Meagan:
Welcome back to this week's episode of Dig In, the podcast brought to you by Dig Insights. My name is Megan and today I'm joined by Nick Graham, who's the global head of insight for Mondelēz International. And I'm also joined by Michael Edwards, who is one of our co-founders and chief growth officer at Dig Insights. Nick, how are you doing today?

Nick Graham:
You know, I'm doing pretty well. It's been a busy day already, but looking forward to the conversation today.

Meagan:
By 11 a.m., you're already flat out.

Nick Graham:
Yep, that's the joy of a global role, right?

Meagan:
I'm

Nick Graham:
Start

Meagan:
going to

Nick Graham:
early

Meagan:
go.

Nick Graham:
and late, unfortunately.

Meagan:
Oh man, and Michael, how are you doing?

Michael Edwards:
I'm doing all right. I'm actually doing this call from a client's office. They have the most interesting corporate art.

Meagan:
Well, thank you both for joining me so much today. I really been looking forward to this conversation. I actually, I asked you Nick, just over email before we jumped on if there were any specific areas of focus for you this year. And you kind of called two out, you talked about, you know, working within the business to sort of reframe how you look for new growth. And you also talked about sort of re-imagining how work gets done within a lot of the larger projects that you're focused on. So I wanted to kick off, before we dive into that, I did want to kick off and let the listeners know a little bit about your career experience. You mentioned that you were at PepsiCo, but yeah, give us a little bit of background on how you arrived. in this role at Mondelēz.

Nick Graham:
Yeah, well, it all makes sense when you live it backwards, but at the time, it's just a series of twists and turns on the journey to get here. So I started my career in advertising planning. That's where I did the first three, four, five years of my career. And that was super instructive, I think. I've always had a passion for, was a passion for communication, always had a passion for really understanding how to respond to and shape behaviour. Advertising itself wasn't necessarily for me because I found that I kept yearning to really understand the bigger problem that we were trying to solve for, right? And obviously advertising is one way in which you can solve for that. And I candidly got frustrated that I felt like we were often, it was the classic hammer and nail situation right where advertising

Meagan:
Yeah.

Nick Graham:
was the answer, but actually I'm not really sure it was the answer to the question that clients had. So from the world of advertising, I sort of took a step back earlier in the chain. So I went to brand and innovation strategy consulting. So I did work for a couple of small boutique brand innovation strategy agencies working for ironically a lot of people I now, you know, I've worked for since then. So PepsiCo, Mondelēz, et cetera, Unilever, really helping them design where were their brands going from a growth perspective and helping them shape their brand positioning and innovation strategies. That's actually what brought me to the US. So the last company I worked with from a consulting perspective brought me to the US in 2010, which is hard to believe. That was 13 years ago now.

Meagan:
You kept the accent.

Nick Graham:
Yes, mainly. And mainly there are certain words that I definitely become Americanized and my spelling has become fully Americanized now. So it's funny.

Meagan:
Yeah.

Nick Graham:
You think I sound British. A lot of my British friends now think I sound slightly American. So I guess I'm probably bobbing around somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic these days.

Meagan:
I'm sorry.

Nick Graham:
But yes, that brought me to the US 13 years ago. I and then in 2013. I really wanted to get my hands dirty on the corporate side. I really enjoyed the breadth of work that I did on the brand innovation strategy consulting side. But again, I was yearning for, I could see there were bigger problems to solve. And I wanted to be earlier in the journey to really understand what is the fundamental business issue that we're trying to answer here. And then, of course, as a consultant, you get the variety, but you never really get to see. it into market, right? And so I understand why something worked, why it didn't work, why a thousand different changes were made to it after you'd left the room. And so that's what took me to Pepsi in 2013, where I spent six, seven, eight years, sorry, four years leading the beverages team, the global beverages insights team, and then the last four years leading the US Insights Analytics organization. So... It was a great, it was a lot of fun. It was a great, great journey. And then two years ago, made the switch, staying in the world of food and beverage, but then made the switch here to Mondelēz to work out what's the future of Oreo and Cadbury and Toblerone and Ritz and Sour Patch Kids and all those good snacking delights.

