Trying to draw strict borders around consciousness is like trying to stick post-it notes on the ocean.

Buy-ology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy, by Martin Lindstrom

I read this book a few months ago and thought that it would be great to share with the reader some of the most interesting cases of Neuromarketing explained in the book. It is very illustrative of some the misconceptions that still exist among brand managers when they decide to launch a product or a campaign without conducting proper market research. Buy-ology:Truth and Lies About Why We Buy, by Martin Lindstrom (Currency, 2010) talks about Neuromarketing using examples that are wonderful and very illustrative. Martin Lindstom is a Danish author and a columnist for TIME Magazine, Harvard Business Review and frequently contributes to NBC’s Today show.

Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy, is his first title written for consumers, for which Lindstrom conducted a $3 million word-of-mouth marketing experiment– inspired by the 2009 film, The Joneses – to study the effects of social influence on purchasing decisions.

Lindstrom has been involved in hundreds of Neuromarketing experiments and has used fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to explain some of his theories. This type of resonance measures the magnetic properties of hemoglobin (the components of red blood cells that carry oxygen throughout the body). That is, an fMRI measures how oxygenated the blood is in the brain and can mark areas as small as 1 millimeter.

When the brain performs different activities, it demands more oxygen and glucose. So the more intensely a certain part of the brain works, the greater the oxygenated blood flow to that section. During an fMRI, that area will shine with a strong color.

By following these activated areas, neuroscientists can determine which part of the brain is working and thus identify according to brain maps what is the function of each of those areas (for example, memory, or speech, or control of emotions, or sadness, etc.)

The largest neuromarketing study ever done

It was a study in London, about smokers. All participants smoking Marlboro or Camel.

At that moment, the medical issues related to smoking implied a social cost of approximately $167 billion per year … however, cigarette makers continue inventing ‘innovative ways to kill us’. For example, Philip Morris created a ‘Marlboro Intense’: a mini-cigarette with high nicotine content and lasted only 7 puffs, to be smoked during those moments where one does not have too much time, but craves a cigarette, for example between work meetings or a short break.

Studies have shown that smoking levels seem to indicate that smokers selectively choose to be blind to the labels and messages that “smoking kills”. Are smokers braver than usual? Or secretly believe themselves immortal? Or do they realize the danger but they just don’t care?

Exactly this is what the fMRI in this study tried to answer. In 2004 the study was carried out, with a cost $7 million dollars (paid by 8 companies).

They used an fMRI and an electroencephalogram called SST (steady state typography) that measures brain waves in real time.

All the necessary measures were taken to avoid any biases and participants were carefully recruited. The questions during the study were:

• Are you affected by the warning signs that come in the packs? – A high percentage answered yes.
• Do you smoke less as a result of seeing these notices? – A high percentage answered yes.

Results from the fMRI were totally unexpected: the hazard warnings that are put on the cigarette packs front, sides and in the back did NOT have the effect of suppressing the craving for smoking. Zero!!! That is to say, that the horrible photos that we now see in all the packs, plus the millions of dollars spent on campaigns against smoking and all the regulations shared by dozens of governments and countries, are just a waste of resources and time.

But this is not all. According to the study – notices that smoking kills, causes emphysema, heart failure and other chronic conditions – actually STIMULATED the area in the brain known as nucleus accumbens, which is exactly the craving area in our brains. It is the region of the brain that is activated when the body has a craving (be it alcohol, food, drugs, sex or gambling).

In summary, the fMRI showed that the notices in the packs not only do not serve to move smokers away from cigarettes, but rather, encourage smokers to light a cigarette.

Although responding to the questions asked in the study, most participants verbally said that they are affected by the pictures and notices on the packs (maybe because they thought that this was the expected answer, or because they felt guilty) … the reality is that the participant’s brain showed a totally contradictory truth.

We all have behaviors for which we do not have a logical explanation. And this is truer than ever, because of the world we live in, full of stress, on information and technology, where there are terrorist threats, political battles, earthquakes, floods and violence.

