the shower water (5.2) and a device to adjust
the water pressure in the shower (5.1). Respondents indicated generally low attachment
to most of the metaphor-generated ideas, with the highest rating given to the idea of a
steam cleaner that releases relaxing steam jets with a push of a button.
In order to further understand the ratings, we used a paired samples t-test to compare
the respondents’ evaluation of the originality of the ideas developed by the two teams.
The result indicates that the ratings of the metaphor ideas (M  4.46) were slightly higher
than those of the brainstorm ideas (M  4.27), as indicated by a significant t-test [t (36) 
2.02, p  0.05]. In other words, the metaphor approach did not yield much stronger or
more creative ideas in the eyes of the consumer respondents. They felt that the two sets of
ideas were almost equally original, and that the brainstormed ideas would be a little
harder to give up. A correlation test was also conducted and the result was not significant,
with p  0.185. Therefore, from this exploratory project, we would conclude that there is
no significant association between ‘originality of products’ and consumers’ ‘unwillingness
to give up the products’.

Phase two
Since the metaphor approach did not yield higher-scoring ideas in terms of respondents’
willingness to give up the ideas than those of brainstorming, we turned back to the lists
in Table 22.1 to try to understand why metaphors might have produced successful product
concepts in these cases (e.g., retail banking plus metaphor of vending machine yields
ATM) but not in ours. The needs looked similar to the needs our students listed. Needs
in each case were quite standard needs for the respective product categories. Most needs
300 Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing

Table 22.4 Needs for bathing and showering products, associated metaphors and new
product ideas as well as scores for idea creativity and unwillingness to give up

Unwillingness
Need Metaphor New product idea Originality to give up
Fast Car wash Very strong warm air 5.6 4.7
blower dries you instantly
after shower
Helpful Waterproof In-shower waterproof 5.2 4.2
control panel in control panel, so the bather
speedboat can turn on coffee maker,
news, curlers, TV, kitchen
lights, toaster and other
household items
Satisfying Sauna Sauna/shower combo unit. Sit 4.2 3.7
for sauna while in the shower
Invigorating Water aerobics Tub is deep enough for 5.2 3.5
swimming water aerobics
Exotic Tropical island Round tub is surrounded by 5.2 2.5
bright alternating images of
exotic beaches
Average rating 5.1 3.7

Note: The product ideas in Table 22.3 are arranged from the highest rating of ‘unwillingness to give up’ to
the lowest rating of the category.

reflected general expectations that people have for these products, including being faster,
easier, more accessible, more entertaining, satisfying and relaxing.
As indicated earlier, many researchers and planners (Dahl and Moreau, 2002; Michalko,
1991) suggest using distant metaphors. Dahl and Moreau argue that distant metaphors
extend creative thinking farther, and inspire more creative ideas. This may be true, but the
metaphors in Table 22.1 tend to be close metaphors. The progression of new products in a
category seems to move in a stepping stone pattern, like a hiker hopping sideways and
forward on stones scattered up a stream. The bicycle comes first, then the motorcycle and
dirt bike (off-road motorcycle), which in turn inspires a sideways step ahead into the dirt
bicycle. In short, it might be best to look for close metaphors for new product ideas’ espe-
cially in the categories in which an incremental pattern seems to make better sense and be
better received by consumers (e.g. products used on daily basis, kitchen appliances, bathing
products or breakfast products etc.). It would be more difficult to convince people to
change their habits dramatically and get used to something that is very different from what
they normally use or do in their daily lives.
Hence we took several needs from the metaphor group, and identified close metaphors
for bathing and showering (i.e. items relating to water, cleaning products and hygiene),
and then came up with new product ideas ourselves (Table 22.4). We tested each idea
among a sample of 10 men aged between 22 and 45 and nine women aged between 30 and
55, again for ratings of ‘originality’ and ‘unwillingness to give up’ for those ideas.
This time, the ideas were felt to be more creative, yet the scores for unwillingness to give
up were not much higher than those of the brainstorming groups. The average score in
 Metaphors, needs and new product ideation 301

this study for idea creativity was 5.1, which is higher than the results of the previous two
groups. For the last group, however, the unwillingness to give up score was only 3.7.

