MindTime case studies 1:12:12
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

MindTime case studies 1:12:12

on

  • 346 views

A brief set of case studies on a wide range of topics showing MindTime's effectiveness and flexibility. MindTime is a new cognitive model with far reaching implications for human understanding.

A brief set of case studies on a wide range of topics showing MindTime's effectiveness and flexibility. MindTime is a new cognitive model with far reaching implications for human understanding.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
346
Views on SlideShare
345
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

MindTime case studies 1:12:12 MindTime case studies 1:12:12 Presentation Transcript

  • ® Te c h n o l o g y t o H e l p P e o p l e U n d e r s t a n d P e o p l e 8  Case  StudiesDetails  in  these  case  studies  have  necessarily  been  obscured    in  order  to  protect  client  confiden5ality.
  • Case  Studies 2 We  are  presen5ng  you  with  a  small  sample  of  work  undertaken  using  the  MindTime  Cogni5ve   Framework.  These  studies  were  conducted  using  two  MindTime  technology  plaWorms,  one  for   internal  HR/OD  use  and  one  for  marke5ng  and  audience  segmenta5on.  If  you  are  interested  in   learning  more  MindTime  and  its  many  uses  please  ask  us  for  more  informa5on. 1. Building  high-­‐performing  teams One  of  the  worlds  leading  financial  management  companies  is  worried.  .  .                                                      page    3 2. Understanding  composi9on  of  survey  panel  popula9on A  top  provider  of  brand  research  communi5es  suspected  .  .  .                                                                                                      page      6 3. Gaining  ac9onable  insights  from  customer  sa9sfac9on  survey A  top  MBA  university  knew  that  not  all  students  believed  .  .  .                                                                                                      page      9 4. Understanding  brand  sen9ment  within  communi9es A  revealing  look  at  how  brands  s5mulate  (or  don’t)  .  .  .                                                                                                                            page  14 5. Enabling  effec9ve  self-­‐ini9ated  global  collabora9on The  Chairman  had  fiKy-­‐two  heads  flying  in  from  around  the  world  .  .  .                                                                      page  19 6. Correla9ng  thinking  styles  with  Web  traffic  paIerns Who  are  all  of  these  people  really?  Is  there  not  a  beQer  way  .  .  .                                                                                          page  22 7. Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on Brand  favorability  study  reveals  how  deeply  thinking  drives  opinion                                                                              page  25 8. Ad  effec9veness  study  conducted  in  the  EU  and  North  America Adver5sing  effec5veness  study  reveals  huge  variance  explained  by  MindTime                                          page  32 ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 3 CASE  STUDY:  Building  high-­‐performing  teams. The  problem: One  of  the  worlds  leading  financial  management  companies  is  worried  aKer  recently   deciding  that  it  would  allow  their  brokers  to  work  in  teams  sharing  resources  in  the  form  of   administra5ve  assistance  and  junior  staff.   As  these  teams  of  brokers  started  to  form  across  the  US,  a  few  disquie5ng  problems  began  to   emerge.  Some  teams  seemed  to  ‘click’  whereas  others  did  not;  burning  through   administra5ve  assistants  and  even  quickly  ending  in  ugly  feuds.   The  Na5onal  Head  of  High  Net  Worth  (NHW)  teams  asked  MindTime  Inc.  to  evaluate  the   underlying  issues,  prescribe  solu5ons  and  improve  system-­‐wide  performance. The  plan  was  to  measure  success  based  on  direct  impact  on  revenue.   ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 4 CASE  STUDY:  Building  high-­‐performing  teams. Measuring  the  Baseline • The  Na5onal  Head  NHW  already  had  data  that  allowed  him  to  chart  the  performance  of  teams   na5onally.  