Meagan:
Amazing. Thanks for that sort of tour through your past. I wanted to kick off with more of an open-ended question around this desire to sort of reframe the way that Mondelēz looks at driving new business growth. Why is there a desire to reframe the way that you look at business growth at Mondelēz right now?

Nick Graham:
So I would say, I think some of this is a good principle anyway, right, as we're thinking about how to design growth for the future. I think a lot of big corporates like mine can risk getting very stuck in a sort of manufacturer category mindset, right? Like, so I operate in chocolate, I operate

Meagan:
No.

Nick Graham:
in cookies, I need to win in these particular categories. And you know, that can drive your growth for a while, but I think there comes a point at which in order to really realize growth, you need to take a step back and say, actually, you're not in cookies, you're not in chocolate. Yes, that is the format that you happen to be in, but you're actually in the job of bringing people together. We're actually in the job of providing pleasure and reward at the end of the day. We're actually in the job of providing morning sustenance and energy to get you started. That's the job really that our categories and our brands need to be able to play. And so I think particularly as we're looking to, we have pretty big growth aspirations for the company over the next eight years. And so what we've said is, if we're really gonna realize more breakthrough growth, we have to take a step back and say, rather than being kind of sort of constrained in a box, let's work out what's the consumer or shopper problem that we're really solving for, opportunity that we're solving for, and let's frame our growth strategy and our innovation strategy around that. So really trying, because I think otherwise what ends up happening Looking at a thing that's in your box and go, well, can I make one of those kind of make one of those kind of make one of those? Can I copy that thing that sits over there as opposed to what I found with teams is when you say You know, we did this with um Toblerone, which is one of our um, one of our chocolate brands. It's really big in Travel retail. So if you go through airports, you'll often see it's one of the biggest If not the biggest chocolate brand in travel retail But if you think about it as just like, it's a triangular chocolate product, right? So it's a triangular product. So that gives you lots of constraints to begin with. And then if you think it's just in, you've got a lot of constraints about how you innovate, how you grow that brand. But if you say, which is what we did is said, actually a huge amount of the consumption is for gifting. So if you actually say we're in the job of gifting, then you suddenly open your landscape to say, well, who else can I learn from in gifting? How can I innovate in gifting? What can I learn from? So. you know, a huge amount of the work we're doing now in personalization, personalization of packaging, personalization of experience, different formats. That came from expanding our frame to say, let's stop thinking just about where this triangular chocolate bar that satisfies this particular occasion. Let's think about ourselves as a gifting brand and what are all of the opportunities for growth that would come from that? What are the right channels we need to be in? What are the right moments? What are all the right occasions? So I think this expansion of the frame really gives us this opportunity to be much more. open-minded and find very different ways to solve for the growth opportunities. But what excites me as an insights professional is because it all ultimately starts with a consumer shopper need and occasion and a problem that we need to solve for. I think that's what's brilliantly brilliant about it is it's about growth, but it's ultimately about the consumer and the shopper as well.

Meagan:
I love that. I think I feel like I'm not cheating, but I'm thinking of people who haven't maybe had as much insights experience as you or Michael and they're thinking like, wow, that sounds amazing. Like, how do I actually go about actioning? actioning a strategy that revolves around jobs to be done,

Nick Graham:
Mm-hmm.

Meagan:
versus, you know, what might have been done previously? Can you talk to us a little bit if we go back to sort of the basics of Because what you're describing is a jobs to be done framework. What is that and how is that different from maybe what you would have, the way that you would have looked at those categories in the past from like a research perspective?

Nick Graham:
So certainly from our perspective, so everything roots back into what's the moment occasion, the role that our products and our brands play. So I think one of the key things is really understanding, and you can do this in lots of different ways. You can do it through qualitative research, you can do it through quantitative research, you can do it through syndicated data. So there's no one size fits all way to determine it, but it's to really

Meagan:
time.

