476 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF 'COSMETIC CHEMISTS uncertainty of age, the rehandling of the preparation may bring about changes which could affect its properties in use and this could affect its consumer acceptance so that the findings of the research had an unsuspected bias. As everyone knows, matching a perfume compound is an almost impossi- ble task and it must, unless faced up to, seriously vitiate the test. Such a problem does not, of course, apply if the "match" is one of the same firm's products. Thus, for any internal testing to decide if one formula is better than another, it is imperative that as far as possible, all the outward prop- erties are similar, so that the members of the panel are simply asked to judge performance in unspecified array. On the matter of judging this, because of well-recognized uncertainty, the triangle test has been employed. Here, three specimens are given, the tester being informed that two are identical and one different. With a trained panel this test has great value but when placed before a cross- sectional panel many of the individuals feel under a stress similar to an examination and their nervous reactions are more than likely to become randomized. Often, in their desire to help, they may become ultrame- ticulous and, noting extremely small variations, many of which may be independent of quality, give wrong answers. One aspect of investigating "likes and dislikes" needs to be emphasized. Toilet and cosmetic products are essentially for daily use and what may have a strong appeal as a change from the usual, may easily engender a most favorable reaction. Even a novel form of presentation of the same product may easily weigh the balance in its favor. Experience has amply shown, in the case of tooth paste and shampoos among other things, that all too often in the launching, the product fulfills the indication of the panel test but soon, too soon, the novelty wears off and sales decline to uneconomical levels. What is it that really lies at the basis of all these difficulties ? It is some- thing affecting the psychological reaction of the individual when he or she is faced with a problem which is not precisely defined. There is always the impact or fear of the unknown and the atmosphere is conducive either to the giving of wrong answers, many of them wrong because the individuals are so prone to attempt to make a reason for what they think might occur and by this very fact claim to find results which do not even exist! This is most frequently found with those of a slightly higher intelligence quotient than average. What the panel is in need of is information: it is this which lies at the foundation of all modern marketing. The ordinary panel testing approach is too academic to have reality. This is because it is based on the assump- tion that permeates many sociological systems, as for example, that de- mocracy implies complete freedom of will, but forgetting that an untutored

CONSUMER RESEARCH ON NEW PRODUCTS 477 democracy is an anachronism--it is just chaos. The marketing people with their feet on the ground are aware of this: they know that no story means no sales. With a new product it is futile to ask panels to give a preference between it and an old but established product. They do not know what to look for in the new one. Their conditioned order of preferences through experience can jeopardize a true assessment of value. A new hair cream which while giving ample grooming of the hair but which does not soil the pillows, can be condemned because it gives a slightly less glossy shine to the hair. And yet such a cream if its nonsoiling properties were known, must prove to be highly acceptable. This is but one example of the fault in much of the consumer research which is carried out. It tends to maintain the status quo and can lead to a uniformity of quality which approximates mediocrity. That this has some significant measure of truth can be easily proved. Ask some young woman why she uses some particular cosmetic preparation. The majority of answers will be superficial in character. Then ask what properties she expects to find in such preparations and why. Those that give good or reasonable stories will, in the main, use parts of the advertising copy. This is even true of actual chemists working in the laboratory suitably biased, of course, by the beliefs which the particular laboratory may hold. In consumer research each product to be tested must stand on its own feet. The marketing people know this quite well and their job is to put forward reasons why a particular product should be bought. These sup- porting stories are judged practically always by the innate skill of the ad- vertiser. They may play on a feature of acceptability which is low down the scale of the majority, in which case, the advertising is weak, or strong if perchance the feature was high in the scale of preference. The employ- ment of the panel testing technique should be extended to bring in these sort of problems. That is to say, the object of the experiment should be redefined. The consumer panel test might well be to determine the con- sumer acceptability by means of a panel of users who are aware of the fea- tures which are to be assessed and who will place these features in an order of preference. Since it would be of immense value to know if continual usage brings about a change of acceptability, it is a wise procedure to offer a further supply for testing purposes. An analysis of the results from such will give some indication of the chances of the product surviving--a point of significant importance in the commercial field. The notion is put forward, therefore, that when a new product has been formulated, tested in the laboratory and has fulfilled all the requirements of stability appertaining to shelf life, etc., the samples, when distributed to the consumer research panel, should be accompanied by a concise but clear pamphlet indicating those advantageous properties to which attention is to