Performance  was  measured  by  revenue  by  individual  and  by  team.  For  our  project   the  firm  discounted  any  increase  by  the  increase  in  the  na5onal  average.   Assessment • We  mapped  20  teams.   • We  tagged  each  team  with  their  performance  data.   • We  then  looked  for  correla5ons  in  paQerns  of  team  make-­‐up  and  performance  using  our  maps.   • We  iden5fied  the  op5mal  make-­‐up  for  a  team  based  on  this  early  data  and  hypothesized  as  to   how  they  were  collabora5ng  with  their  thinking  to  create  this  success. Performance  analysis • We  choose  a  seven  team  sample:  2  poor  performers,  2  mediocre,  and  3  of  the  best. • We  spent  a  total  of  seven  days  over  a  period  of  two  months  with  each  of  the  teams.   • We  observed,  interviewed,  discussed  and  evaluated  how  they  were  integra5ng  team   members’  thinking.   • We  also  coached  the  teams  on;  roles,  interpersonal  empathy,  workflow  and  other  dynamics   making  team  members  aware  of  the  impact  of  their  thinking  at  work. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 5 CASE  STUDY:  Building  high-­‐performing  teams. The  Solu.on: Knowledge  transfer  and  best  prac9ces  implementa9on • MindTime  developed  an  Op5mal  Thinking  Style  distribu5on  for  High  Net  Worth  Teams • We  mapped  each  of  the  teams  against  this  and  recommended  changes  for  some  teams • We  also  developed  a  set  of  best  prac5ces  for  collabora5on  and  informa5on  sharing  based  on   MindTime  principles • In  concluding  the  project  we  held  a  teams  forum  off  site  bringing  teams  in  from  around  the   country • We  also  shared  with  each  team  what  we  had  learned  from  the  other  teams • This  resulted  in  the  development  of  an  informal  informa5on  network   among  teams  across  the  country.  The  purpose  of  this  network  was  to  share  insights  and  best   prac5ces,  support  and  discuss  issues  and  foster  a  culture  of  team  collabora5on  across  the   organiza5on. Results • Within  two  months  we  had  started  to  see  significant  improvement • Revenue  increased  between  14-­‐23%  over  the  na5onal  baseline  average  for  the  period.   • The  most  improved  performance  came  from  the  best  teams.  While  they  were  already  top   performers  the  added  knowledge  and  confidence  of  knowing  why  they  were  succeeding  had   them  push  even  harder  in  all  the  right  ways.   • The  MindTime®  method  was  then  deployed  across  more  than  60  of  the  firm’s  top  teams. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 6 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  composi9on  of  survey  panel  popula9on. The  problem: A  top  provider  of  brand  research  communi5es  suspected  that  any  one  of  their  given   communi5es  did  not  necessarily  represent  the  popula5on  at  large.  Their  concern  remained   despite  the  fact  that  they  had  gone  to  great  pains  to  recruit  (an  on-­‐going  task)  people  who,   by  all  other  demographics,  seemed  to  represent  the  popula5on  at  large. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 7 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  composi9on  of  survey  panel  popula9on. Assessment • All  par5cipants  (255)  were  asked  to  complete  the  GPS  for  the  Mind. • Other  client  specific  data  was  captured. • Analysis  of  the  data  is  on  going,  but  we  have  used  our  MAP  to  show  some  very  early  basic   findings  from  a  quick  evalua5on  of  the  distribu5on  of  thinking  styles. Parameters • The  surveyed  popula5on  is  a  general  community  and  not  5ed  specifically  to  one  brand. