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

A recent study on Twitter by Harvard Business Review set the blog and twitterverse on fire, as it found that the top 10% of Twitter users account for over 90% of tweets.  To me, this really isn't much of a surprise and points to an inherent "rule" of participation in online communities - the 90-9-1 rule. 

In fact, by this rule Twitter would be doing fairly well by virtue of having nearly 10% of users being "creators," as opposed to the 1% that the theory stipulates.  Now this might not be the most fair comparison, given that the 90-9-1 rule is generally applied to "online communities" in general that might have multiple avenues for peer-to-peer connection, whereas Twitter is a bit unique...  Many people on Twitter are perfectly happy just following interesting tweets (as I alluded to in my previous post - "Am I an online community moderator's nightmare?"). 

The question is, does this theory apply in the realm of market research online communities (MROCs)?  And if so, how?  

Does this apply to a market research online community (MROC)?

MROCs don't tend to follow the 90-9-1 rule for a few reasons... 

1. They are focused around a specific topic (e.g., a brand, product, hobby, etc...) - The most successful MROCs tend to revolve around a specific topic, whereas a "general" community like Twitter might not provide immediate avenues for people to connect on shared interests.  While it is possible to find people who share an interest through Twitter, it's a bit different when the entire goal of a community revolves around a very specific topic, and all members share an interest in the topic merely by virtue of their selection as a member.  Which brings us to reason #2...
   
2. They are private and invitation-only - Private communities have a bit of the "exclusivity" element to them, which can significantly impact participation rates.  People also feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts in an environment that is private and disconnected from the rest of the conversations around the internet. 
   
3. They are small ("small" defined here as sub 1,000 active members) - Smaller communities make people feel more connected to each other than a larger community where people might feel anonymous.  This helps people feel more comfortable opening up to their peers. 
4. They are moderator-led - When a team of moderators and community managers is actively generating content for people to react to, and encouraging members to create user-generated content around specific topics or themes, the result is a (slightly) higher rate of user generated content than in public online communities.

How does this apply to a MROC?

Of course, this prompts the question - what are the rates of participation like in a MROC?  The answer to that is difficult, as it will depend quite a bit on:

• The number of activities launched each day/week
• The extent (and quality) of moderation
• The degree to which the audience shares a common background/purpose
• The size of the community
• The incentive strategy (if one exists)
• How one defines an "active" member

The last point here is a point of contention among some online community and MROC practitioners, and is the topic of another blog post entirely...  Regardless, it's interesting to see the evolution of sites like Twitter and Facebook, and to analyze the participation rates in these communities as compared to private online communities (in general) and specifically private market research online communities.

- Matt

Market research needs to be more captivating

I think we can all agree that you can learn more about someone over a drink at a bar than you can if you take that same person into a focus group room and interview them for an hour. The environment and overall participant experience is so important, even though your questions may be the same.

Online qualitative needs to be more captivating

I think this has some definite implications for online qualitative research, especially as companies seek an extended relationship with respondents. The environment and member experience is so crucial because you want people to stick around for weeks/months rather than hours/minutes. Also, many people assume that because online is more convenient then it must be more engaging, but this is not entirely true. Some of the most technical bulletin board/forum software is also some of the least user-friendly and least entertaining for participants to use over the long term.

People don't love the research experience

Additionally, market research is not widely respected by the general population (speaking mostly for the US audience, here). Many don't like the thought of participating - and who would blame them? They associate market research with annoying phone calls, check box surveys, long batteries of open-ended questions (yes, even in qualitative forums)... It's telling when Facebook has a group called "I work in Market Research & no I don't stand in the street with a clipboard." There is a disconnect between how researchers and participants perceive the experience.  I think we all need to consider the participant experience more carefully and do all we can to make it less repetitive, more engaging, more entertaining, and genuinely more fun.

Market research online communities have a opportunity to change perceptions

One of the great things about online market research communities is that they provide a more engaging, less "clinical" experience for participants. We hear from our community members that they think the experience is fun and captivating, especially compared to conventional surveys, discussion forums, and other modes. Also, in research communities (whether 2 months or 2 years) your core members feel more vested in the goal of the research than they do with other modes. Having research participants that want to participate, are genuinely having a good time, and are vested in the direction of your research objectives is an ideal situation.