Analysis and conclusion

These were quick, small studies and, as a result, have many design flaws. There were very
few controls on sample design, for example, so this limits the appeal of many new and
relatively radical concepts. After the surveys were administered, some people said that
the idea of a round tub surrounded by tropical island scenery was very creative, but that
they ‘never take baths’. While water aerobics are popular with many women respondents,
the male respondents could not be expected to be very excited about the idea of an aer-
obics tub.
At the same time, if we go back to the original list of new products and possible gen-
erative metaphors in Table 22.1, there might be some answers to the question why the
concepts in Table 22.4 did not score as expected in terms of unwillingness to give up.
Even though we used close metaphors we still did not get a high rating of unwillingness
to give up.
The highest appeal in all tables seems to be associated with concepts which are based
on needs that are strong and ongoing. Needs for an exotic bathing experience or for a
satisfying sauna experience in Table 22.4 might simply not resonate with what con-
sumers really need for a good bath or shower experience. The ideas may sound creative
and fancy, but they may not be effective in addressing the ‘necessary needs’ for a
bath/shower. On the other hand, after completing the surveys, many respondents said
that they would really like the speed and convenience of the hot air blast and high speed
dryer because they did not like the cumbersomeness and moldiness of towels and the
time they have to spend in drying themselves. Another good example of the need for
accessibility was the presumably strong need that drove the rapid acceptance of ATMs.
Likewise, strong needs for practicality undoubtedly drove the rapid diffusion of the
minivan.
In an earlier project, Durgee (in Just and Salvador, 2003) labeled these needs CNNs or
‘Constant nagging needs’. Potato chips are always messy, so Pringles stackable chips were
a brilliant innovation. Cloth diapers were a constant nuisance, so Pampers became widely
popular. In the brainstormed ideas in Table 22.2, products that respondents were unwill-
ing to give up were directed at common, ongoing problems with showers: changes in water
pressure and water temperature, dealing with condensation and clouds of steam in the
shower. In the metaphor groups (Table 22.3), concepts that scored the highest were based
on metaphors which reflected needs for fast showers (steam cleaner and multi-purpose
shower to wash both body and clothes), convenience and safety (protecting children and
seniors from falls).
Metaphors can suggest novel solutions to consumer needs, but it is more likely that the
needs themselves are what drive acceptance of new products and services. It is possible
that, for given needs, a wide range of metaphors (and new product ideas which they
inspired) might find favor with consumers. The main objective is that the needs driving
the metaphors are truly significant.

Note
1. IdeaFisher 6.0 Pro User’s Guide, 2003.
302 Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing

References
Bacharach, S.B. (1989), ‘Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation’, Academy of Management Review,
14, 496–515.
Black, Matthew (1962), Models and Metaphors, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Black, Matthew (1979), ‘More about Metaphor’, in Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–43.
Cornelissen, J.P. (2003), ‘Metaphor as a method in the domain of marketing’, Psychology & Marketing, 20 (3),
209–25.
Cougar, J. Daniel (1995), Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding, New York: Boyd and Fraser.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New York:
HarperCollins.
Dahl, D.W. and P. Moreau (2002), ‘The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation’,
Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 47–60.
Dumas, A. (1994), ‘Building totems: metaphor-making in product development’, Design Management Journal,
5 (Winter), 71–82.
Durgee, J. and R. Stuart (1987), ‘Advertising symbols and brand names that best represent key product mean-
ings’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (Summer), 15–24.
Glazier, Stephen (1992), Word Menu, New York: Random House.
Goldenberg, J., D. Mazursky and S. Solomon (1999), ‘Toward identifying the inventive templates of new prod-
ucts: a channeled ideation approach’, Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 200–210.
Hunt, S.D. and A. Menon (1995), ‘Metaphors and competitive advantages: evaluating the use of metaphors in
theories of competitive strategy’, Journal of Business Research, 33, 81–90.
Jensen, J. (1978), ‘A heuristic for the analysis of the nature and extent of a problem’, Journal of Creative
Behavior, 12, 168–80.
Just, L.A. and R. Salvador (2003), ‘Marketing meets design’, MSI Reports, Issue One, Marketing Science
Institute, Boston.
Kaplan, Abraham (1964), The Conduct of Inquiry, San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Leith, Martin (2004), ‘A taxonomy of idea generation methods’, retrieved 23 June, 2005 (http://www.ideaflow.
com/ideagen.htm).
MacCormac, Earl R. (1985), A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Michalko, Michael (1991), Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Business Creativity for the 90s, Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed
Press.
Mick, D.G. and E. McQuarrie (1999), ‘Visual rhetoric in advertising: text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-
response analyses’, Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (June), 37–54.
Mick, D.G., J. Cotte and S. Ratneshwar (2004), ‘The times of their lives: phenomenological and metaphorical
characteristics of consumer timestyles’, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 333–45.
Moreau, C., A. Markman and D. Lehmann (2001), ‘ “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers’
responses to really new products’, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 489–98.
Nataraajan, R. and R.P. Bagozzi (1999), ‘The year 2000: looking back’, Psychology and Marketing, 16, 631–42.
Nesbitt, B. (2002), Conversation with Mr. Nesbitt, Chief of Design, General Motors.
Ortony, A. (1979), ‘The role of similarity in similes and metaphors’, in Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and
Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–201.
Rapaille, Clotaire G. (2001), 7 Secrets of Marketing in a Multi-cultural World, Provo, UT: Executive Excellence.
Schon, D. (1979), ‘Generative metaphor: a perspective on problem-setting in social policy’, in Andrew Ortony
(ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 254–83.
Stern, Josef (2000), Metaphor in Context, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
VanGundy, A. (1988), Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Weick, K.E. (1989), ‘Theory construction as disciplined imagination’, Academy of Management Review, 14,
516–31.
Zaltman, Gerald (1997), ‘Rethinking market research: putting people back in’, Journal of Marketing Research,
34, 424–37.
Zaltman, Gerald (2003), How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.