The academic discipline that studies consumer behavior and consumer psychology is essentially studying the black box of who behaved in such a way. It can be said that this is a field of study that heavily focuses on who did what. In my opinion, they like to see quantified results. MBTI has become very active, and the reason minerals are selling is because you are you, I am me, you are a child, I am a child. Just accepting it as an adult. They want to touch upon the initialization and provide hundreds of options that match the data, viewing consumers one by one as suitable for the suppliers. Consumers think it takes more time and is cumbersome. Hello, this is Bae Sojin from Tea Times. It's always intriguing to know when and where people spend money, as well as which products and brands they are particularly enthusiastic about. So, in our previous Tea Time appearance, we talked about this.

We have invited Professor Song Soo-jin from Korea University, who has a deep understanding of consumer psychology. Hello, I am Professor Song Soo-jin from Korea University, teaching marketing and marketing communication consumer behavior. I am a consumer behavior scholar. It's nice to meet you. You mentioned that I am a consumer behavior scholar, which may sound unfamiliar. Consumer behavior studies, in simple terms, is the study of the black box. When companies provide marketing stimuli like selling expensive products, opening a department store, or starting an advertisement, customers, in response, visit, make purchases, or wait. However, we cannot understand why these reactions occur between stimuli and responses. If we were to call this the black box, then...

The study of what happened in the black box, commonly referred to as 1h 6W, involves questions like where, who, how, and what. People are curious about who did what and why, focusing intensely on these types of questions. To express this questioning method, it can be said that this field of study delves into who acted in such a way, questioning who and why they acted that way. To put it more precisely, it can be viewed as a vending machine. Externally, when we insert a coin and receive an item, there is input and output, but we do not know the mechanism inside. However, a technician can come, open it with a key, see the gears inside, and understand how the flow works. Expressing it as a black box doesn't mean we don't know, but rather that we are curious and cannot fully understand. In fact, if we look inside, we can find out.

It implies the meaning that we have used the term mg generation a lot so far, but recently there seems to be an effort to focus only on the Z generation. How do you see the similarity between the millennial generation and the Z generation, which is not as high as you mentioned? Should we now accept it in the field? Yes, I think so. So, just as it applies to predicting how the generations currently referred to as paras will turn out in the future, the reason we have been grouping them as mg until now is that the alphas have not emerged as a large group. Therefore, we have seen it that way. However, now these individuals, who are college students and early career professionals, show unique consumer behavior and psychological characteristics.

Because we can observe and witness, we can finally separate and observe, and now it has grown to the point where we can finally confirm consumer behavior. So, is there anything new that stands out prominently between the millennial generation and Generation Z? When I call the generation after them the respectful generation, even though they valued values, the M generation tends to pursue more universal values ​​than idealistic values. They pursue values, but it seems that they are more likely to find values that are suitable for themselves. Secondly, they are a generation that respects. In my opinion, they like to see quantified results. For example, have you ever taken a personality test? Oh, I haven't taken one, but many students and juniors around me have. They do it one by one.

Consulting costs about 170,000 won. But it's quite a lot. Even though we students don't have much money, they diagnose us like this hairstyle suits you or this personal color suits you. In a similar context, MBTI is very popular, and the reason minerals are selling is because people want to know who they are. They think there must be a correct answer to who they are, so they want to find that answer. But that answer is my answer, not yours. So, by searching for it, they want to respect and be respected. One of the functions of having MBTI is that if you are I, and I am A, you are F, and I am T, without judgment. If you do that, I will accept you as you are, so accept me as I am. I think this is a very important characteristic that Jet has. I mentioned that we are a respectful generation, and the last one is a collector of experiences.

I think that even though millennials also enjoy consuming experiences, they seem to be more selective and eager to collect experiences. If discomfort was a characteristic of the previous generation that led them to avoid certain experiences, I, on the other hand, am willing to endure discomfort to pursue new experiences. Another experience to collect, another one to collect, another one to collect. Even though I may not buy the product, if a new pop-up store opens in Seongsu-dong, I feel like I have to go. Each experience adds to me, and having had unique experiences becomes an advantage for me. Joo Doo-nim reads the minds of consumers and, as he mentioned earlier, explains consumer minds in such fun terms. In the age of surveillance, consumers prefer products that reduce discomfort.

