How laboratory segmentation shaped a leading MedTech's R&D priorities
Discover how segmentation helped a leading immunodiagnostics division prioritize features and develop strategies for product innovation.
In times of economic uncertainty, the pressure to reduce risk while maintaining growth makes the Develop phase of innovation more critical than ever.
The challenge of innovation failure often lies not in the initial underlying idea, but in the execution. Great ideas with strong consumer appeal can still fall short if they aren’t developed and tested in conditions that truly reflect how people encounter and evaluate new products and services in the real world.
The innovation cycle
There are four stages to the innovation cycle, and in our earlier blog we discussed the importance of uncovering audience needs in the Discover stage. In the next stages, Define and Develop, it is crucial for concepts to be well-written and for testing to be engaging and presented in-context.
The 4 stages of innovation
1
Discover
Explore your customers’ habits, needs and challenges to inspire innovations that have staying power
2
Define
Assess your early-stage ideas to find those with the greatest potential for further development
3
Develop
Transform your most promising ideas into winning propositions that resonate with your customers
4
Deliver
Validate your leading proposition through behavioral testing within a realistic market context
Engaging your audience
A good idea that resonates with your target audience is a strong foundation for the Define and Develop phases of the innovation cycle. However, there is still a lot that can go wrong when the proposition is developed in more detail:
- Inside-out thinking: When companies describe their innovations from their own perspective rather than from their audience’s viewpoint.
- Creating barriers to understanding: Use of technical jargon, unknown abbreviations, lengthy descriptions where people get lost in the details, and communication that focuses on features rather than benefits.
- Outdated formats: Use of overly text-heavy static descriptions that don’t reflect how audiences are used to consuming and processing information today, such as short-form messaging, images and videos.
- Ad-like positioning: Concepts that read too much like advertisements rather than explaining the innovation at its core, making it harder for consumers to understand the actual value proposition.
However, it’s not only the proposition that can form a barrier to successfully predicting the viability of a concept. The way of testing can also impact test results:
- Unrealistic testing environments: Traditional testing methods create artificial consumer attention that doesn’t reflect real-life browsing behavior where attention spans are short and products must catch attention in a split second.
- False confidence: When concepts are tested in isolation – without realistic reference points like benchmarks or competitors – innovations can receive inflated performance scores that don’t translate to real-world success.
Testing for the real world
The reality of purchase decision-making looks nothing like traditional concept testing, which typically forces audiences to focus on a single concept in isolation. When consumers encounter new products, they’re browsing online stores or walking retail aisles where dozens of alternatives compete for consideration. In these environments, attention is fragmented and choices involve constant trade-offs between options. New products have only seconds to break through the clutter and convince shoppers they’re worth choosing over established alternatives.
This dual challenge – attention and conversion – cannot be measured accurately when innovations are presented in isolation.
In a recent validation project, SKIM demonstrated the difference between testing innovations in isolation vs realistic context. We tested a haircare innovation using traditional methods versus in-context methodologies which included competitive trade-offs.
The traditional concept test in isolation led to overstatement of preference, and predicted greater results than the actual sales data. Whereas the sales data was in line with test approaches which mimicked online and shelf browsing behavior.
How to bridge the gap to reality
Modern concept development requires approaches that mirror how audiences encounter and evaluate innovations. There are multiple ways innovation teams can achieve more realistic results which help to minimize the risk of launching an unsuccessful innovation:
- Creating consumer-focused messaging: Develop a concept that connects with audiences through concrete and easy-to-understand messages with tangible benefits, in a short, snappy format that takes into consideration how content is consumed. SKIM’s concept creation workshops, based on frameworks to lower psychological distance, help reduce the gap between company communication and consumer understanding.
- AI-powered consumer co-creation: Leverage artificial intelligence to bring the consumer voice more directly into product development. SKIM’s SurveyBot and AI-supported co-creation tools allow consumers to express what they want in their own words. This natural input enhances the relevance of innovation, while AI accelerates the process without compromising research rigor. Discover how SKIM’s award-winning AI approach is reshaping how concepts are designed, with the consumer at the core.
- Choice-based testing in context: Test concepts in realistic environments and let consumers make actual decisions with choice-based methodologies. These approaches replicate real decision-making by capturing both conscious evaluation and subconscious reactions in competitive environments, revealing how innovations perform when competing for attention and preference. Solutions like UNSPOKEN® and Conjoint analysis provide these realistic testing environments.
4 takeaways for your next innovation
To leverage your innovation resources more efficiently and gain more accurate market predictions, focus on these critical areas:
1. Think outside-in: Describe innovations from your audience’s perspective, emphasizing the problems or desires solved and benefits delivered rather than technical features and company capabilities.
2. Modernize concept formats: Move beyond relying on long text-heavy descriptions. Include visual and interactive elements that match how people consume information today, making concepts more engaging and easier to evaluate.
3. Embrace realistic testing: Use choice-based methodologies that capture decision-making in realistic contexts, providing accurate predictions of market performance while revealing potential optimization opportunities.
4. Leverage AI to accelerate insights: Use artificial intelligence to capture richer feedback and involve consumers in the product design process early on.
Ready to navigate with greater precision and certainty?
At SKIM, we partner with the world’s leading businesses to develop resilient innovation, revenue management, and brand communication strategies that stand strong during market uncertainty. Our data-driven approach provides clarity when it’s needed the most.
Let’s navigate uncertainty together to bring greater confidence to your decision-making process.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does “testing in context” mean for concept development?
Testing in context means presenting your innovation alongside existing alternatives that consumers would encounter when making purchase decisions. Instead of evaluating your concept in isolation, consumers see it competing for attention and preference against current market options, both your own portfolio and competitors. This approach reveals whether your innovation can truly break through the clutter and win consumer choice in realistic shopping scenarios.
What’s the biggest mistake companies make when developing concepts for testing?
The most common error is describing innovations from an internal often more technical perspective rather than addressing consumer problems and benefits. Often concepts are loaded with feature or ingredient lists, industry jargon, and company-focused messaging that consumers can’t easily connect to their own needs. This inside-out approach often leads to poor test performance for genuinely strong innovations, causing companies to abandon viable opportunities or invest in extensive concept revisions that could have been avoided. To optimize your testing, book a workshop with SKIM’s innovation experts.
How do we know if our concept descriptions are too technical or inside-out focused?
If your concept leads with features, specifications, or company capabilities rather than problems solved or outcomes delivered, it’s likely too inside-out. Additionally, if your concept requires explanation or context that wouldn’t be available at the point of purchase, it needs a consumer-focused revision. To optimize your communication, leverage SKIM’s psychological distance principles.
Stay tuned for more:
Receive more insights from our experts
After wrapping up our five-part series on revenue management, we’re shifting gears to focus on innovation. This marks the second blog in our new series on innovation strategy.
With ongoing market volatility, our goal is to equip business leaders with practical, forward-looking insights to support confident decision-making. Subscribe to stay ahead of the curve with insights from our team.