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 8 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  composi9on  of  survey  panel  popula9on. Brief  analysis • The  panel  popula5on  is  showing  a  marked  skew   towards  Past  &  Present  thinking. • Even  integrated  thinking  is  showing  a  strong  bias   Present towards  Past  &  Present  perspec5ves. • The  sample  is  small  (255)  but  that  is  the  average  (low)   size  of  a  marke5ng  panel,  this  bias  should  be  taken   255  people seriously,  it  could  fundamentally  affect  results  of  any   research  conducted. • Community  member  responses  in  any  study  conducted     will  show  a  bias  towards  conserva5sm,  risk  aversion,   need  for  informa5on,  organiza5on,  tradi5onalism,   process  orienta5on,  and  an  aQrac5on  to  authority  or   Past Future the  educa5onal  qualifica5ons  of  people. • The  thinking  styles  most  represented  in  the  survey   Survey  panel  at  research  company panel  are  more  likely  to  belong  to  this  kind  of  brand   research  community  in  the  first  place. • Future  thinkers  would  likely  not  be  aQracted  to  belong   to  these  kinds  of  community.  They  might  sign  up,  but   they  would  not  likely  show  up. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 9 CASE  STUDY:  Gaining  new  ac9onable  insights  from  a  customer  sa9sfac9on  survey. The  problem: A  top  MBA  university  knew  that  not  all  students  believed  that  they  were  receiving  a  good   educa5on  given  its  cost.  Certain  feedback  from  students  had  indicated  that  some  felt  it  sub   standard,  but  because  of  their  exis5ng  investment  tended  to  s5ck  it  out.  The  university  grew   concerned  that  their  reputa5on  would  suffer  in  the  local  community  from  bad  word  of   mouth.  Given  the  5ghtly  knit  nature  of  the  business  community  this  concern  was  probably   warranted.  Their  biggest  fear  was  that  student  reten5on  would  suffer  in  the  face  of   compe55on  who  were  rumored  to  be  accep5ng  transfers  from  other  MBA  programs. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 10 CASE  STUDY:  Gaining  new  ac9onable  insights  from  a  customer  sa9sfac9on  survey. Assessment • We  asked  all  students  in  two  MBA  programs  (74)  to  complete  the  GPS  for  the  Mind. • We  also  captured  the  following  data:  Professor,  age  bracket,  gender • We  used  MindTime  Maps  capability  to  collect  amtudinal  data  from  the  par5cipants.  A  panel  of   items  was  developed  to  look  at  various  aspects  of  their  experience  at  the  university. Analysis • We  mapped  all  par5cipants  in  a  Map  of  the  World  of  thinking. Present • Our  MAP  revealed  nothing  special  about  the   distribu5on  of  this  group  of  students. • A  fairly  typical  picture  of  middle  management  thinking   styles  from  both  engineering  and  business   backgrounds Past Future ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 11 CASE  STUDY:  Gaining  new  ac9onable  insights  from  a  customer  sa9sfac9on  survey. Analysis  con9nued  .  .  . • Analysis  of  responses  on  the   ques5on  of  perceived  value  of   the  educa5on  did  not  show  any   correla5on  between  class  they   were  enrolled  in  or  gender  or   age. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 12 CASE  STUDY:  Gaining  new  ac9onable  insights  from  a  customer  sa9sfac9on  survey. * * • Analysis  of  responses  on  the  ques5on  of  perceived  value  of  the  educa5on   did  show  marked  correla5on  with  thinking  style. * • Past  thinkers  were  clearly  the  most  (and  only)  dissa5sfied  group  of   students. * • Present/Futures  showed  the  greatest  sa5sfac5on  with  value  delivered. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 13 CASE  STUDY:  Gaining  new  ac9onable  insights  from  a  customer  sa9sfac9on  survey. Analysis  con9nued  .  .  . Present • A  second  look  at  our  MAP  analysis  revealed  the  likely   cause  of  student  dissa5sfac5on. * • The  Professor  (who  taught  both  MBA  classes)  had  a   Future  thinking  style. • On  further  inves5ga5on  (through  confiden5al   conversa5ons  with  Past  thinking  respondents)  it   became  clear  that  the  professors  thinking  style  did  not   * align  with  Past  thinkers  needs,  nor  did  it  feel   authorita5ve,  thus  undermining  students’  confidence. • Further,  Past  thinking  students  reported  that  the   curriculum  was  presented  in  a  style  which  precluded   Past Future them  from  gaining  a  deep  grasp  of  the  subjects  being   taught.  “Too  much  talk  and  not  enough  hard  facts,”   said  one  respondent. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 14 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  brand  sen9ment  within  communi9es. The  problem: A  major  brand  research  community  provider  asked  us  to  help  them  test  whether  people’s   percep5ons  and  thoughts  had  an  effect  on  the  sen5ments  they  expressed  about  various   brands.  At  the  core  of  this  study  were  two  ques5ons. Does  a  person’s  thinking  style  significantly  drive  their  sen5ments  on  a  given  brand? Is  it  possible  to  iden5fy  the  fundamental  values  (as  iden5fied  by  the  MindTime  framework)  of   people  who  most  resonate  with  a  given  brand? ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 15 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  brand  sen9ment  within  communi9es. Assessment • 255  people  were  mapped  using  the  GPS  for  the  Mind. • All  par5cipants  were  asked  to  respond  with  a  favorability  ra5ng  for  10  separate  brands  on  a   scale  of  1-­‐5  (1  being  least  and  5  being  most  favored). • Gender,  age  and  race  were  known  data  about  this  community  and  were  provided  to  us  for   analysis. Data  analysis  -­‐  Group  composi9on  and  sen9ment • A  series  of  standard  sta5s5cal  techniques  (ANOVA,  regression,  variance,  etc)  was  used  to   analyze  the  data. • It  was  noted  that  there  were  not  enough  respondents  in  the  sample  to  be  able  to   consistently  show  sta5s5cal  significance  in  all  demographic  groups  (race,  age,  gender). ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 16 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  brand  sen9ment  within  communi9es. Findings We  used  data  on  the  Volkswagen  brand  data  as  our  example Across  a  majority  of  brands  tested   thinking  style  was  found  to  have  a   sta5s5cally  significant  impact  on   people’s  ra5ng  of  brands. Favorability by Thinking Style In  this  excerpted  example  we  can   see  that  Future  Present  people   rated  the  brand  most  favorably,   and  Past  thinkers  least  favorably. * Extroverted,  posi5ve,  organized,   deliberate,  liberal,  social,   energe5c,  inven5ve  people  liked   VW.  They  were  Future/Present   thinkers * Introverted,  studious,  bookish,   informed,  analy5cal,  risk  averse,   knowledgable,  detailed  people   were  less  sold ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 17 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  brand  sen9ment  within  communi9es. Findings  con9nued  .  .  . * Where  men  exhibit  higher   favorability  ra5ngs  than  women   the  influence  of—image,  novelty,   Females fun,  hip,  extraversion,  trend   Males semng,  speedy—is  strongest. * Where  women  exhibit  higher   favorability  ra5ngs  than  men  the   influence  of—prac5cal,   affordable,  recommended  by   other  consumers,  well  built   (German),  trendy,  social,   “right”—is  strongest. $ If  this  data  were  SmartSliced   by  age  and  socio-­‐economic   status  we’d  really  be  zeroing  in   on  some  very  potent  insights. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 18 CASE  STUDY:  Understanding  brand  sen9ment  within  communi9es. Findings  con9nued  .  .  . * 1.1)  Volkswagen   1.2)  BMW   Variance  Explained 5.90% 12.40% * This  chart  shows  the  amount  of  variance  in   favorability  among  respondents  that  can  be   1.3)  Hyundai   6.80% explained  by  thinking  profile  data  over  and   above  the  influence  of  all  other  demographic   1.4)  Apple   6.20% factors 1.5)  MicrosoL   2.00% 1.6)  Coca  Cola   1.70% * We  know  from  other  studies  that  opinions,   1.7)  Dunkin’  Donuts   1.80% beliefs,  amtudes  and  values  are  also  driven   1.8)  Tropicana   4.20% by  these  same  influences 1.9)  Levis   3.40% 1.10)  Southwest  Airlines   6.90% 1.11)  UPS   0.90% If  MindTime  is  explaining  this  amount  of   1.12)  Heinz   1.50% variance  in  sen5ment  data,  we  can   1.13)  Budweiser   1.70% reasonably  speculate  that  thinking  style  is   1.14)  JC  Penny   2.40% having  a  very  large  impact  on  all  other   1.15)  Amazon   2.80% aspects  of  a  brand’s  messaging. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 19 CASE  STUDY:  Enabling  effec9ve  self-­‐ini9ated  global  collabora9on. The  problem: The  Chairman  had  fiKy-­‐two  heads  flying  in  from  around  the  world,  the  top  bosses  of  his   global  divisions,  for  the  annual  pow-­‐wow  of  the  global  brass.  The  issue  he  presented  to  us   was  as  follows. While  each  and  every  one  of  these  highly  paid,  educated  and  experienced  individuals  was   performing  at  a  superla5ve  level,  there  was  a  lack  of  collabora5on  between  them  on  a  global   basis.  The  Chairman  of  the  Board  and  CEO  felt  that  his  ‘team’  werent  fully  apprecia5ng  the   value  each  could  bring  to  the  others  in  managing  their  divisions.  They  were  not    leveraging   opportuni5es  collabora5vely.  He  asked  if  we  could  help  raise  the  level  of  their  awareness  to   see  that  it  was  more  than  just  sales  opportuni5es  they  needed  to  share  with  each  other.  He   wanted  all  of  his  top  management  to  understand  that  there  was  huge  opportunity  in  sharing   their  knowledge  and  experience  from  the  point  of  view  of  their  thinking  style  driven   perspec5ves. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 20 CASE  STUDY:  Enabling  effec9ve  self-­‐ini9ated  global  collabora9on. Assessment • We  asked  all  par5cipants  (56)  to  complete  the  GPS  for  the  Mind. • We  also  captured  data  on  length  of  service,  posi5on  held,  we  also  asked  par5cipants  to  rank  their   peers  by  whom  they  spoke  to  most  frequently  (1st,  2nd,  3rd.) • We  developed  a  series  of  maps  that  showed  the  overall  make-­‐up  of  global  senior  management,   by  country,  by  frequency  (rank)  of  inter-­‐personal  contact,  and  by  posi5on. The  Solu.on: Knowledge  Transfer • We  designed  and  facilitated  a  half-­‐day  workshop  delivered  in  Florida  at  their  annual  mee5ng. • During  the  workshop  we  asked  all  par5cipants  to  list  at  least  three  instances  when  the  thinking   perspec5ve  they  were  most  resistant  to  (the  perspec5ve  they  had  the  least  of)  had  goQen  them   in  trouble. • We  then  went  through  a  standard  presenta5on  of  MindTime  highligh5ng  the  role  of  the  thinking   perspec5ves  in  business  and  life. • We  shared  the  maps  we  had  prepared  with  par5cipants  and  had  a  broad  and  open  discussion. • Par5cipants  were  asked  to  work  in  groups  of  diverse  thinking  styles  sharing  their  three  failure   scenarios  and  listening  to  each  other’s  input. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 21 CASE  STUDY:  Enabling  effec9ve  self-­‐ini9ated  global  collabora9on. Results • It  was  obvious  to  par5cipants  that  they  were  communica5ng  on  a  far  more  frequent  basis  with   peers  who  shared  their  own  perspec5ve. • These  ‘like  minded’  conversa5ons  were  more  in-­‐depth  and  covered  a  broader  range  of   topics. • Data  showed  that  geography  had  no  bearing  on  the  frequency  of  people’s   communica5on;  no  maQer  how  geographically  dispersed  from  one  another  they   discovered  they  had  been  reaching  out  to  peers  of  like  thinking  style. • Par5cipants  overwhelmingly  reported  gaining  an  apprecia5on  for  how  others  saw  reported   situa5ons  and  how  nega5ve  impacts  might  have  been  avoided  if  a  broader  set  of  thinking  skills   being  applied  at  the  outset. • Each  par5cipant  iden5fied  four  individuals  in  the  group  who  held  a  perspec5ve  which  was  least   like  their  own.  Over  the  course  of  the  next  three  days  they  spent  “immersion”  5me  gemng  to   know  these  others  in  conversa5on  and  meals  together. • An  overall  map  of  the  senior  management  team  revealed  that  there  was  no  imbalance  of   thinking  perspec5ves  across  the  group.  However,  the  Chairman  did  reveal  that  divisions  led  by   Future  thinkers  were  more  likely  to  have  erra5c  but  stunning  results,  while  those  led  by  Present   and  Past  leaders  had  beQer  long-­‐term  and  more  consistent  successes. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 22 CASE  STUDY:  Correla9ng  thinking  styles  with  Web  traffic  paIerns. The  problem: Who  are  all  of  these  people  really?  Is  there  not  a  beQer  way  to  understand  why  they  do  what   they  do  in  Web  sites?  Hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  are  spent  developing  sophis5cated  Web   environments  with  only  the  most  primi5ve  models  of  human  behavior  being  used  to   understand  the  users  they  serve. We  set  about  crea5ng  an  internal  case  study  to  explore  what  the  data  would  show  if  we  did   even  a  cursory  analysis  of  the  web  traffic  in  our  own  site.  The  results  are  very  encouraging   that  MindTime  will  provide  new  predic5ve  and  rela5onal  analy5c  capability  for  building   beQer  Web  experiences  for  users. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 23 CASE  STUDY:  Correla9ng  thinking  styles  with  Web  traffic  paIerns. Assessment • We  asked  visitors  (222)  to  our  web  site  to  complete  the  GPS  for  the  Mind. • We  used  Google  Analy5cs  custom  variable  fields  to  import  MindTime  data  into  Google  Analy5cs   applica5on. • We  separated  the  data  into  the  ten  archetype  MindTime  model. • We  then  ran  the  system  for  a  few  days  and  collected  the  data. • Analysis  was  done  using  Google  Analy5cs  PlaWorm. Parameters • We  used  our  18  item  version  of  the  GPS  for  the  Mind  (a  9  item  version  is  available). • Our  audience  tends  to  be  skewed  towards  Future  and  Future/Present  thinkers.  This  is  a  func5on   of  the  business  audience  who  traffics  our  site. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 24 CASE  STUDY:  Correla9ng  thinking  styles  with  Web  traffic  paIerns. NEW DATA Analysis • There  is  clear  behavioral  differen5a5on  between  thinking  styles. • There  is  clear  difference  between  the  ten  archetypes  in  avg.  number  of  pages  visited,  avg.  5me   on  site,  and  the  bounce  rate. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 25 CASE  STUDY:  Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on The  Test An  interna5onally  Telcom  brand  wanted  to  understand  how  well  two  compe5ng  sets  of  adver5sing  ideas —one  designed  to  conform  with  MindTime  audience  segmenta5on  and  one  not—would  be  received  by   small  business  decision  makers  (10-­‐100  employees)  in  the  USA. Beyond  simply  wan5ng  to  understand  how  the  two  sets  of  compe5ng  ad  ideas  were  received—if  one  of   the  sets  of  ad  ideas  liKed  the  audience’s  sen5ments  on  specific  differen5a5ng  brand  aQributes  more   than  the  other—the  client  also  wanted  to  gain  insight  into  how  the  audience’s  thinking  was  being   influenced  by  the  ad  ideas  presented.  And,  they  wanted  to  know  why  the  ads  might  be   influencing’  (s5mula5ng  and  changing  percep5ons)  in  certain  kinds  of  people—driving  higher  sen5ment   responses—while  leaving  others  unaffected  by  the  ad  ideas—with  resul5ng  low  or  no  liK  in  sen5ment. To  put  all  of  this  more  straighWorwardly.  The  brand  wanted  to  understand  how  targe5ng  people’s   thinking,  through  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta5on,  ad  design  and  messaging  principles,  can   influence  brand  sen5ment  and  behavioral  outcomes. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 26 CASE  STUDY:  Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on Our  hypothesis • We  hypothesized  that  small  business  decision  makers  are  most  driven  by  Present  and  Future  thinking— using  the  nomenclature  of  our  model.  Years  of  mapping  audiences  and  businesses  bears  this  hypothesis   out.  Thus  an  adver5sement  designed  with  the  needs  of  these  thinking  perspec5ves  in  mind  would  create   more  liK  in  the  targeted  audience  than  an  ad  not  specifically  designed  for  this  target  audience. Research  design • A  na5onal  market  research  firm  was  engaged  to  conduct  the  study,  this  included  recrui5ng  the  panel   audience  (specifically  filtering  for  small  business  decision  makers)  and  running  the  study. • Six  adver5sement  ideas  were  prepared  by  the  adver5sing  agency  that  represents  the  brand.  