Understanding Consumer Knowledge Gaps

While it can be easily believed that customers are the ultimate experts about their own needs, there are ways to gain insights and knowledge that customers may not be aware of or able to articulate directly. While customers are the ultimate source of truth about their needs, product managers can complement this knowledge by employing a combination of research, data analysis, and empathetic understanding to gain a more comprehensive understanding of customer needs and expectations. The goal is not to know more than customers but to use various tools and methods to gain insights that can lead to building better products and delivering exceptional user experiences. ➡️ User Research: Conducting thorough user research, such as interviews, surveys, and observational studies, can reveal underlying needs and pain points that customers may not have fully recognized or articulated. By learning from many users, we gain holistic insights and deeper insights into their motivations and behaviors. ➡️ Data Analysis: Analyzing user data, including behavioral data and usage patterns, can provide valuable insights into customer preferences and pain points. By identifying trends and patterns in the data, product managers can make informed decisions about what features or improvements are most likely to address customer needs effectively. ➡️ Contextual Inquiry: Observing customers in their real-life environment while using the product can uncover valuable insights into their needs and challenges. Contextual inquiry helps product managers understand the context in which customers use the product and how it fits into their daily lives. ➡️ Competitor Analysis: By studying competitors and their products, product managers can identify gaps in the market and potential unmet needs that customers may not even be aware of. Understanding what competitors offer can inspire product improvements and innovation. ➡️ Surfacing Implicit Needs: Sometimes, customers may not be able to express their needs explicitly, but through careful analysis and empathetic understanding, product managers can infer these implicit needs. This requires the ability to interpret feedback, observe behaviors, and understand the context in which customers use the product. ➡️ Iterative Prototyping and Testing: Continuously iterating and testing product prototypes with users allows product managers to gather feedback and refine the product based on real-world usage. Through this iterative process, product managers can uncover deeper customer needs and iteratively improve the product to meet those needs effectively. ➡️ Expertise in the Domain: Product managers, industry thought leaders, academic researchers, and others with deep domain knowledge and expertise can anticipate customer needs based on industry trends, best practices, and a comprehensive understanding of the market. #productinnovation #discovery #productmanagement #productleadership

Have you ever abandoned a purchase because the button was too small? Neither have your prospects. People only ever drop out for 3 reasons: 1. They don’t understand what you do – Comprehension 2. They understand but don’t care – Urgency 3. They get it, they care, but they don’t believe you – Trust In that order. Here’s how to diagnose and fix each of those 3 gaps: 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝟭: 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲: Show your headline to a prospect for 5 seconds. Ask them “What does that mean?” Repeat 5 times. If nobody gets it, rewrite. 𝗙𝗶𝘅: You’ve got 5 words + one image to demonstrate how you can help them. If your headline talks about your product, you’re asking them to guess. If your headline talks about their challenges and goals, you’re on the right track. 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝟮: 𝗨𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲: This usually shows up as poor sales conversion, or an activation problem. Prospects will say they’re “too busy,” which means you’re not a top-3 priority. 𝗙𝗶𝘅: You can boost urgency with simple tactics like time-limited discounts, or poking at their pain. But you might have a chance to deepen product/market fit: Ask prospects what 𝘪𝘴 on their top-3 list, and reposition or pivot to address a top 3 priority. 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝟯: 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲: Talk to recent signups, and ask them “what made you almost not sign up?” What specific questions or worries did they have? 𝗙𝗶𝘅: Some marketers see trust as an amorphous concept and throw money at “brand building.” But trust is rooted in specific concerns like “What will my team think?” “Will I actually use it?” or “Are your providers vetted?” 𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽 If you’re stuck in the land of marginal gains, look beyond simple UX tweaks. Discover the root cause of dropoff and address it: Improve comprehension, find urgency and build trust – in that order. .

No doubt about it, customer insights and customer understanding are vital to #customerexperience. But I think that we would do well as #CX practitioners to also focus on what we don't know about our customers. Ask yourself: 💠 What are you uncertain about? 💠 What are your customers unable to tell you? 💠 What are your customers refusing to reveal? 💠 What is unknowable about their experience? ✍ Then, make a list of that anti-knowledge. A list of what you do not know about what customers want, expect, and need from your experience. I'd argue, the longer, this list is the better. Why? Two reasons.  1️⃣ It means there's so much more for you to discover about your customers, it's a to-do list in other words. 2️⃣ The list is a lesson in humility. Remind yourself that there is still so much you do not know about your customers. So much you may never know if you're honest. Focus on your list of customer anti-knowledge, customer misunderstanding, customer blindspots. Call it whatever you want. It will keep you curious, and humble.

