In the spirit of every blogger's "predictions for 2010" posts, here are PluggedIN's predictions for where MROCs might be heading in 2010...

• Specialization in Custom MROCs - As the methodology is widely adopted across the industry, we'll start to see vendors carve their niche around a speciality.  For example, we might see more companies jumping on B2B MROCs as a focus, or creating methods around ideation/brainstorming specifically.  We have a feeling we won't see this specialization come out of "traditional" MROC vendors, but rather out of those who realize that the tools for building their own MROC approach are readily available, allowing them to use their existing focus in a nascent methodology. 
• Tighter Intergration of Social Media Monitoring and MROCs - At various MR conference this year, the hot topic was how to effectively capture sentiments on brands, products, etc... across the social media landscape.  Various vendors are rushing to address this now (or already have), specifically within the realm of market research.  However, the undertone in each of these conversations was the question of how market researchers can provide context for these responses and understand their implications for our clients specifically.  It's here that MROCs have the opportunity to shine for next year, as social media mining will become more prevalent, along with the need to make sense of these sentiments.  We took baby steps in this area earlier this year when we integrated Twitter and various other social media properties into the PluggedIN Platform, but look for much more from MROC vendors in the year to come... 
• Technology/Platform Prices Dropping - As with any technology, the cost of licensing MROC platforms will likely decrease this year.  While there are many general purpose community platforms out there, and relatively few market research-specific platforms, we think the industry will start to see more solutions custom designed around the needs of market researchers.  More competition for self service clients could drive the prices down across the board.
• Fortune 100 No Longer - It's telling when the analyst report that starts it all in motion (e.g., Brad Bortner's original report on "Will Web 2.0 Transform Market Research?") has the subtitle of "Yes - But High Cost Will Mean That Firms With Big Budgets Lead."  That was 2008, when a handful of firms dominated the space.  In 2010, we see more competition in the MROC space that will force larger vendors to either drop their prices for long-term community engagements, or figure out how to add more value to their approach.  Continuing with the trend we just mentioned (platform prices dropping), 2010 will finally start to see firms without big budgets moving into MROCs as their primary mode of obtaining in-depth qualitative insights in a cost effective manner.  
• MROCs Will Finally Divorce Themselves From Panels - For years now people have used the terms panel and community interchangeably...  In 2009 we started to see a clearly defined difference in the minds of end users, which is something we think will continue into 2010.  Panels are not communities and communities are not panels.  We think the industry has finally caught on, and it's time to figure out how to make the most of the MROC approach.

That's just our two cents after seeing how this niche in the MR industry has evolved over the last four years...  What do you think?  

--Matt & Ben     

Research Rockstar (Kathryn Korostoff) has a great post on her blog about the concept of "sugging" (selling under the guise of market research) in MROCs.  In it, she coins the phrase "mugging" to describe the practice of marketing under the guise of research in market research online communities. 

We've blogged a bit about this before on MROC Talk (check out "'Sugging' in market research online communities" and "10 reasons to have a separate online research community" if you're interested), however it's worth touching on again given that it's starting to come up more often...  As Kathryn points out, she heard it at the recent Market Research Association First Outlook conference.  I also witnessed it a bit at ESOMAR Online Research 2009.

As MROCs become more popular in the research industry, market researchers will have to be more careful in distinguishing their community objectives from those of the marketing department.  The temptation can be fairly strong to create a single community for both marketing and research (mostly due to cost and resource constraints), but ultimately it ends up putting researchers in a bit of an ethical quandary and can sacrifice the quality of the feedback.

As Kathryn notes, it is ok to run communities like this provided it is disclosed during recruitment.  However, any findings should carry the caveat that it is from a community inherently designed with marketing objectives in mind, and therefore less objective.  I'd also suggest that these types of communities carry a different name entirely, so as not to further confuse anyone interested in setting up a MROC. 