Nick Graham:
understand what role does it play in your consumers and shoppers' lives? When are they consuming it? why fundamentally is the fundamental question really is understanding is what's the what are the motivation or motivations that are really driving that choice in the first place and then I think for me the next question is always then what are all of the other things that then and it might not even be food products or beverage products what are all of the other ways that people can solve for that so a good example of this if you think about um you know you come home from work and you're tired after a busy day doing insights and analytics, and you just need to like chill out and relax and create that marker between the work day and the evening. That is a moment or as occasion. There's a lot of different ways that people can solve that. Maybe through chocolate, maybe through a glass of wine, maybe through going for a run, so thinking more expansively about all the ways that people are solving for that need, that suddenly opens up that rather than being constrained to be like, I have to be this thing in this moment. actually what you're doing is you're serving this need for relaxation and then we can be inspired by and learn from all of the other different ways that people can satisfy that. So to me, the logic flow is really starting with what's the moment, what's the occasion, what are the motivations and then what's the real broad competitive set that you can learn.

Michael Edwards:
If I could jump in with a question.

Nick Graham:
Yeah.

Michael Edwards:
So at Dig Insights, we're absolutely big fans of our jobs to be done framework. The question for me is a large organization like Mondelēz, how challenging was it to get people to sort of change the way that they thought about their categories? Because people I'm sure were very entrenched thinking I work in chocolate or cookies or crackers or whatever it might be. And now I need to think that I work in gifting

Nick Graham:
Yeah.

Michael Edwards:
or indulgent moments or whatever the need might be.

Nick Graham:
I think the challenge is always that people have those two different lenses. There's the more performance measurement lens, which will be the manufacturer category, because that's where our sales are organized around that. That's how retailers talk about that category. There's always, unfortunately, a lens that you have to take, which is the world of the category that you technically operate in. I think from a growth perspective, it's actually been really freeing for people to say, what if we just take the constraints off the bat for a second and say, the way you're going to win is you're going to win in celebration and gifting. Ultimately, you may create a chocolate product that sits in the chocolate category, but the need and occasion that's delivering against is gifting. I think that's been actually quite liberating for the team is to be actually able to say, that's the universe we're trying to win in. That's the sort of share of stomach, if you like, that we're trying to win. And it's helped them really think more expansively than about how to solve for it. Otherwise, because you otherwise just get very, you can get very stuck in the box, right? If you don't have that expansion of the frame. So I think generally people have found it very liberating. I think one of the tensions though, is when some of the best opportunities to solve for it are not easy solutions in your category, right? So I think that's usually why there's the biggest challenge. So last year we acquired Cliff protein energy snack bars. And I think one of the great things that they've done is reframed their thinking is that they're about energy. So how all the ways that they can deliver energy and indeed in fact, they actually deliver energy for humans and dogs. So they actually have a dog and pet range as well, which is all

Meagan:
I didn't know that

Nick Graham:
know, energy. I know, now you know, you see. Energy

Meagan:
Hahaha

Nick Graham:
and snacking for dogs and cats. So. I think that's a really great example where if you think a little bit more expensive, you can think about different ways to solve the need. But I agree sometimes then that is the challenge of someone to say the best way to solve this might be a snack bar, but what if I'm a chocolate brand? Like how do I manage the dynamics of that? But I think realistically that's the challenge of the food and beverage industry in particular where there's so much more hybridization of categories now. You know, the idea that there's a snack bar that's Snap-ups covered in chocolate sort of plays between two categories anyway, so I think we almost increasingly have to think about by using more of a jobs to be done consumer shopper demand landscape. It actually helps free us to think more creatively actually about how we solve and how we potentially blend and merge categories together to solve what consumers need.

Michael Edwards:
I can certainly see how it's liberating. Like if I was working at Mondelēz, I'd much rather think about how do I innovate or how do I position my brand to be compelling and gifting or energy versus

Nick Graham:
Yeah.

Michael Edwards:
how do I create yet another snack bar or yet another chocolate bar? I think the challenge, and I'm sure you saw for this is then you'd have to put the guardrails on of the brand because that's to make sense of the brand.

Michael Edwards:
Like

Nick Graham:
Correct.