Is consumer insight killing product innovation? “People don't know what they want until you show it to them – Steve Jobs” Steve Jobs is often quoted to imply pitfalls of listening to consumers for product innovation. Also quoted in the same breath is Henry Ford who famously said,” If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!’” Above arguments are made to paint a picture that over reliance on consumer insights can throttle innovation. So, is consumer insight bane and not boon for product innovation? The answer is No. Are these legendary innovators wrong in their observations? The answer again is a resounding No. As much as listening to consumers is key to product innovation, the problem lies not in the “voice of customer” but how to listen to the “ voice of customer” The answer lies in understanding human psychology. More specifically, the concept of functional fixedness. Functional fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits a person's ability to use an object in more ways than it is traditionally used and affects an individual's ability to innovate and be creative when solving challenges. During research, when consumers are asked to make product recommendations, consumers run into functional fixedness - the human tendency to fixate on the way products or services are normally used, making people unable to imagine alternative functions. Consumers’ limited frame of reference is basis their existing use case of a product and hence as Henry Ford said, the ask for a ‘faster horse’. How can consumer research overcome this cognitive bias? A better way to gather consumer inputs is to first understand the inherent role the product fulfils in consumers’ lives and understand the outcome desired by consumers. The key is to understand the Jobs to be done (JTBD) for consumers. Afterall, people don’t buy products; they “hire” them to do jobs. Do brands need to listen to consumers to inspire product innovation? Very much!!! Do brands need to learn how to listen to consumers? Very much!!! Harvard Business School professor, Dorothy Leonard, sums up beautifully in an HBR piece, “Discerning the difference between what customers are able to say and what they want, and then acting on those unspoken desires, demands that companies learn to go well beyond listening.” #consumerbehavior #consumerinsights #behvaiouralpsychology #NPD #productinnovation #voiceofthecustomer #consumerresearch

Ask most teams "how well do you know your customers?" and you'll get the same answer: "Really well. We hear from them all the time." Then ask them to articulate what those customers actually want. Suddenly there's a lot of blank stares. "They want cheaper and faster." "They want to make more money." Sure. So does everyone else. That's not an insight—that's a generic placeholder. Real customer knowledge looks different. It's specific. It's actionable. It reveals what's actually blocking them from moving forward. With every single startup I work with, I first use this framework to help teams move past surface-level answers: The 4 forces: 1. Struggles - What's actually keeping them up at night? (Not generic pain points—specific friction) 2. Desired Outcome - What does success look like for them? (Not "better results"—what's the real change they need?) 3. Inertia - What's holding them back from changing? (Status quo bias is real) 4. Anxiety - What could go wrong if they take action? (The hidden objections) When teams actually dig into these four forces, the response is always the same: "I had no idea." Because organisations often find themselves stuck saying "we tried things, nothing worked, we're not sure what to do next." The answer is always: go back to your customers. But go back differently. Because the gap between "we know our customers" and actually knowing them is where most strategies fail. What's one assumption about your customers you should probably validate this week? ♻️ Found this helpful? Repost to share with your network.  ⚡ Curious about health tech and entrepreneurship? Hit follow Maya Moufarek.

As a sociologist, I assume that consumption is not simply a matter of individual choice. What we buy, how we use products, and how we dispose of them are shaped by social norms, infrastructures, institutions, markets, and cultural expectations. Behaviour is embedded in systems. This perspective strongly shaped a recent collaboration with my co-authors, Xingjun Ru and Yingying Lu, in which we examined the well-known attitude–behaviour gap in the context of textile disposal in China. The textile waste crisis is a striking example of this gap: many people express environmental concern, yet sustainable disposal practices remain inconsistent. Rather than assuming that more knowledge automatically leads to better behaviour, we approached the issue differently. Drawing on Psychological Network Analysis and integrating insights from 16 theoretical frameworks, we analysed data from 2,680 Chinese consumers to understand how motivations, values, emotions, and incentives interact as a system. Three distinct patterns emerged. About 22% of respondents are what we call Sustainable Practitioners. Their environmental values are well integrated into their decision-making. For them, sustainable disposal is coherent with how they see themselves and how they act. Around 26% are Blue Intenders. They care about environmental issues and express strong intentions, yet their behaviour does not consistently align with those intentions. In this group, we observe internal tensions. Environmental knowledge and values are present, but they are not effectively connected to action. The largest group, 53%, are Non-motivated Actors. Here, behaviour is less driven by internalised environmental concern and more by external opportunities and incentives. Convenience, infrastructure, and situational factors matter more than abstract values. What this tells us is that there is no single “environmentally conscious consumer.” Environmental values take different forms and play different roles depending on how they are embedded in broader psychological and social configurations. Emotional drivers can stabilise sustainable behaviour in one group while reinforcing inertia in another. We propose a triple psychological system perspective to better understand this heterogeneity. But importantly, these psychological systems are not isolated from society. They are contextualised and shaped by wider social determinants, including market structures, urban infrastructure, policy frameworks, peer expectations, digital platforms, and cultural narratives about fashion and consumption. If we want to close the attitude–behaviour gap and advance circular economy transitions, we need more than awareness campaigns. We need targeted interventions that recognise behavioural diversity and address the broader social conditions that enable or constrain sustainable practice. Sustainable consumption is not only about better choices. It is about better systems.