For example, the Swarovski community example presented by HYVE during the ESOMAR Conference carried the designation of an "innovation research community," rather than a MROC, as the goals were partly to create a large PR campaign around the design and voting process.  Not to discredit their work (it was a really interesting case study and clearly very useful for Swarovski), but this isn't what the industry should consider to be a MROC. 

I might be arguing semantics here, but I think this is an important distinction to make for the future of the methodology...  What do you think?

--Matt      

I've blogged a bit before about the difference between a market research online community and an online research panel, but a recent discussion around the office sparked some more thoughts on the debate.  First, let me explain a bit of the background for this post...

Most of the community requests we get tend to be on the "smaller" side (i.e., sub 300 members).  These requests are generally from companies looking to supplement (or sometimes replace) their existing online and offline qualitative research through a MROC.  However, from time-to-time we get requests for very large (over 1,000 member) communities.  Upon receiving a recent request for a very large community, I started to wonder at what point a community starts to become a panel.  Allow me to explain...

What a MROC means to me...

I see the beauty of communities being the connections between members, and the resulting insights that occur through those connections.  I also see the benefit being a deep understanding of the individual and their needs, which is the goal of most qualitative research initiatives to begin with...  

However, when communities have many hundreds or thousands of members, those connections run the risk of breaking down.  Can you imagine the experience of a research participant who is asked to read through a discussion with 500 responses?  What is the likelihood of getting that valuable "across the table" discussion.  I know I wouldn't wade through more than 100 responses to a discussion if I was a research participant, even if I was very interested in the topic and shared a lot in common with other participants.  I just don't have the time...

In my experience, when a community exceeds about 300 members it starts to become a panel.  Connections between members don't happen as frequently, it becomes slightly less "personal," and it can become almost a Q&A session.  I don't mean to use the term "panel" in a derogatory manner, as there is always value in collecting feedback from a targeted group on a continuous basis - no matter the method.  However, I feel a true "community" should act and feel differently than a panel.

Comparing this experience to a focus group...

For anyone who has yet to experience or moderate a MROC, the only experience I can liken this to is if you were moderating a focus group and for each question in your guide you simply went around the table asking for answers in order.  Very large "communities" run the risk of feeling like a "serial interview," and less like a natural conversation.

This, of course, is just my two cents on the topic...  I can also see why some organizations want or need a larger research community; namely, that you can take the data from the qualitative discussions and validate it through surveys - all in the same venue.  The resulting cost and time efficiencies can be very enticing.  Plus, you can always take a very large community and sub-divide it into smaller groups of targeted people (given the right platform).  However, for my money I'd take a small group of committed participants any day :-)

What do you think?  When does a community become a panel?  What are the tradeoffs between a small and large community?  Comments are open (and welcome)!  

--Matt

One of the questions we're sometimes asked is whether or not it makes sense to recruit members for an online research community from a set of specific geographic areas.  The thinking is that later on it would be possible to meet with them in a traditional in-person research setting... 

This isn't only possible, it's smart and cost efficient.  It also points out a few different ways that online and offline qualitative research methods can be combined.  Read on for some ideas on combining online and offline approaches, as well as reasons why it makes sense to combine them...

How can you combine traditional with online qualitative research methods?

Below are some ideas for combining online and offline research methods to get you thinking about unique ways to design your next research study...

1. Recruiting community members to meet for in-person focus groups or in-depth interviews - This is the combination I referred to earlier, which consists of recruiting members from a specific geographic region(s) to an online community, and asking them during the screening process if they would be willing to participate in in-person sessions.  
2. Recruiting in-person focus group or IDI participants into an online community - Of course, the opposite to the first example holds true...  You could run multi-city focus groups and invite participants to continue the conversation in an online community afterward.  
3. Website usability sessions with an online community - Website usability is typically done in an in-person setting, most often as an interview.  Imagine what it would be like if you could invite them to connect online afterwards and take a look at the improvements you made to the site experience based on your feedback, while collaborating in a community setting to further optimize the site...    
4. In-person advisory boards with an online community or bulletin board focus group - Some companies have customer advisory boards that meet in-person at regular intervals (e.g., quarterly).  Why not give your advisors a regular place to meet online in-between sessions?  Alternatively, you could invite them to bulletin board focus group sessions at the mid-point between sessions...
5. Ethnography with an online community - Last (and definitely not least) is the idea of combining in-person ethnography with an online community.  Imagine having participants share diaries, photos, videos and ideas in between visits from the researcher.  That could lead to additional conversations and insights that would not have been possible with traditional ethnography alone.  
   