I think it would be helpful to explain. As I look at the behaviors of consumers today, I feel that an important characteristic of today's consumers is surveillance. They dislike wasting emotions, time, and attention. Therefore, they prefer and love companies and brands that cherish their emotions, time, and attention, reducing the waste of emotions, time, and attention. So, to reduce the waste of emotions, time, and attention, companies often talk about reducing pain points. However, do you often feel pain in your consumer life? Pain points, when directly translated, mean pain points. In reality, many people in companies, such as those in the R&D department or product planning department, often mention digging up pain points. But they receive a lot of feedback that they can't find what these pain points are, so.

If I were to suggest thinking about what discomforts consumers are experiencing, what they are anxious about, and what they are wasting, it would be easy to identify. People often think about wasting money when it comes to waste, but not only money but also time waste, as mentioned earlier, exists. There is also waste of interest. Furthermore, people's anxieties are not just physical but also social anxieties and risks at a social level. Young generations who have grown up with digital technology may wonder if there will be any more space to feel naive. They might think that it is not a world that is less anxious anymore but a more convenient world. It seems like the threshold is rising. The current Z generation will definitely be different from the baby boomers or the 50s and 60s parents.

I live in a world that is much better in terms of environment than previous generations, with much less discomfort and anxiety. However, as the threshold rises, I will shout out another pain point within it. I gave commands to the generative model, but why isn't it responding quickly? And generative AI originally should search, but now the search function is disappearing. Even if it only does what I ask and reduces inconvenience, I should be very grateful. Consumers who think this is annoying will later stumble and wonder why they can't understand me well. They will appeal to a different kind of discomfort with a high sense of touch. There is no choice but to endlessly upgrade, right? From the perspective of companies or brands, they must continue to run towards the extreme. So, if I briefly mention my complaints about my job here, scholars studying marketing have to keep up with new things every year.

I don't think it will be the same every year. I think you should look at it every quarter. Yes, that's why companies respect it a lot and think it's difficult. The market is evolving like a living organism. It can't just stop as we just talked about. Consumers always raise the bar, and what they have experienced becomes the standard. They even compare experiences from different industries. Why doesn't the experience I had drinking coffee translate to the ice cream shop? Why doesn't the experience at the ice cream shop translate to the content industry? Why doesn't this happen at concerts? People think like this, which makes it difficult for cross-industry exchanges. That's why it's so understandable that they keep running. You mentioned that there are different values that consumers pursue. Many companies, especially those based on manufacturing, are

I've been focusing on pain points. However, brands that continue to succeed for a long time, revitalizing themselves and finding vitality, such as Nike, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola, have the characteristic of not just resolving discomfort, waste, and dissatisfaction but filling what customers desire. It's difficult to discern the function that cools like refrigeration, as the taste difference is not significant. Therefore, it is necessary to provide new distinctive values and new distinctive points. If the pain points do not stand out, brands need to move towards providing experiences that satisfy people's desires, which leads to differentiation. Brands that succeed or are loved are those that provide experiences of desire points. Then, what are those desire points?

I thought about it, but when I think about the meaning of desire points, does this brand provide meaning to this person? For example, Patagonia says that the whole world is its main shareholder. In reality, it matches its words. Just like Freitag, a bag brand that creates bags that are unique in the world and made from recycled materials. Those bags are actually dirty, uncomfortable, and heavy. Even though they are uncomfortable, just by carrying a Freitag bag, I can show people that I am a consumer who cares about the environment. It's something that can be immediately visible. So, it provides that kind of meaning. Or it could be fun. It may not have a specific meaning, but it's fun. That's why students walk around wearing earphones shaped like chocolate bars. Or they carry them in a case shaped like Das Boot. It's more inconvenient, increases the volume, and stuff.

It costs 270,000 won, but it's all sold out. It was quickly sold out. In a way, it's a waste of money, but aside from the fun of being the last one, there are iconic brands that represent the identity I want to live and become. So, when that brand provides an experience of desire, it goes beyond just clothes. So, going beyond the pain point, it is necessary to provide meaning, fun, and symbolism in clothing. To capture the generations, there needs to be a noticeable service for individuals. Do you have any specific services like that? Speaking of individuals, one thing I want to point out is that individuals are not very suitable as suppliers, and I don't know what value they provide to me. What is value to me? It's about matching experiences. So, the moment I think of personalization, it's about each person.