You Want To Control Your Own Data? You Can't Handle Your Own Data! The CFPB's 1033 rule aims to empower consumers by granting them access to and control over their financial data. But that assumes that we have the knowledge, resources, and capacity to manage such complex responsibilities. This assumption is problematic for a number of reasons: 1️⃣ 𝗘𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗴𝗮𝗽. Managing financial data involves understanding things like data security, third-party provider credentials, and consent agreements. But, as so many people here like to point out, we have a financial literacy (or illiteracy) problem in the US. Many consumers lack formal education in financial literacy or cybersecurity, making them vulnerable to exploitation or mismanagement of their data. 2️⃣ 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀. Many consumers--particularly younger ones--interact with upward of a hundred financial providers. Constantly monitoring, authorizing, and renewing consent for multiple providers will create an unsustainable load for the average consumer. Revoking data access requires knowledge of the process and vigilance to ensure that 3rd parties no longer have the data. Many consumers simply won't spend the time to track these activities. 3️⃣ 𝗩𝘂𝗹𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀. Many consumers are unaware of how their data may be used once shared. PII isn't even needed anymore for marketers to accurately individual consumers. Providers could use data for purposes like targeted advertising or profiling, potentially violating consumer expectations. 4️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀. While there are some good tools available today, most consumers lack the resources to track and resolve data breach issues. Financial recovery, identity restoration, and credit monitoring require expertise and time that many consumers do not have. To address these challenges, the industry needs: ▶️ 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. While 1033 rule requires the secure handling and sharing of consumer data, it doesn't include a formal certification process or licensing requirement. ▶️ 𝗘𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. Instead of placing the responsibility on consumers, FIs should implement security measures like automatic consent expiration and granular access settings. While Section 1033 aspires to give consumers control, it places an excessive burden on individuals to manage complex data-related responsibilities. Ironically, without additional safeguards and educational measures, the rule risks empowering only the most informed and resourced consumers, leaving others--i.e., those 1033 was designed to help the most--more, not less, vulnerable.

If you want to understand consumers, don’t study them in artificial settings. Go where real decisions happen. Focus groups tell you what people think they do. Observing them in the wild, at home, in stores, in daily routines, reveals what they actually do. That’s where real insights live. Consider this: People say they want healthier snacks, yet impulse buys at checkout still favor chocolate bars over granola. Shoppers claim they read product labels, but in reality, most grab what’s familiar. The gap between what consumers say and do is where the magic happens. Brands that thrive don’t rely on scripted answers. They step into the jungle, listen, and adapt.

I got three quotes from general contractors for a home renovation. Chris was 15% higher. So I told him. I expected the usual defense: “You get what you pay for.” “Do you want the cheapest surgeon?” “Quality costs.” He didn’t do any of that. Instead he said: “Sounds like you’re comparing this to other quotes.” Me: “I am.” Him: “Can I ask you a few questions about those quotes?” Me: “Sure.” Then he asked: “Did they mention what type of moisture barrier they’re using?” “Are they installing hollow core or solid doors?” “Are they putting down RedGard?” “Are they replacing the copper pipes or reusing the existing ones?” Silence. I didn’t know. And that’s when it hit me. I wasn’t comparing scope. I was comparing totals. Chris didn’t defend his price. He exposed what I didn’t understand. And in that moment… I persuaded myself. That’s why I hired him. Here’s the lesson: Price becomes the battleground when there’s no meaningfully differentiation. The best sellers don’t argue. They illuminate knowledge gaps. They create just enough friction for you to see the gap. And when the gap becomes obvious… You close yourself.