Michael Edwards:
we're cliffing

Nick Graham:
Yeah.

Meagan:
Yeah.

Michael Edwards:
out an energy clothing brand, like a sports clothing brand, probably not, but I don't want to steal any secret ideas.

Nick Graham:
No, no, no. So I think to your point, so I think there's one is a question about, one is a brand question, right? So where does your brand have permission to play? So even with, let's say, take Celebration and Gifting, Toblerone doesn't want to play everyone in that space, right? So there's a question of where does the brand have a right to play, even within, even assuming it's just going to stick within its current set of categories, let's say. Where does it want to have a right to win? Where does it have a competitive opportunity to win? because obviously lots of other people are in gifting as well. So trying to find what's the right space where you can really drive home your advantage. I agree with you though, I think, and one of the things I know that as a company we've been delineating between is, you know, where can the brand go that we will deliver and then work in the brand go that through licensing, through other solutions, we can obviously find ways for the brand to stretch even if it isn't necessarily us manufacturing. So ice cream is a great example, you know, we're not physically in the ice cream business. but we recognize that our brands play in lots of moments where ice cream as a category can play, and indeed our brands can play, right? They have a Oreo, Cadbury, have a complete right to play in cakes, cookies, ice cream,

Meagan:
Yeah.

Nick Graham:
chocolate. So one of the things we've been looking as we've been using this sort of more consumer demand and jobs to be done landscape is to say, before we say, oh, we can't do that, the question is, if the brand can do it, if the consumer sees a need and opportunity. or then let's just think creatively about, is that a really great licensing opportunity for the brand today or in future?

Meagan:
I think this approach is definitely something that I'm hearing more about just when I'm doing research about the different brands that even we're bringing on the podcast with the different people from different brands are bringing on the podcast. Michael, would you say that this is coming up more and more in some of the work that we're doing with our clients, obviously outside of Mondelēz?

Michael Edwards:
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, for sure, specifically thinking of jobs to be done, there's absolutely a lot of talk around that. What I do see though, is it's still new enough that there's actually lot of bad examples of jobs to be done being done incorrectly, sort of an agency perspective, then also from a client perspective. Like someone just randomly sent me this thing saying, hey, we have this book on jobs to be done and like ebook. And I thought, oh, fine, I'll click on it. And all of the examples were, were patently wrong in as much

Nick Graham:
Hmm.

Michael Edwards:
as like, you know, jobs to be done is about a need. And then you think of the solution separately from that need. And they had their example of like, you know, I want to be able to listen to music on an electronic device while I run, but that's not a job to be done. And I, and I was

Nick Graham:
Right.

Michael Edwards:
just like, You know, we're a few years in and I still see a lot of examples of it being done incorrectly, which then influences clients maybe to do it incorrectly. Because in that example, the issue is that you're saying it has to be an electronic device, and therefore you're limiting your innovation, whereas

Nick Graham:
correct.

Michael Edwards:
really it's just about the consumer need. And so I'm still seeing issues where there's that, and then probably that leads to some client frustration because it's not giving them what they want.

Nick Graham:
Mm-hmm.

Michael Edwards:
So I think that's the challenge with anything. And it's not super new, but it's still new enough that I... that I still see a lot of sort of challenges with how it's actually being executed.

Nick Graham:
I think the biggest challenge to your point is trying to pause between the need and the solution. I think for most teams, including Marty, our team, there's such passion for the brand, such passion for the products and the categories, and such a great desire to innovate, but it's not a bad thing, great desire for creativity and innovation, that I think one of my team's jobs is often to just say, we just need to pause for a second. before we start jumping into solutioning, all of which are good potential solutions, which is to really say exactly to what you said is, what is the real need? And let's not frame it the way to begin with, let's not frame it the way we want it to be framed, right, for your example of the electronic device, because that's a how. The consumer just wants to be able to listen to something to entertain them while they're running, let's say. There's a million different ways in which we could have a mariachi band run alongside them, right? We could have an electronic device, we could have a thousand different ways that we sell for it. So I think really just helping people pause and expansively think about all the ways to sell for it. 80% of which may not be relevant for us, but at least by forcing ourselves to imagine all of those, we actually stretch our thinking beyond we tend to otherwise will go to a default, like an easier solution, right? And that's just human nature.