The more stress we have, the more frightened and insecure we feel, and the more irrational our behavior tends to be. For example:

In 2005, $7.3 billion was spent on market research in the USA. In 2007 this number went up to $12 billion … and this does not include the amount spent on marketing, packaging, commercials, banners, payment to celebrities who advertise the product, etc. and that could perhaps increase the figure to $117 billion. (In 2005, 156 thousand products were launched globally, equivalent to a new product every 3 minutes)

But if these strategies still work, why do they fail 8 out of 10 products released to the market? Because what we say in a group session or survey may not correspond to the reaction we are having in some section of the brain.

Marketing of the future: more fear

Martin Lindstrom predicts that we will see more marketing based on fear. The more stress and instability we have in our lives, the more we seek a solid foundation. The more we seek stability, the more dependent we become on dopamine (routine). And the more dopamine is in our brain, the more we want to have “things”.

Maybe that’s why Bush after the 9/11 event answered the question “what should Americans do?” And he said “shop”.

Neuromarketing continues in its childhood. And although we may never find the button that orders “purchase”, it will help predict trends and preferences.

One of the most consistent findings of behavioral science: people all think their decision-making is completely rational, yet in reality, emotions play a major role in their final decisions.  In research situations, when asked a question about decision-making, participants tend to look for the rational answer.  How do we get beyond that thinking, to access the true factors in their decisions?  Following are two approaches.

Utilize cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance describes situations where people do things that contradict their beliefs.  For example, let’s say I believe I am very careful when it comes to spending money, yet I buy an expensive car.  Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort that comes with that type of discrepancy.  Human beings look to reduce those feelings of discomfort; in this example, I would need to add a belief that resolves the contradiction.  For example, I might tell myself that the car is well-built and therefore worth the investment.  Or that it’s important that others consider me to be a successful person.

It can be very valuable to uncover those conflicting beliefs among our customers and prospects.  Here’s a technique we’ve used successfully:  Ask research participants what people say about your product or service.  That will get you all the rational things participants think about it.  Then ask them what people really think about the product.  That one question does wonders at getting at the irrational beliefs people don’t want to admit to.  Note that the question is asked about “other people,” so participants can feel that they’re still rational, and they’re just telling us about the thoughts of all those other irrational people!

Understand the customer’s relationship to the brand   

We’ve all experienced situations where we try to ask deep probing questions about customers’ relationship with our brand, and they look at us blankly with a response like “what do you mean?  I needed X, Brand Y’s product was good, so I bought it.  End of story.”

But there’s more to it than that!  We recently borrowed from an exercise used in life coaching to ask research participants about the values that are most important to them, and then asked about ways in which the brand helps them achieve those values.

Here’s how we presented the exercise:

Different things are important to different people.  Following is a list of needs.  You might say all of them are desirable or important… but if you had to choose just five, which five would you say are the MOST important to you personally?

The list included 15 different values, such as the following:

• Security: certainty, predictability
• Compensation: money and/or benefits
• Achievement: mastery of a task
• Variety: diversity of activities, people, and tasks
• Affiliation: connect with people

We followed up with questions about how the company we were researching might help them realize those important values.  After answering the question about which values were important, participants seemed to be in a more thoughtful state of mind and went much deeper with ways the brand helps them achieve the values than they had in prior research.

Conclusion

If we only ask research participants for answers to direct questions (e.g., “why do you prefer Brand X”), we’re only getting half the story.  We should always include exercises that look at emotional and contextual factors, in addition to rational considerations.  While these exercises are particularly well-suited to qualitative research, many of these approaches can be adapted to work in quantitative research, too.

Want more information? Please contact info@thinkglobalqualitative.com or jay@bureauwest.com for more information about the projects or the methodologies discussed, or to arrange for a presentation.

What do Pokémon Go and the Women’s March have in common? And what do these have to do with qualitative market research? The phenomenon Pokémon Go as well as the Women’s March in January 2017 are two examples of topics and events that spread across the globe, demonstrating today’s world connectivity.

Within a few days of its launch, Pokémon Go was played by millions of players across the world and widely discussed in the media. The Women’s March, on the other hand, started on a local level and spread to global interaction through the use of social media. Because Pokémon Go and the march resonated with millions of people around the globe no matter of their ethnicity, origin, language, time zone, they were excellent case studies to demonstrate how a global Blitz Community could deliver qualitative insights in as little as 48 hours.

In 2016, Think Global Qualitative, a team of international researchers, conducted the first Blitz Community on the topic of Pokémon Go. In early 2017 another study was conducted around the Women’s March to proof the Blitz Community concept and refine the concept.