Why combine traditional with online qualitative research methods?

Thinking of combining online and offline qualitative methods?  Here are a few reasons why you should seriously consider this for your next study:

1. Cost efficiency - One of the biggest reasons for combining modes is potential cost efficiencies.  For example, recruiting members for an in-person study directly from your online community could help you save money on recruiting.  You might also be able to cut down on the number of in-person sessions you do, as you will be gathering quite a bit of feedback online as well.  Finally, you could also cut the number of markets for your study (thereby saving on travel costs), since the online component will help you cover a wide geographic area.  
2. Connecting between events - Ever wanted to follow-up with probing questions for that really insightful focus group participant, but couldn't because the group ran out of time?  Imagine having a community for connecting between in-person events.  The online community would ensure that you could follow-up with questions after analyzing the results from the in-person sessions.  That type of connection can lead to additional insights and ideas that would not have been possible by traditional research methods alone.
3. Seeing who participants really are - One of the major complaints against online market research methods is that you don't get to see the facial reactions from participants or generally see who they are.  However, combining online and offline research methods allows you to get the best of both worlds - an ongoing conversation through the online methods combined with getting to see them in a traditional research setting.  This might also help you screen out any "professionals" that might be in the midst of your studies...
4. Making homework assignments easier - Focus group moderators sometimes use homework assignments before groups to get participants thinking about the topic before they arrive.  Imagine how a community or online study before the group could coordinate members.  Also imagine what that might do to participation rates.  I would guess that more people will make the effort to show up for a focus group if there has been an online component before the group occurs.
5. Building rapport and getting started quickly - By getting to know participants online before a focus group, you can build up a baseline understanding of their background and start to develop rapport with members before they even step foot in the focus group room.  This helps you hit the ground running in the conversation, instead of spending valuable time just getting past introductory material. 
   

These are just a few examples of how traditional and online qualitative methods can be merged to create efficiencies and additional insights that would not have been possible with one approach alone... 

What do you think? 

Have you had positive or negative experiences with merging methods?  In your experience, which approaches work best?  Comments are welcome! 

Recently we were asked about the relative advantages and disadvantages of running a short-term research community (1 month) instead of a week-long bulletin board focus group project.  We thought it was an interesting question worth blogging about, so here are a few of the advantages and disadvantages of running a 1 month community over a 1 week bulletin board...

Advantages of a 1 month community

1. Explore a topic in-depth - A month-long community will give you more time to really explore a topic from multiple perspectives using a variety of tools (e.g., photos, blogs, etc...), rather than being rushed to fit all of your topics into a single week. 
2. Adapt the discussion - Rather than focusing on a limited set of questions in a week-long group, a short-term community lets you adapt the conversation around the feedback from early topics, and guide the group naturally to topics that are of interest to them.
3. Cover more topics - This may seem obvious, but a month-long community will give you time to cover more topics than you could in a bulletin board group.  It will also give you the chance to add in last minute topics you may have forgotten in your initial research plan.
   
4. Let the findings "incubate" - Giving participants the time to really think about their answers and articulate their thoughts can lead to more insightful feedback and ideas that might not have emerged in a week long bulletin board group.
5. Learn more about participants - With a month-long community you can take some time to learn about participants, providing some background and context for their answers to research topics.
6. More engaging for participants - Depending on the community platform you choose, the experience for participants in an online community setting tends to be much more engaging.  We've tried extending bulletin boards out over a few weeks and have been disappointed with the results as participants drop off from the conversation.  

