I caught an article on Fast Company today about a recent IBM study with over 1,500 CEOs from across 60 countries and 33 industries.  While the article leads with how creativity is considered a key leadership quality, I thought the more interesting takeaway was that "getting closer to the customer" is a top business strategy and area of focus for these CEOs over the next 5 years.  In fact, 88% of the CEOs surveyed said this was a key area of focus, followed shortly thereafter by 76% saying that "insight and intelligence" is also a key area.

At first glance, this seems like great news for those of us in marketing research and consumer insights.  Without having seen the study itself, I wonder what has caused this shift and how this matches up with previous research on the topic.  One guess might be that the recession has forced many leaders to focus even more on loyalty and satisfaction among existing customers.  Increased interest in customer-driven innovation and the potential for competitive advantage through this type of innovation might also be a factor in play here.  Or maybe the intense interest in social media is making some realize that the ability to draw customers closer than ever before (in brand new ways) is now attainable.  Either way, I'm excited to see how this will play out over the next few years, and whether it will help research and insights folks finally get their coveted "seat at the table."

What do you think?  What factors could be prompting this increased focus?

I recently caught a post on Brand Autopsy that gave a peek behind the stats at MyStarbucksIdea.com ("Tough Love for Starbucks").  For those of you not familiar with MyStarbucksIdea, it is a site where Starbucks customers from around the world can submit and prioritize ideas for improving Starbucks.  It is the "poster child" of social media success that many people point to as a shining example of what you can get when you listen to your customers.  However, the post on Brand Autopsy points out that only 6 of the 53 ideas implemented actually originated from customers (though they all were purported to be from customers).  

I have mixed feelings about this...  On the one hand, I applaud Starbucks for reaching out to customers and actively listening to them in order to improve their business.  This is one type of listening initiative that many organizations should consider (though I think the digg-style submission system only works in certain cases). 

On the other hand, if the assertions in the article are true then these listening efforts could end up doing more damage in the long-term, especially if customers realize that these incremental improvements are nothing more than a shallow promise.  It's one thing to listen and demonstrate that you're listening, it's another thing entirely to act.  If you're going to build a listening initiative like this into your organization, make everyone accountable to it and don't just treat it as a gimmick to show that you're listening.  Your loyal customers will sniff that out pretty quickly. 

I caveat this all by saying that I can't personally verify what the blog post is asserting, so it could be that there is a reasonable explanation on the part of Starbucks that is missing here.  Regardless of how many ideas were actually customer generated, I think Starbucks deserves credit for doing what many companies have yet to even think of doing (or are afraid to try).  However, I hope that this serves as a caution to companies thinking of building new listening initiatives, in that you must be accountable to the results and honest with your customers about the ideas that are implemented, or risk the backlash and potentially negative feedback.

-Matt

Disclaimer: This is a post I probably "shouldn't" write, but in the spirit of today's atmosphere of openness and transparency in business (and social media in general), I'll go ahead and write it anyway :-)

I see a disturbing trend in online community platforms emerging, and that trend is the race to cram as many features as possible into a platform so it looks better than your competitor's software on some industry analyst's matrix of platform features.  Of course, this goes on everywhere in business and is just the nature of the game...  However, it's a race that no one can ever really win.  It's also a game that one audience in particular definitely loses - community members.  Here's why:

• It hurts the user experience - If you give too many options to members they will have no idea where to go or what to do.  Frustrated, these members eventually stop participating, attrition rates rise and you end up spending thousands more in recruiting costs.  As a result, a bad user experience hurts more than just the members...  
• It splinters the conversation - If the conversations are occurring in too many sections of the site, the feeling of true community suffers.  People feel isolated and limited in their interactions with others, which is the basis for community.
• It ends up feeling more like a "market research tool" than a real online community - People are used to participating in social networks and online communities; they're not used to the tools we use as market researchers.  The more "whiz bang" research features there are, the less it starts to look like a social network and the more it starts to look like some advanced focus group tool.  That's fine if you're just running an online focus group, but not ok if you intend to keep them there for the long haul.

This doesn't even account for people on the client or agency side who are tasked with choosing solutions.  The tendency is to create a giant chart of features since that's an easy way to compare, yet that might be the very thing not to do since it emphasizes the delivery mechanisms rather than the deliverables/outcomes (which, of course, is what really matters)... 

"Getting Real"

So how do we solve this?  In my mind, we seriously question everything before it makes its way into the community platform, and try to cut where we can to make things easier for our members...  I'm a huge fan of 37signals and their philosophy for developing web applications (for online communities and otherwise).  It's a pretty simple philosophy that pares down the features in an application to the bare minimum to accomplish the given task, and is something we try to follow here at PluggedIN.  It forces new features to "prove themselves" before they make it into the software.  If you haven't already picked it up, check out their book "Getting Real."  Even if you're not a web developer, it's still worth a read for some of the ideas behind their system (and it's free if you read it online!).  Now only if everyone followed this approach, we'd all have much happier community members :-)     

The road ahead (at least, for PluggedIN...)