The Study Set-up

The purpose of a Blitz Community is to develop a qualitative global snapshot of one specific, up-to-date-topic. The method has four key characteristics.

First: It explores current topics of interest to a broad range of people across the world.

Second: The community is launched on a global level to gain wide insight.

Third: The questions are kept short to get a fast turnaround — even in as little as 48 hours.

Fourth: Insights from the study can be used as the basis for a deeper discussion or follow-up study. A Blitz Community is useful for projects that require quick and global insights.

An online platform is used to interact with participants. In the case of the Blitz Communities, Think Global used Focusgroupit as a platform. Making use of the advantages connectivity provides and the engagement this young generation has with internet and their mobile phones, an approach was selected where participants could log on to the community across all devices, to respond to questions and make comments on the go using their mobile phones.

Since these projects addressed a broad range of respondents, a platform was chosen that is mobile optimized so it could be accessed from desktops as well as tablets or mobile phones. Furthermore, it allowed a quick and easy access rather than having participants download an app specifically. This would have reduced the willingness to participate since it increases the effort respondents have to go through. If the study was incentivized, however, using an app that is dedicated to research, is a viable option.

Participant recruiting was short and straight-forward. The selection criteria can be as simple as “If you play Pokémon Go we would like to hear your opinion!” For the Women’s March, for example, researchers wanted to gain an understanding of the different viewpoints, so it didn’t matter whether someone participated or just read about it in the news.

Recruiting was conducted through personal social media and networks of the researchers and snowball effect since the selection criteria were simple and the showcase topics of broad interest. Online recruiting allowed the researchers to efficiently reach people from all different continents.

Although these case studies utilized social media, Blitz Community recruiting could also be conducted through client contacts or customer base and forums, for example. In both cases, a few dozen participants from different countries participated which allowed for spontaneous discussion. If anything was unclear, the moderator could probe immediately.

Rather than asking participants a lengthy list of questions, Blitz Communities utilize just a few short questions that encourage participants to stay engaged and interact with each other. In both cases we used three main questions (besides asking for gender and origin) and participants would see the following question as soon as they answered the previous one. Once answered, they could see what other respondents wrote and respond to that. More in-depth research could be used afterwards if this was needed.

During the studies, continuous moderation was possible through the multi-lingual team of researchers. The Pokémon Go community, for example, first opened in Australia and India, followed by Europe and Africa and eventually Latin America, USA and Canada.

On the other hand, the Women’s March launched globally at the same time so participants could immediately interact.

In order to allow participants to engage in discussion, the overall language was English. However, participants also had the option to answer in their mother-language since they liked to read the English comments of the other participants, but prefer to answer in their very own language, that lets them express their thoughts much better. These comments were later translated by the participating moderators.

With Pokémon Go, for example, more than 60 participants from countries including Australia, India, South Africa, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Brazil, Canada and the United States participated. In the community, participants can answer some general questions, share their opinions but also engage with other participants in English to discuss this topic. Through a period of 48 hours all participants could log in, share their answers, views and opinions and interact with the other participants.

Since the interest in both the topics chosen to conduct Blitz Communities was quite high, only a minimal incentive (Amazon vouchers) was used in the case of Pokémon Go in a few countries to increase participation. For the Women’s March, no incentive was given and yet there was still a high number of respondents since people were interested in the topic and like to engage in discussion.

Results

The communities generate insights into what individuals around the globe are thinking at that specific moment – commonalities and differences – and even generate potential improvement areas. Within this short time frame, Blitz Communities made it possible to generate results rapidly and provide a global picture. Yet, the moderators of ThinkGlobal were also able to bring local know-how to the table, to enhance the overall outcome.

Taking the Pokémon Go study, for example, people around the world agreed that it was something completely innovative to use one’s surrounding and open space for gaming, and allows for interactivity.

As one participant stated: “Interactivity and GPS component gives the game a unique and innovative character.”

Furthermore, the trend of micro transactions was identified where people start paying real money for in-app services or digital gimmicks on-the-go. This augmented reality game brought the age of digitalization to a new level

“We are becoming increasingly digital and the borders between reality and augmented reality will become blurry,” one participant said.