The idea of ​​looking at it from data is already embedded in the wording, and you and this are different, so what should we supply in this way is the wording that contains what we will provide. Conversely, from the perspective of experience, what would be tailored to me from the perspective of a high-altitude experience? What would be providing me with a perfect experience that suits me? Therefore, it can be said that it is a more accurate term that fits consumers better. Looking at the behaviors of companies attempting extreme personalization, they offer options in extreme personalization. Because it is extremely personal, it is extremely personal, so you, this, and this are all different, so choose up to 100. Think extremely personally, then how about the offensive position? Are consumers happy about that? Having to choose among 100 is a burden that is passed on to me. Then, on the contrary, with more choices, it becomes more tiring. It becomes more tiring because there are more options. They said they would tailor the experience to me, but

If you match, it's experiential, not to go through all those processes to get the right experience, I have to endure them all. Consumers don't want this, so they seem to overlook it. Companies that are using such absurdities are already looking at consumers one by one as data and providing hundreds of options that match that data. Looking at past cases of failure, creating something like an automatic vending machine where you input your skin type, race, age, and other information, and combining all that to create a foundation that suits you, didn't receive a good response in the market. Because you have to go through all the procedures to make the right foundation, you have to endure a tremendous amount of burden. Instead, if it scans you and says, This is how you are, so this suits you, ultimately, seeking an experiential match is seeking an experience.

Is the process something I don't experience? Then, is the difference whether it involves the consumer's efforts or not? Simply put, it seems like it could be. Earlier, in the personal color diagnosis or customized hair consulting, although the end result is a customized experience that suits me, in the process of finding it, my efforts and hard work are not involved. Experts interpret and diagnose me, and there seems to be a difference in saying, This is it. In fact, I was trying to ask a question like this. In this era of personalization, are companies, especially manufacturing companies, accustomed to satisfying the masses with processes that are not tailored to each individual? So, I was trying to ask if something needs to be changed. However, once we discard the word personalization, how can we create such a customized experience? How can we create an experience?

Companies are making a lot of efforts, right? Many commonly used strategies involve not just leaving the product alone, but creating customized services that combine with the product. Even if it's the same washing machine, if you download something, it automatically operates differently according to the characteristics of the laundry. Therefore, many companies are using strategies to enrich the experience through services. Alternatively, by adding elements to the product or attaching something, people tend to desire their own unique things, so strategies to develop the elements of the product are mainly observed. Consumers may not know whether to decorate their own products or not. In such cases, should companies approach by saying, Decorate your phone or shoes? This is actually a good question. Customers can express their identity and individuality through what they have.

I think it's right that you love the products, but can I control or plan that? It's a strong no from me. If I have the power and identity like the iPhone, it might be possible to build an ecosystem together by collaborating with partners who are willing to say it's okay for me to put my product on top of theirs. However, how can I design it from the beginning? Can I control everything from the start and make it that way? I need to think about that a bit. However, if we go back to the question we originally had in mind, we might be able to think about conditions that make experiences or ultra-personalization possible. Consumers seem to love brands that give them the freedom to play with their products, brands that give them the freedom to play. They seem to dislike standardized choices that make inconvenience impossible. For example, Lego blocks are small blocks one by one.

There are a tremendous number of ways to combine those blocks. But if this is only sold as a set in a coffee shop, it seems difficult to love it as it is now. The possibility of playing exists, but it doesn't give a fixed answer, so it doesn't make sense. Ultimately, personalized recommendations are not about regret or providing the same information I clicked on. But isn't it difficult due to data protection laws? So now, the environment has changed, right? However, customers continue to demand, so it could be a very dilemma situation. From the company's perspective, it may be a dilemma to speak from a consumer perspective, but it has become a better world for consumers. It's about whether to give or not, giving me the choice. If ownership of the data comes back to me and provides me with a customized experience using that data, it would be great.

The requirement to prove that lies with the company, so the company needs to appeal to me. I think this can also be examined through the framework of meaning, fun, and symbolism. When a company talks to a customer, they should approach the explanation meaningfully, emphasizing that the information you receive from them will not be wasted but will truly provide you with functional benefits, economic benefits, or emotional benefits. Secondly, making the process of exchanging that information enjoyable will be helpful. I think making the process of giving personal information enjoyable is important. For example, spinning a roulette to receive certain information can provide you with direct benefits, making the process fun and creating emotional interactions. Efforts are needed to make such interactions enjoyable and to reflect the brand that truly represents my identity.