Perceptions won't change automatically

However, even with this more engaging tool we still need to be vigilant about the member experience. Part of this may be the look/feel of the community site, but more importantly it is about the way you incorporate the various tools (e.g., discussions, blogs, polls) and the type/mix of activities that you run that ultimately help make research more fun and captivating.  

Chime in if you have any specific exercises/activities on this. I know we have posted a few in the past.

- Ben

I was talking with an old colleague yesterday and she asked me how moderation in a research community is different than traditional focus groups or other online qualitative tools (e.g. bulletin board groups, chat groups). As I was thinking about my answer, I realized there are quite a few differences:

Depth through variety

As a whole, communities are far less regimented (or at least should be) than typical qualitative methods. With discussions especially, you want to minimize the layers of questions and think about topics as a whole. That's not to say you can't go deep. There are ways to achieve this depth through a series of related community activities (e.g short polls, discussions, sentence completion activity), but the way you approach this depth is likely from multiple activities and not through one post alone.

Mix it up 

Communities are typically long term in nature, so mixing up the types of activities you post is very helpful for users, and even for us moderators!  It keeps things interesting and less monotonous which is very important in these ongoing research communities where you want keep people engaged over time.

Open up

One of the great things about communities is that they allow people to share their real identity through profile pages, photos, blogs and other tools. As a moderator, it is crucial that we use these same tools to show the community who we are and what is going on in our own life. The better you are able to do this as a researcher, the more the community in turn will open up about themselves and contribute.  

Let go

One of the hardest things for me to learn initially was the idea of letting go of control of the conversation. As moderators we want to "ask, ask, ask," but in communities it is really important to listen to the community and circle back on topics of interest. If there is a particularly interesting comment or user generated discussion, incorporating it into a future activity (and acknowledging the member that posted) reinforces the fact that you are listening to what the members are saying. Also, this approach is much more effective for "probes" and follow-up questions. Creating a new discussion and engaging the community as a whole is oftentimes more effective than trying to follow up inline with individual members, plus it opens up the opportunity to hear several opinions rather than one individual opinion.

Build community & fun

Equally as important as designing compelling research activities is the task of building community (which could be another post altogether). Responding to, acknowledging, and engaging members is crucial to establishing a sense of community as well. Also, proactively posting "community building activities" is important. These can be simple blog posts about a new game you found online, a gallery of funny Youtube videos people can contribute to, ridiculous celebrity death match surveys or even a book review of the month. Mixing in the fun goes a long way.

Know the outside

No matter how advanced your community platform is, it cannot possibly include every feature known to man. That's why it is important to have a list of sites and tools that you can link to for compelling content. Whether it is a collage tool, virtual avatar creator, or card sorting tool - there are a ton of clever and insightful tools out there that are only a link away. These items also break up the monotony for users as well and keep things interesting inside your community.

Time is relative

For our continuous communities, we try to keep the weekly participation requirement to about 15 minutes per week. However, for shorter term communities, participation can go as high as 30 minutes, depending on the duration of the project. This is not a hard/fast rule, but generally speaking the longer the initiative, the lower the regular participation requirement you want to place on your members.

Be regular & spontaneous

Inevitably, whatever the mix of activities you choose to launch, launching these at fairly regular intervals helps set the expectations of members that new content is released at a specific time. This will get them in the habit of checking in on a regular basis. Also, mixing in the spontaneous along the way let's them know that community activity has a sporadic nature as well. This will hopefully encourage members to check in throughout the week and months when they get a free minute. Breaking news and current events are a great source for this more "spontaneous" activity.

A while back, Forrester Research released their "Social Technographics" report that grouped consumers into six categories of participation within social technologies (e.g., communities, blogs, social networks, etc...).  If you haven't checked it out, here's a quick overview...

The report categorizes consumers into six different categories as follows:

• Creators (13% of US adult consumers) - People who publish web pages, blogs, upload video, upload photos, etc...
• Critics (19% of US adult consumers) - People who comment on blogs, post ratings/reviews
• Collectors (15% of US adult consumers) - People who use RSS (really simply syndication) and tag web pages
• Joiners (19% of US adult consumers) - Those who use social networking sites
• Spectators (33% of US adult consumers) - Those who read blogs, watch video and listen to podcasts
• Inactives (52% of US adult consumers) - Anyone who does none of the above activities

I'm sure since this report was first published (2007) that these percentages have changed a bit.  For example, I'm willing to be that the "Spectators" category has declined, with more moving up the ladder to the "Joiners" category, especially with the continued adoption of social networking sites like Facebook among "mainstream" internet users.  However, the categorization fits well with how we've seen people participate in private online research communities, and here's how...