Yet, the research also showed differences when highlighting how young people in countries where Pokémon Go launched at a later stage felt disadvantaged or even excluded from the hype. A person from Brazil mentioned that “It is frustrating that again Brazil is one of the last countries to be launched.”

The Women’s March Blitz Community focused on demographics and on the three questions to gauge the long-term impact of the march: What? So what? Now what?

Within a short time more than 100 participants from five continents participated in the discussion. While the majority were female (76{a75d112c1ea8efd8d548fa031ca8ffd35154d8dad1867f6f7c53f2160deae159}) there were also male participants engaging intensively in the discussion.

Susan Abbott, senior research consultant and founding member of Think Global Qualitative, used the comments and information discussed in the Blitz Community to identify eight key takeaways. These included:

1) The march inspired pride for both marchers and non-marching supporters.

2) The message of the march was loosely defined, but centered on human rights.

3) Participants were skeptical about the impact the march would have on political leaders.

4) The march helped those who previously felt isolated in their views, by showing that other people share their view and provided a source of optimism about the future.

5) Some participants felt that the march was a misplaced effort, launched by women who should be happy with their situation.

6) The march has already acted as a catalyst for further action for some.

7) The march highlighted the many divisions that exist, among women, and among progressives.

8) The march showed what is possible, even if started on a small level, and may be a foundation for further action.

Conclusion

This tool can be used as a great start for a project, before deciding on topics to dive deeper. It can also be used to get quick feedback on a concept or to test-run ideas.

When used with social media recruiting and free of incentives it is important to have a topic of high interest to the target.

With professionally recruited and incentivized respondents a little more lead time might be necessary (extra day) but then a more private and deeper discussion can be expected. Ideally this can also be used with client databases to get quick feedback from their own customers.

By making use of growing connectivity and involving the smartphone as a medium it has become easier than ever before to take down borders and conduct on the spot research on a global level.

Both the Women’s March and Pokémon Go studies demonstrate how Blitz Communities can be used to generate insights into a topic on a global level. We can compare countries. We can encourage participants to interact and discuss with each other on the spot.

And all within just a couple of days!

Janina Weigl is an associate of IKM GmbH of Munich, Germany. She is based in New York City, New York.

A version of this article originally ran in the Fall 2017 edition of QRCA VIEWS Magazine, which is published by the Qualitative Research Consultants Association.

Towards the end of 2015, two of my QRCA colleagues—Susan Abbott from Canada and Ilka Kuhagen from Germany—presented a creativity workshop to qualitative researchers in South Africa. At the Johannesburg session, one of the attendees mentioned that some of the techniques covered may not work well among lower economic segments of our population due to limited literacy. His comment intrigued my two colleagues, both from developed countries. This incident made me think more consciously about the need to adapt the way we conduct grass-roots research in my country and how this may be similar or different in other emerging countries.

Accordingly, I conferred with 21 fellow qualitative research consultants in 12 different countries. I focused on emerging economies, the BRICS siblings (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) but also included colleagues who specialize in multi-cultural research in the U.S. and Australia.

I was surprised to hear from colleagues in non-African countries, including those who attended my session about this topic at the 2017 QRCA Annual Conference, that they are seldom asked to research the lower end of their market. It is well documented that middle-class growth is exploding in emerging economies. This growth is likely to come from advancements up the consumer ladder. Is it wise to focus research on those who are already established middle class while neglecting the feeder market, the future middle class?

Lower-income segments can offer new growth opportunities for marketers only if they bother to understand these potential customers’ unmet needs. This is a win-win for marketers and the public, as better access to products and services uplifts these consumers and enables their advancement to middle class. But, we cannot assume that their needs and priorities are necessarily the same as the established middle class that forms the focus of most commissioned research. In some markets, there may be a huge HDTV dominating a home that may not have a refrigerator, a bathroom or even running water. In South Africa, we are used to the sight of satellite TV dishes on the rooftops in informal settlements. The cost of consumption is higher for these targets—they have fewer resources and less disposable income and must use these smartly. Every market is unique; there are great differences in the way consumers cook or do laundry across South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia.

If we agree that it is important to understand the needs of lower income segments on their journey towards becoming emerging middle class, there are factors to consider to ensure that we truly hear and understand them. These include the impact of literacy levels and culture.