Disadvantages of a 1 month community

1. Can be more than you need - If your research needs are limited to a single topic with a limited amount of feedback necessary, a bulletin board might make more sense. 
2. Turnaround on findings - A bulletin board is generally over in 3-4 days, while a short-term community will be providing ongoing feedback over a month.  If you need a feedback on a single topic asap, then a simple week-long bulletin board might be the way to go.  However, weekly topline reports from the community can also deliver findings quickly. 
3. Cost - A week-long bulletin board may be slightly less expensive than a community, depending on the number of participants and topics being covered.  However, when you compare the amount you are able to cover in a month long community versus a bulletin board the cost can actually be less, as you would need multiple bulletin boards to cover the same number of topics.

What's the takeaway?

We've done many bulletin board focus groups and online communities here at PluggedIN, and readily acknowledge that each has their own value as a qualitative research methodology.  What you choose will ultimately come down to your research objectives, the depth of feedback that you need and the timeframe in which have available to gather findings.  We hope this breakdown helps you consider some of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach as you decide what works best for you and your organization...

One of the biggest misconceptions about online communities for market research is that they need to be an ongoing initiative (typically lasting at least six months)... 

The reality is that communities should be designed around your objectives, organization and available resources, which may or may not necessitate an ongoing community approach.  Here are a few useful questions to help you decide whether or not you need an ongoing research community, or a short-term, project-oriented community. 

Do you have the need?

An ongoing research community is going to help you in a few key ways.  First, it is going to give you a deeper understanding of your target audience by virtue of continually learning about them through community activities.  It is also going to give you the chance to efficiently and cost effectively address a wide range of topics over time.  Finally, an ongoing community will help you collaborate with your audience to develop new products, services, marketing materials, etc...

While these are certainly benefits of an ongoing research community, you may or may not actually need this level of understanding or have a variety of topic areas to explore...  For example, you may already have a deep understanding of your audience through other research studies, and are more interested in evaluating reactions to specific topics in-depth.  In that case, a shorter-term community may suit your needs. 

Do you have the right culture?

If your organization values qualitative research and is constantly looking for new perspectives into the lives of your target audience, then an ongoing community approach will probably work well.  A continuous community may also make sense if your organization has multiple internal stakeholders who are conducting qualitative research studies fairly consistently.  However, if your needs are more "finite," or you are looking for alternatives to other qualitative methods (like focus groups), then perhaps a short-term community may be a better solution.

Do you have the time and resources?

With a continuous community comes responsibility - both on the part of the researchers and the company sponsoring the community.  You will need to be committed to launching activities on at least a weekly basis, coordinating the distribution of the findings across your organization and collaborating with stakeholders to brainstorm topics to explore in the community.  As you can imagine, this takes time and resources to accomplish.  It may make sense to run a short-term community first to see how your organization adapts, and then plan for ongoing initiatives after that...   

What's the takeaway?

We hope this post doesn't dissuade anyone from considering an ongoing research community, as there are definitely scenarios where this approach makes the most sense. 

Rather, we're pointing out that research communities do not need to (and sometimes should not) last indefinitely.  There are highly effective and cost efficient ways of wrapping a community approach around a targeted set of objectives, perhaps by setting up a short-term (1-3 month) community and then evaluating your options after that to determine if an ongoing community makes sense for your organization...

Clients tend to ask us about all the different things they can do with online research communities. Though research communities can provide insights for a lot of different areas, below are 10 common applications that we have seen over the years.

1. Exploring new segments, specifically people’s existing and changing attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs
2. Creatively looking at unmet needs and specific product/brand usage
3. Evaluating new product concepts and ideas
4. Investigating communication themes and ideas
5. Running early ideation and trend spotting, continually tapping into new ideas
6. Keeping track of competitive brands and the competitive landscape
7. Exploring the dimensions of customer loyalty and evaluating rewards programs and concepts
8. Completing product usage diaries and journals
9. Coordinating in-store shopping activities and testing retail concepts
10. Investigating specific web redesign concepts, widgets, and online stimuli

This list is just a snapshot of all the things you can do in a research community. What else could be added?