I want to be the brand I want to follow the fandom and community. If so, I would like to give my information because I want to be a willing part of it. The Harley-Davidson community is so good, so I want to know if I can join or not. Also, I would like to give feedback on what the Harley-Davidson community should do in the future. Then I will gladly give it. A brand should be able to reflect the identity of the consumer by implementing symbols well. Therefore, if it becomes a brand that can convey meaning, fun, and symbols well, it may be easier to collect the customer's personal data. It is essential to make them willing to give. What is the right way? Yes, that's right. Since you can't force it, you have to rely on the person's will and consent. To do that, no matter what I ask you, as a reporter, right now...

It's like you wouldn't move unless it means something to you, has value, or is fun. Just like that, I thought about a brand that I would willingly give as a symbol, a brand that stands out. I could say that I'll give functional benefits, or it could be fun right now, or it might seem rational in a way. Because I love this brand so much and want to feel a sense of unity with it, I want to become a part of it. So, it would be best if I could make people feel that way. Therefore, if we connect this question to something like, what is the most important factor in market behavior, let's rethink the question a bit. When you open a consumer behavior textbook, there is always a figure that appears, Professor Russell Belk. He says, Do people feel that their selves are extended by possessing things they own?

You have presented an important point in this paper, which is that in order to create the day I want to be, we need to understand the consumers we are targeting and what kind of life they are living. It is essential to know what kind of person they are. Secondly, efforts are needed to build an ideal self. Without researching the ideal self, there is nowhere to take these people. Therefore, I think the most important strategic point is to go beyond that to propose a brand that can lead them. By confirming what our consumers are like at present, we can research what kind of ideal self people with these characteristics would pursue. That's right. So, celebrities are used a lot from a self aspect, where people react by saying, That person's way of living is very hip and cool. I want to embody and follow it.

Consumers, when they target something and it works well, they think it's cool. But if someone says, I don't want to be the cool person I want to be, they don't necessarily follow that person's spending patterns. So, I think that by making efforts to explore the current selves of the consumers and customers I am talking to right now, and by discovering what kind of person they want to become, we might be able to build a brand as a symbol. I wanted to ask about this connection. We have been using the words of internalizing the brand too comfortably. I wonder if a brand that is well symbolized, as you explained, will soon become an internalized brand. If I briefly explain brand internalization, it involves efforts to embody the identity of your brand in the daily decision-making process. For example, the Times has certain thoughts, right?

Times, do executives at the level know the identity that the channel has, and do employees know as well? But if executives and employees know, do subscribers know too? So when you usually look at a triangle, well-managed companies have the same top of the triangle. What do we want to leave to the world with our brand? What story do we want to leave? What problem do we want to solve in the world? What identity do we want to imprint on the world? Typically, founders or executives know all this, but employees often do not. If employees don't know, they should ask every day. Can I do this? Can I call this person? Should I create this content? If you are not sure, then you don't have an understanding of the identity of that brand.

Yes, that's right. But even in everyday decision-making, you can make decisions in the same context. You don't have to go and report everything one by one. Then, you can flexibly and creatively send out your brand message to the world at a very fast pace. Then, customers also clearly understand what the brand is. So, the concept of brand identity within the brand is very important and is also connected to the company you want to work with. The reason we usually perceive Patagonia as a good brand is that their brand identity, in other words, their brand intrinsic value, is very well established. Do you know why Patagonia sells beer? It doesn't seem to be for making money. But I don't know why they sell it. Patagonia is originally an outdoor sports brand, so selling beer seems unrelated. They sell it to drink while having fun outside.

Do you know what? It's an unexpected answer. Wow, it's not about enjoying the outdoors and drinking, but if you want to make beer, you have to plow the field every season. However, there is a lot of carbon emissions happening there. Patagonia wanted to show an example of being able to achieve commercial success by developing varieties of wheat from different companies to make beer and sell it. That's why Patagonia sells beer. On the other hand, now outdoor companies are making fleece jackets like school uniforms. But among those jackets that are worn like uniforms, they decided not to sell to companies that do not make environmentally friendly investments. And as we know well, there is a similar case of Don't buy this jacket, saying not to buy the same one. So, even looking at these three small examples, could this be a decision made by one person's will? Is it about the founder pushing it through, making it happen?

In reality, various departments within an organization, such as the product planning department, the finance department, the promotion or sales department, all strive for the same identity. How did employees in these diverse departments make decisions that align with a common identity? Because employees working here know well what kind of presence Patagonia wants to have in the world and what identity it aims for. Consequently, consumers receive a consistent message. It is a brand that truly thinks about the planet and the environment. Companies with well-internalized branding can be considered as those where the management, employees, and customers share the same values. Employees of companies where this internalization is well-established can make decisions reflecting their identity in their daily decision-making process without always having to ask for the opinions of their superiors.