All  ads   targeted  small  business  decision  makers.  Three  were  designed  with  no  thinking  style  bias  (“Calling  Card”   Concept  A).  Three  were  especially  designed  using  MindTime  design  principals  to  influence  Future  and   Present  thinkers  (“Outcomes”  Concept  B). • 525  people  were  recruited  and  surveyed,  353  of  the  respondents  were  used  in  the  study  (not  all   conformed  with  the  client’s  desired  demographic  mix). • The  panel  was  randomly  split  into  two  roughly  equal  groups.   • Respondents  in  both  groups  were  first  profiled  with  the  MindTime  profile,  then  both  groups  were  asked   to  react  to  11  brand  aQributes  that  were  deemed  to  be  of  importance. • Half  the  respondents  were  then  shown  the  three  versions  of  the  ‘MindTime  guided  design’  ad  idea   (Concept  B),  the  other  half  were  shown  the  non-­‐MindTime  ad  idea  (Concept  A).  Having  seen  the   ‘s5mulus’  material  they  were  all  asked  to  give  their  reac5on  again  to  the  same  11  brand  aQribute   ques5ons. • An  8  point  Likert  scale  was  used  to  measure  par5cipants  responses  to  brand  aQribute  ques5ons. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 27 CASE  STUDY:  Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on The  ad  concepts Concept  A “Calling  Card” Client protection Client protection Client protection Concept  B “Outcomes” Designed  using   MindTime  Design   Principals Client protection Client protection Client protection ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 28 CASE  STUDY:  Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on The  research  panel  audience  composi9on Pr Pa Fu ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 29 CASE  STUDY:  Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on Visualiza9on  of  audience  li[  in  sen9ment  using  MindTime®  thermo  maps™ Increased  favorability  in  brand  aQribute  “Enables  the  Flexibility  I  want”  (concept  B) Pr Pr The  hypothesized  target  audience   of  small  business  decision  makers Pa Fu Pa Fu Pre Exposure Post Exposure Intensity  and  size  of  popula5on  engaging  with  “Outcomes”  (Concept  B)  increased  drama5cally. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 30 CASE  STUDY:  Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on How  much  did  thinking  style  drive  people’s  percep9ons? Percent variance explained by thinking perspective on the 11 business related items both before (pre) and after (post) exposure to Concept 1 and Concept 2. Brand attribute measured Pre- Exposure to Concept Post-Exposure to Concept Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 1 Concept 2 Provides solutions for a business like mine .072 .050 .070 .076* Is an advocate for my small business .065 .080* .035 .085* Understands my priorities .054 .088* .048 .121* Helps me realize new opportunities .086* .079* .065* .099* Has the best selection .067 .065 .081* .086* Recognizes my business objectives .064 .100* .056 .082* Enables the flexibility want .066 .058 .056 .093* Has quality products and services .057 .061 .049 .082* Is a brand/company I trust .043 .059 .038 .042 Will be there for me. .063 .073 .035 .094* Helps me feel confident .048 .071 .048 .088* ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 31 CASE  STUDY:  Effec9ve  messaging  using  MindTime  audience  segmenta9on Charts  of  li[  by  thinking  style  (pre  and  post  ad  exposure) Increased  favorability  in  brand  aQribute  “Enables  the  Flexibility  I  want”  (concept  B) Enables the flexibility I want (Concept B) Enables the flexibility I want (Concept B) Pre Post The  hypothesized  target  audience  of  small  business  decision  makers ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 32 CASE  STUDY:  Ad  effec9veness  study  conducted  in  Germany,  France  and  North  America Does  thinking  maIer? While we all can readily understand how being a man or a woman, being young or older, or being rich or poor might impact our decisions, it is perhaps not so immediately obvious how our thinking style affects our perceptions and the choices we make. In the following case study MindTime Technologies participated with a global ad planning company, a global digital research company and a global advertising company to asses the degree to which MindTime archetype was accounting for people’s behaviors in an advertising effectiveness study conducted on behalf of a client in Germany, France and North America. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 33 CASE  STUDY:  Ad  effec9veness  study  conducted  in  Germany,  France  and  North  America Methodology Survey respondents were recruited online. They were divided into those who had been exposed to the advertisement and those who had not (control group). Opinions, intent, brand favorability, and thinking style were then measured in a survey. Respondents were segmented using MindTime’s 8 archetype model. • Map shows distribution of audience sample of 1,500 (North America data) people who participated in the study • Target audience CTO/decision makers in start-ups and small businesses • Target thinking style presumed to be Past/Present Target audience ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 34 CASE  STUDY:  Ad  effec9veness  study  conducted  in  Germany,  France  and  North  America Resonance While the target audience was Past/Present in make up, the ads resonated with Future thinkers, and did so very well. The ads were deemed to be off market and were redesigned using MindTime design principals. Ad target Ad resonance * Statistically significant difference between control and exposed group at a 90% confidence level - Insufficient Sample for Reporting ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 35 CASE  STUDY:  Ad  effec9veness  study  conducted  in  Germany,  France  and  North  America Variance Explained in People’s Opinions (North American Data) How$would$you$describe$your$overall$opinion$about$.net$ Propor6on$of$total$variance$explained$ Exposure,*0.00%* Work*Status,*17.24%* TimeStyle* Age* Gender* Income* Work*Status* Income,*24.14%* Exposure* TimeStyle,*58.62%* Age,*0.00%* Gender,*0.00%* • Total amount of people’s responses explained by all measured variables: 5.8% • Of the above, thinking style explained: 58.62% • The amount of people’s responses explained due to interactions between thinking style and the other measured variables: 19.70% ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 36 CASE  STUDY:  Ad  effec9veness  study  conducted  in  Germany,  France  and  North  America Variance Explained in People’s Intent (North American Data) The$next$(me$you$are$planning$to$register$a$website,$$ how$likely$are$you$to$consider$.net$ Propor(on$of$total$variance$explained$ Exposure,*2.67%* Work*Status,*21.33%* TimeStyle,*41.33%* TimeStyle* Age* Gender* Income* Work*Status* Exposure* Income,*22.67%* Gender,*0.00%* Age,*12.00%* • Total amount of people’s responses explained by measured variables: 7.5% • Of the above, thinking style explained the following proportion: 41.33% • The amount of people’s responses explained due to interactions between thinking style and the other variables: 22.85% ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 37 CASE  STUDY:  Ad  effec9veness  study  conducted  in  Germany,  France  and  North  America Variance Explained in Brand Attributes (North America Data) How$strongly$do$you$agree$that$.net$is$[brand$a5ribute]$ Propor9on$of$total$variance$explained$(average)$ Exposure,*20.22%* TimeStyle,*35.96%* TimeStyle* Age* Gender* Work*Status,*10.11%* Income* Work*Status* Exposure* Age,*6.74%* Income,*24.72%* Gender,*2.25%* • Total amount of people’s responses explained by measured variables: 8.9%. • Of the above, thinking style explained the following proportion: 35.96% • The amount of people’s responses explained due to interactions between thinking style and the other variables: 9.61% ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.
  • 38 Try it . . . Visit  our  mapping  site  to  learn  about  your  own  thinking  style  and   how  it  affects  your  life— www.mindtimemaps.com To  learn  more  about  business  opportuni5es,  contact: John  Furey,  CEO MindTime  Technologies  Inc. john@mindtimetech.com Thank  you. ®© 2012 MindTime Technologies Inc. Patent Pending.