Michael Edwards:
Yeah. Yeah. Thinking, thinking very selfishly as a research agency,

Nick Graham:
Mm-hmm.

Michael Edwards:
has the shift in mindset affected how you do research? Not just like qual versus qual, but just the way that you approach questions or the way that you evaluate ideas, those sorts of things.

Nick Graham:
It has, yeah. And I think across all the work that we're doing, obviously, particularly in innovation, I think it's really forcing us to pause and really think about what is it we're trying to really understand in this, what we're trying to understand. Again, I think particularly when it comes to innovation research, you can very quickly get caught into the sort of validation mindset, like let's screen it, let's size it, let's validate it, let's move. And for Similar renovations, that is the right thing. When it's a flavor renovation, when it's a line, so it's a relatively simple line extension, great. That is the way that it should work. I think what we found is, and one of the biggest pieces of work we're doing right now is to sort of reset the way we approach more adjacent innovation, stretching into new categories or stretching into new spaces completely, is really just spending much more time being clear on really defining the problem and then really... testing the innovation against the problem, not just against the classic, what's the benchmark, what's your competitive, what's your almost obvious competitive set, really testing, does this solve for that need and iterating it so it better solves and delivers against that need that consumers have. And that is a really important, but it's a process, but it's also, it's an uncomfortable process for people and it's also a much slower process than often you would like, right? So... One of the big things is just making sure we have enough time to really build those those learning agendas together for the more expansive innovation. So we really have time to ask those questions. And so, you know, one thing that's been great with some of our partners is when we're working on this type of innovation is also forcing us to stop and say, yes, OK, I know what you asked for is you wanted this particular test. But it sounds like what you're actually trying to do is really understand how it fits within consumers lives. So let's at least make sure that we are. pushing on that before we start getting into some other, you know, more validator questions that people want to put in.

Meagan:
Nice. That's really interesting. You did mention though that it's like, you said, you know, it takes a bit longer to firm up what that problem is or what that space is that you're testing things against. You also said though, that it's uncomfortable. Why

Nick Graham:
Hmm.

Meagan:
is it uncomfortable? Is it just because it takes longer or are there other things around it that make the process slightly less comfortable?

Nick Graham:
I think it's, so it's uncomfortable partly, you're right, because of speed, because people always want to move faster, particularly in fast moving consumer goods, right? It makes sense. I think part of the discomfort is because if you're used to a very linear process, it's actually the sort of iterative development process of early stage sort of front end innovation, particularly when you're dealing with the a job to be done that you're not as familiar with, or it's stretching the boundaries of your brand and your category. It's just uncomfortable to people because there aren't simple answers. Sometimes we just did some work recently in the indulgence space where we had a sense of what we thought the right question or what the right problem was for consumers, and we had a sense on potentially some products. But actually, it's not a linear process. It was incredibly iterative. We had to... which did a lot of different ways in from a sort of concept perspective, but then the product didn't always fit it, but the product was good, but it didn't always fit the idea. So there's this constant iteration of back and forth of changing the idea, changing the product, evolving the idea again. And I think for, you know, for lots of people, that's just a very special skillset and that requires sort of trust in the ambiguity and the messiness of the process. But that's, you know, particularly in this Indulgence project, we wouldn't have gotten to... some of the breakthrough thinking if we hadn't have forced ourselves to go through that. So that's what I mean about sometimes it's an uncomfortable process for people.

Meagan:
Yeah, that's really interesting because I think, well, it sounds fascinating to be a part of. Do you have, from like a frameworks perspective or approach perspective, was that challenging to bring on board and sort of how did you know what the right approach was? Are you bringing sort of things from your previous roles in innovation and brand? Are you bringing those frameworks to play out in some of those like workshopping or iterative research practices? Is this something that someone sort of came in and taught you guys how to do? It just sounds like it would be really challenging to sort of shift the way that you guys operate and I'm wondering how you made it happen.

