It’s one of the key jobs of research to discover the features or ‘things a product or service’ needs to do to deliver a great outcome for people. It can also discover what features an organisation might desire that don’t work for people.

There’s a great example of some of appropriate (and perhaps inappropriate) features in a delightful little Japanese treat, “Pocky” chocolate sticks. I’ve been fond of them for years, but recently took the time to really study one of their boxes. I had to rely on machine translation from the original Japanese, so I’m sure I’m not getting the full picture, but there were some interesting insights all the same.

Positive features include an easy opening box, the method of opening both clearly communicated by the design, but also a helpful little cartoon.

Another feature is the treat protection, to ensure freshness, which includes clear instructions and features that makes opening the package easy.

There’s nutritional information, for those wanting to treat but also manage their consumption.

There’s help and support, for those wanting to notify the company about the quality of their Pocky.

Research can also discover or verify things that a product or service needs to do to help the people who sell or retail the product. In the case of Pocky sticks, this might be the shape (for easy shelf placement), treat protection (for shelf stability) and other information that might be required for compliance.

Notice the treat protection is one of those features that applies to both the people enjoying the treat (who want their treats fresh) and the retailer (who want their treat to not expire in days). These internally facing features might not be voiced by the people that enjoy the treats, but they do form part of the underpinning delivery of the treat. So they still have to be discovered and understood as part of a holistic research program.

Beyond these foundational features, there are things that sit in the grey area between things that are driven by marketing’s need to get people talking and sharing about a product and people’s natural inclination to share stories of a product they actually like. An example of this is a Pocky fan community, which, my translation tool tells me.

“It is a community where everyone can communicate positively through activities with everyone who loves Pocky…. Pocky's fan community "Pokitomo" was opened with the vision of ‘creating moments in daily life and communication that raise feelings and create a sense of unity.’” (https://pocky-fan.glico.com/)

It’s hard to tell how well this community works in Japanese culture, because I haven’t done or seen the research. This sort of feature is probably less attractive to me personally, but then I might not be the in the group of people it’s aiming at. I’d have to do or see the research to understand it.

I will say these created communities sometimes feel a little dystopian because they’re trying to forcefully create the opportunity for someone to do something that they might want to carve out for themselves.

With a little more translation work, I even found out that there’s a Pocky branded programming app, ‘Learn with Pocky.’ As far as I can tell, it looks like a branded version of MITs Scratch Programming Language. I’m even less sure about the tie-in between a fun-but-sugary-treat and programming. Again, this feels like a feature inspired by marketing and not by people’s needs. Research could untangle which is which.

Design, user and experience research is often seen as a limiting factor in product and service imagination innovation. Mostly because it’s often construed as just ‘asking people what they need.’ Because people might not always be able to tell you everything they need, it ends up producing little to no new ideas.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Research isn’t about asking people what they need, but about exploring how they do things, how they think about products and services and how they work together. Deeper research might also discover some of the less often voiced (by either consumers or producers) but just as crucial issues of cradle-to-cradle waste production and the place of treats in society. Throwing features into a product or service, without research, isn’t innovation, it’s guessing.

And it’s good research that may well have discovered what I took to be be one of the most features of the product. Situated on the back, right below the product tagline, is a little matte message box. It took me a while to figure out what it was. It’s an in-built gift tag.

Considering how many people buy little treats for each other, it provides an easy opportunity for someone to jot down a message of thanks or love to someone they’re giving the little treat-box to.

Now that’s a delight.