We just launched Version 2.0 of the PluggedIN MROC Platform, and if your read through the press release you'll notice one thing - no new features (for now).  Rather, we're working on optimizing the experience for members and clients, and making it so the addition of new features in the future won't cause that user experience to suffer.  Don't get me wrong - we're adding new features...  Just not at the expense of the user experience for members and clients.

This is something I've noticed many survey builders are taking to heart, by trying to create more engaging and interactive ways of taking surveys.  Let's hope that those of us on the qualitative communities side of the industry also take heed of these lessons before it's too late...  

Ultimately, the "feature war" is a game that everyone has to take part in if you want to be a player...  Just consider this post to be my plea to fellow community practioners and market researchers that we don't ignore the people that really matter - our community members and our clients.

-Matt  

I recently read an article on CNET (Sorry, Facebook friends: Our brains can't keep up) about Dunbar's number playing out the same way online as it does offline.  I've blogged a bit about this in the context of other topics, but thought it would be worth mentioning again as it seems to come up quite a bit in the debate on proper MROC sizes. 

For those not familiar with Dunbar's number, it's basically a mental limit to the number of "relationships" that one can maintain at any given time.  The term "relationships" here is a bit fuzzy for some people, but generally means that you know everyone else in the group and have a sense of how people relate in that group.  For more, check out the Wikipedia entry on Dunbar's number.

What does this mean for MROCs?

To me, Dunbar's number provides a starting point for thinking of the size of the MROC you should build.  If you're interested in having members develop connections with each other, and in turn learning through listening carefully to those conversations, then you should consider a community that doesn't exceed 150 active participants.  

Respondent.

Think about that word for a second.  Many of us in the market research industry use it day in and day out, yet we probably don't pause and think of the connotations.  A quick search comes up with the following definition (courtesy of the Market Research Glossary of Terms):

"Respondent - This is the individual that provides data to be collected during the research process. Also referred to as a unit, unit of analysis, participant, experimental unit, or subject."

To me, a "respondent" is someone who is merely asked a series of questions in a 20 minute survey and kicked to the curb for the next "experimental unit" :-) 

Is this how we want people to feel about research?  This certainly isn't what I think of when I see people interacting in online research communities, sharing their thoughts, connecting in meaningful ways and generally enjoying the entire experience.

Here's to hoping that with new research methods we can develop a common language that respects the ways people now interact with us...

-Matt

I caught an article the other day on Social Media Today (direct link here) on how companies are largely undecided on the value of social media when it comes to understanding their customers (which I'll conveniently put under the umbrella of "market research" for the purposes of this post).  According to the article, almost two-thirds (63%) of the people who responded to the survey said they are "undecided" about the value of data collected from social media sites to help them understand more about their organization or customers.

This doesn't come as much of a surprise to me, and here's why:

• The term "social media" is broad - I couldn't find a link to the actual survey or results in the article, but I'm guessing that participants in the survey likely had different definitions of "social media" (if that was the term used in the actual survey).  In fact, I'm not even really sure what it means given all the hype around it.  It's bandied about so much that it's starting to lose meaning.  To me, much of what people describe as "social media" has been around for years (e.g., forums, blogs, wikis, etc...).  Why are we just now getting around to defining it?  Which brings up the next point...
• Social media is overrated - 23% of the survey respondents called social media "overrated," and I'd have to agree, especially when it comes to really understanding customers.  If you're a huge organization with a well known brand name, you're likely to find a wealth of customer conversation around your brand.  If you're not, tough luck...  Now, astute readers of this blog might think that I'm shooting myself in the foot here since some would say that what PluggedIN offers is all about using social media for market research.  However, I like to think of the technology and tools of social media as separate from the destinations where conversations are happening...  I suppose one could say we use the tools of "social media," but for a very specific context that has clear value for companies.  There is a big difference there.
• The data is lacking context and profiling information - I alluded to this in my earlier post on "Twitter as an online qualitative research methodology."  Without context and an understanding of who is talking about their brand on these social media sites, the data that is analyzed will be of marginal value.  Don't get me wrong, I've seen a few well prepared social media reports on brands and products floating around.  However, they still lack much of the context that is necessary to transform the findings into actionable insights for an organization.  It isn't until you apply these findings on the level of your target audience that you'll find the full value of social media analysis (IMHO, at least - I'm willing to be proven wrong).    
• Change takes time - It seems that many "social media gurus" have unreasonable expectations as to how large organizations will be able to adapt their internal processes around social media.  They seem to expect an organization of 50,000 to react like an organization of 50 (which, in turn, makes me wonder how much experience some of these "social media gurus" really have working with large organizations - a topic for another blog post entirely :-)  While continuous listening through social media should be a priority at any large organization in order to stay competitive, it's simply unreasonable to expect these companies to adapt that quickly.  PluggedIN is tiny compared to the organizations we work with, and we still have challenges building social media into our own organizational processes.  I think many large organizations are hearing the message loud and clear, they just need some time to adapt...     