Nick Graham:
So the answer is it's a combination. So what we've seen is, we certainly brought in expert partners to help us. And even our more everyday partners, it's actually been really great to bring them in with a specific job in mind, right? Which is like help us work very differently as we develop this particular piece of innovation. So it's partly external expertise, we brought that in. But I think what's really important in a journey like this and is also helping to build that muscle internally as well. So we have some people internally for whom, this is their life, they've spent their life doing iterative innovation. They may have come from an innovation background, they may have come in some cases more from some of an agile working background. So there's more the way of working that they're familiar with. So our innovation excellence team has actually brought together the... people from all of these different disciplines to help us shape up what does this sort of messy front end of innovation look like? What are the right questions to ask? What does a good job to be done look like? Because to your point, Michael, often you see them or you see the insight behind them, you're like, yeah, that feels like we're sort of like squeezing that towards what skewing that to where we want it to be. So really sort of building that discipline and then helping train the local teams on how to start to embed that thinking, how to start to build that. We'll always need partners to help us because I think, you know, we'll always need some back outside expertise and experience and really help us to operationalise them. But I think it's important that it also comes with that internal knowledge and understanding as well.

Michael Edwards:
I'm curious, and I don't expect you to share specifics, but as part of this indulgence

Meagan:
Thank you. Bye.

Michael Edwards:
initiative, did your understanding of what indulgence means change? Because I think that's one of the really interesting things that can happen here is you say indulgence, and I immediately think I know what you mean. And

Nick Graham:
Hmm.

Michael Edwards:
probably Meg, she knows, because you know what it means to you, but it often can mean something very different to consumers. I think that's one of the most interesting things about research is that what you think you know about something is actually wrong, and that it's something completely different.

Nick Graham:
Yeah, I think in this case, what we realized was, I mean, you think a space like Indulgence, we do know Indulgence very well, right? We have lots of products and brands and categories that play in the Indulgence space. I think one of the risks though, or sometimes with that, across all companies and categories I've worked is it almost, the risk is you think you know it, exactly to your point, Michael. You think you know it, you think you understand it, you can picture it in your head, and most people have an image of what that moment is. feeling looks like. For this piece of work, what was interesting is we quickly said we don't want to be in the weekends and the Friday, Saturday, Sunday. We almost don't want to exclude those moments. So actually what we ended up focusing on was what does indulgence look like in the early evening on a weekday? And that's that ironically tightening our frame in this case, but expanding the way of solving it. So we were thinking beyond just chocolate. helped us really understand what's the feeling and the motivation in that moment. And it was quite different, right? Because it wasn't, one of the interesting things, it wasn't an uncontrolled moment. People really wanted still a level of, of control of what they're happening. It was a very short moment relative to maybe some of those weekend moments. So by sort of reframing the moment and being really specific, it helped us unlock a... a need and a motivation that we wouldn't really have gotten to if we'd sort of thought about it more generically. So I think that was a really interesting one where, while we hadn't expanded frame in terms of solutions, we actually really narrowed in on a very specific set of moments, which helped us get much deeper. And so I think, you know, again, with the, with the sort of reframing and growth opportunity spotting, I think one of the key skills is that ability to zoom, you know, zoom out and zoom really in. And sometimes you need to expand the frame, and sometimes you really need to get in and talk about, you know, this particular group of people in this particular moment to really get to the depth of the insight. And I think that's what really, really helped us with this.

Michael Edwards:
I certainly think that's key to creating something differentiated, new, compelling,

Nick Graham:
Yeah.

Michael Edwards:
because you're not trying to address this very generic need, you're trying to address a very specific need. Like you spoke earlier about the need to transition from workday or day to evening. So there

Nick Graham:
Yeah.

Michael Edwards:
probably is that moment that something very brief, but can help you in that transition, that mindset transition.

Nick Graham:
Exactly, yeah. And what was interesting was there's quite some tensions in those moments because it's not a deep relaxation moment because you're not like, oh, I'm done for it. Because yes, you are done for the day from a work perspective, but you've still got a lot to do in the rest of the evening, you know, making dinner, looking after the kids, whatever the sort of evening activity is. So there's an interesting sort of like slight slowdown, but to reenergize yourself to go through the rest of the day.