In some markets, literacy is a problem among the lower socio-economic groups due to attenuated or poor education. Their limited abstract conceptual skills impact the way moderators can engage with them, so complex stimuli don’t work. Their limited verbal skills and shortcomings in expressing their thoughts and feelings make written formats unusable.

In other markets, such as Russia and China, the regimes placed greater emphasis on education, so low literacy is not a factor. Russia has a literacy rate of 99.7{a75d112c1ea8efd8d548fa031ca8ffd35154d8dad1867f6f7c53f2160deae159}, while in China the literacy rate is 96{a75d112c1ea8efd8d548fa031ca8ffd35154d8dad1867f6f7c53f2160deae159}.

Language is crucial and has implications with regard to both culture and literacy. The level of English used in communication (such as discussion guides, concepts and test materials) needs to be simplified in many local languages. The vocabulary of many languages is not as granular as English. African vernacular languages, for example, don’t have separate words for love and like. Another example was provided by Pia Mollback-Verbic. In communication testing in India for a deodorant brand, the word “cleavage” was used. Pia said, “The Hindi translation is ‘a valley between two mountains.’ The moderator didn’t know how to correct the language into something more ‘culturally appropriate,’ and the poor consumers were mighty perplexed about the entire thing.”

One of the “cardinal sins” of global research is clients insisting that respondents be recruited who are fluent in English in non-English or multi-lingual countries. It is not realistic to ask for English-fluent consumers except in the highest socio-economic classes (including business-to-business) and depends on the target market and type of study. My South African colleague, Lesley Croskery, presented the findings of her research about this topic at the 2016 QRCA Worldwide Conference, which vividly illustrated the different quality of feedback, described by participants as “the inner me” versus “the deeper me” elicited when one frees a person to express themselves in their first language rather than insisting that they speak English. In the words of the late statesman Nelson Mandela, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”

Dress is another important consideration for visiting research teams when they conduct research in certain markets. It is important to blend in with the target group you are researching by dressing modestly. Listen to your local partners if they suggest that you remove your jewelry or tone down your outfit. It is also necessary to respect the cultural norms of a society. Examples of this include cultures where women wearing trousers is frowned upon or where women are expected to cover their heads. If you don’t respect these norms you run the risk of offending your participants or being dismissed by a tribal leader, both of which will endanger the quality of engagement with your participants.

Comments from colleagues I interviewed reiterated insights from the presentation “Water Wows” by Piyul Mukherjee and Pia Mollback-Verbic. It illustrated why multi-country research design cannot be “one size fits all.” Although Piyul and Pia’s paper referred to Western versus Eastern culture, the principles they highlighted apply to other emerging markets as well. Differences between the individualistic society of the West vs. the collectivist society of most emerging markets must be understood and respected. People in the Third World are more gregarious and used to solving problems within the community rather than individually. The way people share their opinions differs. In Western culture, direct questions will elicit direct answers. Criticism and scepticism are more easily expressed without holding back. In Eastern cultures and other emerging markets, questions are answered in an indirect, organic, roundabout way. People are inherently polite and, per their cultural norms, will not be critical to your face.

What are the practical implications of these literacy and culture factors when we conduct global research with lower income groups? What impact does literacy and culture have on the way we word and structure the discussion guide, the methodology we choose and the projective techniques we use?

Time management is very important, and it is wise to build in extra time. Allow more time for introductions and ice-breakers for respondents to feel comfortable and to build trust. Allow more time for each field event, as it simply takes longer to recruit than in Western cultures. In a group discussion, everyone wants to be heard, and the language may be more verbose so that it takes longer to express thoughts and feelings.

Simplify the discussion guide to its essentials, and make it clear what the “must have” information is. Simplify language by using words that are relevant and understandable to the culture. Modify exercises to something participants can relate to as relevant to their culture and traditions.

Avoid or take care with written tasks such as bubble drawings, sentence completion and letters. Scales and ratings are also tricky and easily misunderstood.

Limit the number of concepts being tested — too many can confuse consumers, especially if the differences between concepts are too subtle or too abstract. Raji Bonala recommended reducing the number of concepts tested per session, eliminating ones clearly not working, or rewriting language to be more meaningful to the culture.