Of course, this all makes me think...  Is "social media" the holy grail of consumer insights that people are making it out to be?  Will organizations ever fully adapt to the steady stream of consumer insights available through social media?  And if so, what will that organization look like?  That's just my two cents.  I'd love to hear what you have to say...

--Matt 

I randomly came across this image the other day on Digg.com (sorry, I have no idea who the author is otherwise I'd give credit where credit is due).  While at first I laughed, I had to pause and wonder...  Is Web 2.0 the "dumbed down" version of how the web started out?  If so, is that a good thing (i.e., "dumbed down" means "simple," "accessible" and inherently "social")?  Or is this a bad thing (i.e., shorter attention spans, shallow connections, less knowledge sharing, etc...)?

Further, what does this mean for those of us in market research?  Coming from the qualitative side of things, I know that qual researchers strive for articulate, thoughtful responses to their questions (especially in the online asynchronous setting).  While "top of mind" is great in certain settings and for certain studies (e.g., concept tests), an in-depth response takes the cake in most studies (particularly when clients are watching :-)

If we're forced to analyze meaning in 140 characters or less, are we better or worse off?  If we get a 160 character text message from a participant "in the wild," is this information going to be useful for us, or just leave us wanting more? 

There are probably a number of ways to think about this (and maybe I'm overthinking it as it is), but where are we heading as researchers (and participants) in the Web 2.0 world?  If it's this "dumbed down" now, where will we be a few years from now?

Research has shown that the opportunities for social loafing increase with the size of a given group, as members perceive their contributions to be less significant to the overall group and therefore start to participate less.  How can researchers avoid this when running a private online research community?  Here are a few tips for avoiding social loafing in MROCs:

1. Keep it small - Even in a group as small as an in-person focus group you can start to see social loafing occur, as certain participants will rely on the most talkative participants to make their way through the two hour group.  You can imagine what happens when you increase the size of that focus group to a couple hundred or even thousands of people.  You end up paying a lot of money recruiting and providing incentives for people to merely lurk and loaf off the contributions of others.  Keep your MROC on the small size and you'll be spending less to get more.  We like 150 participants for ongoing MROCs, but experiment with the size that works best for your organization and objectives...  
2. Make the shared background and purpose transparent to members - Research has shown that people will socially loaf less and contribute more to a group the more they like it.  Social psychologists have also noted that people tend to like other people that are similar to them.  Given this, try to create communities that share as many commonalities as possible.  Doing so will help encourage contributions above and beyond what you might see in a "generic" online community.  The nice thing about MROCs is that members are specifically recruited according to various demographic/psychographic attributes, so researchers have a real opportunity to craft commonalities among members.  However, divergent backgrounds and opinions shouldn't be ignored, as conversations among different types of members can also produce interesting ideas and insights.  
3. Increase the level of moderation - Have the community moderators spend as much time as possible acknowledging individual contributions to the group through frequent probes.  Even if the probes don't directly contribute to the research findings, you will still be creating opportunities to acknowledge individual contributions.  Having a points system in your platform can also help to "tangibly" acknowledge individual contributions.  For example, the PluggedIN Platform has the capability to reward members with additional points on individual comments or user generated content, for those times when you really want to highlight member contributions to the research objectives. 

Social loafing can be a real problem in online communities, particularly as the size of the community grows.  However, taking some of these steps into mind should (hopefully) help mitigate the impact of social loafing on your next MROC.

-Matt

With MROCs (market research online communities), you should be realistic about user-generated content. After all, MROCs are not natural/organic communities of interest like Digg or LinkedIN. They also do not have a sole content-creating focus like Flickr or YouTube, so you have be more active in encouraging content creation in these environments. With this in mind, here are a few tips for encouraging content creation in your MROC:

1. Screen for creators

Only a portion of the general population are likely "content creators." However, you can strive to recruit people into your MROC that are more likely/willing to create content. They are generally more active on the most popular social networks (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIN, Twitter), and have a history of creating content on these sites (e.g. posting group discussions, tweeting regularly, writing blog posts, sharing photo albums). Also, think about the attitudinal elements that make people likely creators.

2. Lead by example

As a community moderator, take the lead and write your own regular blogs (on-topic and off-topic), upload photos of your vacation, ride home from work, or even your office. Post a link to an on-topic article or some other piece of content to encourage conversation on a regular basis aside from your regular research activities.

3. React publicly & quickly

Reward and feature members that create content, and time this as close as you can to the original post time for maximum impact. If you have a points/rewards system, add points for these posts, or feature member content on the community main page. Also, post this content in a spot where the whole community can noticeably react to.

4. Incorporate special contests

Think about unique contests where you pick a winner from the community each month... how about a "funniest workplace moment", "book review" contest, "funniest blog" contest, or "best profile photo" contest.

5. Challenge members & assign tasks:

Consider ways to challenge members to solve problems over time. Split members into teams and have them discuss certain issues in groups, or even assign specific tasks (e.g. go shopping and share a blog of your experience) to get them in a habit of getting outside their comfort zone periodically. Small groups are also a great way to encourage connection and to get people to be more accountable.

- Ben