Michael Edwards:
Well.

Nick Graham:
And it's a sort of a treat and reward, but it's not a deep moment. So I think really, sometimes I think this was a good case where really sort of zeroing into that, we could see this huge sort of fluctuation and shift within this very small window, which allowed us to come up with some interesting ways to solve for it, which again, I don't think we've gotten to if we were just like, oh, it's about relaxation in the evening, which case you tend to have a sort of a more. sort of generic view of what that looks like.

Meagan:
I have one more question about jobs to be done. And I make notes when I make these episodes and I wrote down personalization and packaging. I'm struggling to remember exactly what the connection was, but I think you were saying that jobs to be done or taking this new sort of approach at looking at categories has led to sort of investment in personalization, whether that's packaging or messaging. And I was curious what you meant by that. And again, tell me if I butchered this and that's not actually the connection you made, but very interesting.

Nick Graham:
Yeah, I think that was just a good example of where on Toblerone, and we've done it on some of the other gifting brands as well, by reframing our role as around gifting, it just helped open up our mind to like, well, what are all the ways that you can, like what are all the things that people are looking for when they're gifting? Right. Well, you know, obviously they're looking for something that looks really pretty. They're looking for something that looks gift worthy. They're looking for something that shows that they've really given thought and attention and care, and they've really thought about you as an individual. And so what that's allowed us on Toblerone is to think about, well, if those are all of the different vectors, all the different sort of attributes that people are looking for, what are all the ways that we can solve for that? Like we can, yeah, from personalization of product, personalization experience, to the packaging itself, to the, you know, can you, you know, print people's name, print personal messages, can you make the... the message plus the product more personalized, so the combination together. So just trying to think about all of the different ways we can solve for that beyond just the product itself. So it's the whole sort of package, the whole bundle that we're trying to think through.

Meagan:
sense.

Michael Edwards:
It also allows, I just quickly say, it allows you to ask really interesting questions, like things like, you know, when we give gifts, typically we wrap them, but why do we

Nick Graham:
Yeah.

Michael Edwards:
wrap them? Why is that moment of reveal important? And why do we typically wrap them in paper? So there's a certain sensory experience unwrapping paper versus a plastic bag, for example. Like if someone gave you a carrier bag with your gift in

Nick Graham:
Right.

Michael Edwards:
it, it just wouldn't feel

Meagan:
Hehehe

Michael Edwards:
the same, even though there's no point in revealing. So it allows you to sort of think about like the sensory experience of what those elements of gifting, which I think are really interesting.

Nick Graham:
Exactly. And particularly in packaging, thinking about what you might do just if you're delivering something to a store to go set on a shelf in terms of packaging, you have to think differently about if somebody is opening this as a gift, you want slightly thicker cardboard, you want slightly thicker paper, because as you say, Michael, that creates that sort of sensory code. prestige, premiumness, more care has gone into this, more protection of the product. So you need to think about all of the different sensory codes and cues as well that deliver against that. And again, by thinking this from a demand perspective, by thinking about what are all of the codes and cues that cue relaxation? What are all the codes and cues that cue energy? That can also help us think more expansively and more broadly again about. different colours to use, different maybe ingredients that cue certain things, different textures that cue certain desired attributes and experiences in that moment. So again, I think by helping us just think more responsibly, we go, oh, couldn't we add this texture to chocolate because this texture is associated with relaxation, for example. So just helping us again reframe and rethink how we innovate.

Meagan:
Nick, this has been really fascinating. Michael, do you have any other questions for Nick before we hop off?

Michael Edwards:
I have tons of questions, but I think they would send us off an entirely new topics and

Meagan:
Hehehehe

Michael Edwards:
it just becomes this mega podcast. So I think, I think no.

Meagan:
Okay, yeah, Nick, thank you so much for giving us your time and I'm sure the listeners will love it. To everyone listening, we'll be back next week. Bye guys.

Nick Graham:
Bye.