You mentioned a corporate culture where employees don't have to ask each other individually. I think I would like to work in a company with such an atmosphere. Is it okay to understand what kind of company JETs want to work for through questions like this? The intention of the question is that I have thoughts about fortune. I wonder if Gen Z wants to work for a special company, not just one with a lot of headquarters. I want to know if I can grow in this job. I always want new stimulation, learning, challenges, and experiences. If we can't say such things, they are saying it. Because we are a later generation, we are asking if it will help my growth at work. So, we are now asking why I have to do this. So, please tell me why I have to do this, not why I have to do this. I think there are more perspectives, and if so, you might think like before.

I'm not asking you to do this because you're busy, but I want you to explain the whole context and intention of what you will do next after finishing this task. And it seems like you really want to work for companies that value that, right? So, if there are efforts embedded in such brands, is it possible? Or what should our organization, our company do to become an organization where the brand is well internalized? Depending on the size of the organization, there may be some differences. In the case of small or young companies, founders or founder groups may need to have clear intentions and reasons for their work and it would be good to have clear rewards for their intentions and results. In the case of large companies, it seems a bit difficult for the organization's structure itself to be drastically changed. However, if someone is more responsible here, what matters most?

If you ask if it exists, it seems quite clear. The responsibility of executives is greater between executives and employees. Each individual employee needs to make efforts, but it is necessary for the executives to lead the meeting without speaking first and to speak at the end. Such efforts are needed. However, executives' contracts end quickly, and due to the pressure of evaluations and performance, it is difficult to tolerate waiting for failure. Therefore, they tend to focus on short-term results. Where does the responsibility lie then? Isn't it the performance reward system evaluated by executives that influences the entire organizational culture? What the previous executives have built and left affects my performance, and the results of my investment may not be seen until five years later. If I will still be here in five years, and if such things come to light, then no one has the courage.

Because it's difficult to make decisions, in large organizations, we observe that organizational culture changes only slowly and steadily. Therefore, in Triangle, I think that the management team should make more proactive efforts so that brand internalization can flow down. Conversely, from my generation's perspective, I also believe that efforts are needed to become the talents that companies desire. Yes, so Jett is looking for a hexagonal company. Providing a good work-life balance, good compensation, offering experiences for growth, solving long-term problems, having the best colleagues, and having a clear identity in what you do. Conversely, companies are also looking for hexagonal individuals. Are you as diligent as that? Are you making efforts to learn as much? Are you taking responsibility for what you say? Are you a reliable colleague whom the company can trust? There are many things to exist between people, and there are many things that I need to help this person with.

I am looking for things that we can do together without dismissing tomorrow, but it seems like I can't think that far. Also, when I try to give advice or feedback to senior people, they hesitate because they are afraid of being called old-fashioned if they speak up. As a result, valuable insights and learning points within the company are not being shared. They are afraid of being called old-fashioned if they speak up, so they hesitate to speak. But when they break through that barrier and ask me for advice or knowledge, it leads to the transfer of a lot of wisdom and experience to the younger generation. If there are seniors around, if someone approaches me first and asks me to share their wisdom, all the good points are shared with that person.

Many people might be present, but I'm hesitating to share because I'm afraid of hearing old-fashioned comments. Could you give me feedback first? If I ask if there is something I can learn, it will be very beneficial for myself. I have received various good reactions from friends like that even in school. It feels like a magical word. If the professor says, Can't you tell me one more thing? or something like that, then maybe good wisdom like a spring for those who are struggling above will gather to me. So, I have spoken to both sides. Oh, thank you.

고객들은 '초개인화'를 원하지 않는다? (소비행동학자 송수진 고려대 교수)

Technology(기술), Trend(트렌드), Transformation(혁신)에 관해 
꼭 알아야 할 지식.  

일하는 사람들의 지적 동반자 티타임즈TV. 

www.ttimes.co.kr

Contact
주소  서울시 종로구 청계천로 11(서린동,청계한국빌딩)
e-mail  ttimes6000@gmail.com
Tel  02-724-7718

고객들은 '초개인화'를 원하지 않는다? (소비행동학자 송수진 고려대 교수)

고객들은 '초개인화'를 원하지 않는다? (소비행동학자 송수진 고려대 교수)

스크립트