Which methods work best for these targets? Many of the colleagues I interviewed in different parts of the world mentioned ethnography first when I asked this question. Ethnographic methods bring us closer to reality to observe actual behavior rather than relying on verbalization of reported behavior. Participants are more at ease in their own home with familiar objects and can express themselves better when they can “show and tell.” Ethnography is also ideal for clients to get firsthand exposure to the lifestyle and consumer behavior of target segments. Client teams should be kept as small as possible because a large entourage can be intimidating and impractical in small homes. Nandi Mswane believes it feels more natural and less threatening to participants in South Africa when client observers also take part in the conversation, rather than acting like a silent jury.

When the cultures are more collectivistic and community oriented, friendship groups and paired interviews work very well. Respondents feel more comfortable in the presence of a friend, colleague or family member. The informal, relaxed chatting between them yields rich language and reveals true feelings and actions.

Cultural norms need to be considered when planning group discussions. In some cultures, it is unacceptable for younger people to speak before older people, so it is better to recruit a homogenous age range in the same group. Groups in people’s own environment (e.g., township) may work better than in an upmarket facility. Ideal group size can differ from culture to culture. In India, smaller groups of six are ideal because participants tolerate multiple people talking at the same time.

What about digital methods? Do they work? This depends on consumers’ access to mobile devices versus computers, Internet penetration and data costs. For example, most digital platforms work well with China’s tech savvy participants.

Mobile works well in South America, Africa and India. Most people there have mobile phones, and smart phone ownership is rising rapidly with Android devices still more common than Apple iPhones. Often participants in South Africa and India already have WhatsApp on their phones. Their familiarity with WhatsApp can make it a better choice than traditional market research platforms and apps.

Many colleagues invite participants to reply by video rather than text. Some cultures (such as Brazil) like selfie videos. In India it may be more comfortable if someone, perhaps a family member, asks questions to the participant. Showing something by sharing a picture or video clip minimizes the need for too much text typing.

Which projective techniques work well to reveal richer insights for these lower socio-economic groups? Personification emerged as a favourite tool, but it is necessary to adapt the metaphor to be relevant to the specific culture. Brand party can work but needs to be adapted to social occasions relevant to the culture. In collectivistic societies, relationships are important and can offer rich metaphors: which of the brands in a category is the grandfather, the mother, the wealthy uncle, the naïve child? With projective techniques, it is important to simplify the technique and adapt it to a situation that participants can relate to.

When using projective techniques, add visual stimuli like pictures, photos, mood boards or physical objects that help respondents express themselves and compensate for limited verbal skills. Desleigh Dunnett shared a wonderful example with me of tactile ranking used in the Northern Territory of Australia (see Figure 1). Community members discuss social problems in their community and sort nuts into different sized heaps to indicate the prevalence and impact of different social problems in their community. This physical ranking activity goes hand-in-hand with much debate of which problems are greater than others and why, an enabling technique in the true sense of the word.

TIPS

Limited literacy or cultural factors can make it difficult to keep engagement high and get quality insights. Here are a few tips from the field:

1.   Involve a local researcher/moderator to help you to close or minimize the cultural gap.
2.   Avoid complexity and simplify anything with the potential to cause confusion.
3.   Avoid writing exercises. Instead use visual stimuli to encourage verbalization.
4.   Make questions, exercises and metaphors relevant and familiar to their culture.
5.   Create a situation and environment so participants feel comfortable and relaxed enough to reveal their “deeper me.”
6.   Treat participants with dignity by respecting their cultural norms and personal environment.

Research Blind Spots: Understanding the Impact of Culture and Literacy Levels originally was published in the Summer 2017 edition of QRCA Views. PDF here.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and thank the following colleagues who generously shared their experience and wisdom with me:
Brazil: Daniela Sene Grandi, Mauricio Prado, Sofia Costa Alves
Mexico: Astrid Velásquez Potenes
USA: Isabel Aneyba
China: David Ying Hon Ho, Jinghuan Liu Tervalon
India: Pia Mollback-Verbic, Raji Bonala
Indonesia: Farah Putri
Russia: Marina Ponedelkova
Australia: Desleigh Dunnett
Romania: Oana Rengle
Turkey: Serra Bozkurt
Kenya: Mokeira Masita-Mwangi
South Africa: Iske van den Berg, Jack Hlongwane, Lesley Croskery, Manoko Jegede, Marna Kirchner, Nandi Mswane