top of page
.png)
.png)
Stage one, definition
Where we started
Laddering Interviews
Foreword
What does trust, privacy and personalisation mean to generation z? When mapping my foundation of knowledge, it became clear for generation z that privacy is tightly linked with newfound ownership and protection over my data. It also uncovered a discomfort sharing this private data with untrusted online sources and more generally a less impressed, although occasionally more receptive, attitude toward digital ad personalisation. Since the purpose of this research is to understand how advertisers can regain generation z trust while personalising digital ads in a post-cookie world, I was required to first-hand understand this group's experiences and attitudes toward my three core themes of trust, privacy, and personalisation.
As a result, I made use of the qualitative technique, laddering. Laddering aims to develop a deeper profile on participants' cognitive understanding of certain themes[1]. It builds on the foundations of means-ends theory to help reveal connections between physical product attributes and deeper personal values[2]. The laddering interview research objective was to understand trust, privacy, and personalisation in the context of digital advertising through the eyes of generation z.
.png)
.png)
.png)
The theory
.png)
WHY?
The one-to-one interview technique works by building linkages between attributes (A), consequences (C), and values (V)[3]. Following the A-C-V process, we can understand how simple product attributes such as privacy functions link to participants' more profound and underlying values. A key aspect of the laddering process is asking the participants 'why'. This inquisition aims to inspire a shift from the attribute to the value element, encouraging participants to share what Trisha Wang would consider thick data. When referring to thick data I mean the human learning enabled through conversation, delving into the stories and emotions at a greater depth than quantifiable data alone[4].
During the interview, I position myself as the facilitator, while the participant is the expert to encourage them to confidently express their feelings on intangible and subjective constructs such as privacy. The benefit of the means-end approach of laddering is the production of personally relevant chains that allow an understanding of the consequences of product attributes.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
What we did
I arranged four virtual laddering interviews with one participant per interview. Participants were prefaced with the nature of the data collection; however, I did not indulge the topics of the questions as to not bias their responses. After welcoming the participants and completing an ice-breaking activity, I introduced the interview structure. For each of trust, privacy, and personalisation, I showed and explained, where necessary, an image of a product feature (A) predominantly related to tech. The participant was encouraged to connect the attribute with how it impacted their experience of a product/ service (C). Based on their response, I asked open-ended questions to see how these consequences revealed experiences aligning with their personal values (V) surrounding trust, privacy, and personalisation. For each theme, we explored two different product attributes. This contingency helped gain a more substantial and rounded image of participants' value orientation. Interviews were recorded with transcripts written and analysed.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
Empathy
Mapy
What we did
The results of each of the laddering interviews were then simplified in the findings tables above. And now, to consolidate the findings, the below empathy map synthesises the collected insights. Empathy maps are a visual design thinking tool that captures a researcher's understanding of a specific user[5]. The map was populated according to notable insights and quotes discovered during the laddering interviews, giving rise to the pain and gain factors that would inform my prototype.
.png)
Brand Experience Workshop
What we did
Informed by thick data stories, I next wanted to understand how insights gathered from the laddering interviews more specifically related to the context of digital advertising. Brand experience workshops produce brand-image continuum maps, where positions are dictated based on participant understanding of specific themes[6]. The research objective of the workshop was to understand how generation z positions digital brand services in relation to building trust and personalisation capabilities. The workshop was a group task shared between me, the moderator, and two participants also interviewed for the laddering stage. While the map itself is scoped to the themes of trust and personalisation, the placement of images created a more general discussion of brand sentiment. It was interesting listening to participants develop their thoughts from the laddering interviews when expressing preferences toward certain technology brands. The map produced during the interview is presented below.
.png)
Key Findings
While the brand experience workshop with the two participants raised countless interesting developments from the laddering interviews, I found two topics stirred the greatest interest and underlined the majority of decisions behind brand placement across the continuum. These are now detailed in greater depth.
It's a purposeful life
A key development revealed in the brand experience workshop was generation z preferences toward brand purpose. Both participants sided with the companies that put their purpose at the core of their brand offering. Whether this was Duck Duck Go's approach to privacy protection or Good-Loop's charitable advertising formats, if a brand is seen as doing good for worthy causes, it can be a great trust builder for generation z. This insight corresponded with the respondents not seeming to be money-driven when it comes to building trust.
They highlighted the cashback and discount code schemes as being beneficial, but not necessarily trustworthy. Tom explained, "the fact they are immediately asking for my email address is concerning". This links back to Tom previously tying privacy with security and Mae using the metaphor of a password to symbolise its feeling. Therefore, the philanthropical rather than financially driven brand identities proved closer to their definition of privacy and increased perceived trust-building.
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=small}
.png)
"the fact they are immediately asking for my email is concerning"
Get me involved
There was also a desire for personal involvement that became clear in the preference for greater control. While the two participants agreed that Ecosia, B Corp and Gexsi were great concepts, they felt slightly detached from the causes and were unsure whether their involvement would make an actionable difference. Mae praised Good-Loop, for example, for encouraging her interaction as an internet user, getting involved in the rewarding decision-making process that made her feel warm and fluffy inside.
This sentiment led on from a comment Mae made previously, explaining there is nothing revolutionary about planting trees anymore. Likewise, with Ad for Good, "donating 1% doesn't wow me, it may be more of a PR box tick so that's why I'm slightly less trusting". A connection can be made back to Mae's laddering interview, where personalisation worked best when linked to a personal passion. She says, "something that reminds me of me, and I believe that represents me". The desire to feel part of a process, especially one that does good, seemed to mark the optimal spot on the trust and personalisation continuum for generation z.
.png)
.png)
"donating 1% doesn't wow me, it may be more of a PR box tick so that's why I'm slightly less trusting"
[1] Hanington, B. and Martin, B., (2019). Universal methods of design expanded and revised: 125 Ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport publishers.
[2] Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J., (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of advertising research, 28(1), pp.11-31.
[3] Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J., (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of advertising research, 28(1), pp.11-31.
[4] https://medium.com/ethnography-matters/why-big-data-needs-thick-data-b4b3e75e3d7
[5] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/empathy-mapping/
[6] Hanington, B. and Martin, B., (2019). Universal methods of design expanded and revised: 125 Ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport publishers.
bottom of page