How does this apply to participation in research communities?

While the report itself is interesting as a whole, the question is how this translates in the online research community environment...  Here's our take on it:

1. "Critics" are different - In our experience, "Critics" are more like those who participate regularly in all discussions and surveys. 
2. "Spectators" actually participate - While the social technographics report has "spectators" as merely observers, in our experience these types of users will also take surveys and polls fairly regularly, since they don't require the "one-to-one" interaction of a discussion or blog and are still fairly anonymous.
3. "Collectors" are less relevant - "Collectors" play less of a role since much of the content in the community is structured around the research activities.  While we use tags, they aren't typically the way people find content.  In addition, RSS is something that we usually don't employ in our communities (for security reasons - we want to keep the data in the site as much as possible).
4. There is some overlap - Our experience has been that there is a general overlap between some of the categories.  For example, we have members that frequently could be categorized as creators, critics and joiners.  Forrester acknowledges this fact as well in their report...  

How does this apply to designing research community approaches?

Forrester suggests that companies should design their approach to social technologies around this knowledge of participation, and choose the technology that is going to be most effective for their target audience.  I would say this advice applies to online research communities as well...

For example, "Boomers" in a research community might take to the more "conventional" areas of the community, including the "discussion" and "survey" sections of the site, whereas a community of Millennials might be slightly more open to blogging, sharing photos and creating in-depth profile pages.  Depending on the research community platform you are using, you may want to arbitrarily pick and choose the feature set to include at launch and add to it if people request more.

That's not to say that there is a definitive generational divide in the way people use these social technologies (we've had 65 year old members sharing photos in our research communities); rather, it demonstrates that you should take a few educated guesses about your audience and work from there...  

In addition, knowing this general categorization of social technology/internet users can help to determine:

• The features to use in a research community
• The incentive strategy you employ (and what you choose to weight heavily in your incentives)
• Who to invite
• How to recruit members
  
• How to position the community in the initial invitations
• The mix of activities to run

As the old saying goes, "all good things come to an end."  The reasons for deciding to close down a research community will vary from company to company.  Sometimes it's a research or marketing budget that has been cut.  Other times it's a lack of support from stakeholders in the organization.  For some, the community fulfilled a certain need for the company that is no longer strategically relevant.

Regardless of the reason for deciding to close down a research community, the company sponsoring the community (and the research community vendor) have a responsibility to end the community as gracefully as possible.  Here are a few suggestions for how to gracefully close down an online research community.

1. Give community members a place to connect afterwards

Consider setting up a free group on Yahoo or Ning for members to continue their conversations and the relationships they have made with other community members.  Also consider setting a designated member of the community as someone who can administer this group without your assistance.  You may find value in stopping into this group from time-to-time to see what members have been up to and what they're talking about. 

2. Provide advance notice (up to a month before)

While this isn't always feasible, try to give members as much advance notice as possible.  Usually one month of advance notice is sufficient.  This allows members enough time to download some of the personal pictures and blog posts they shared with the community.  It also gives them time to share contact info with other members they care about (if they haven't done so already).  Finally, it provides the research team with some time to summarize the feedback they heard over the life of the community, provide final recommendations for the sponsoring company and handle the administrative tasks involved in closing a community.

3. Summarize and reflect on what their feedback has done for your organization

If possible, try putting together a report for community members highlighting the top things you learned through the community and how your organization acted on their suggestions.  This can be a tough exercise for some organizations, given that the findings from a research community can have an impact across the organization and are sometimes difficult to track.  However, a simple summary of what you have learned and what you intend to do with the feedback will suffice.  This helps members know their time spent sharing their ideas and opinions was well worth it.

4. Leave the possibility open for another research community

We've seen it happen a few times where a company decides to close down a research community, only to re-launch it months or years later.  As with the rationale for closing the community, the reasons for re-launching it vary considerably (budget, new product launch, new leadership, etc...).  If there is a possibility you may want to pick the community back up again later on, it's wise to at least acknowledge that as you are closing down the community.  While you shouldn't "string" members along if there is absolutely no intention of opening it again, it doesn't hurt to at least mention it. 

5. Thank them (profusely)

This one should go without mention, but unfortunately it's not always followed.  It is critical to thank members over and over for their contributions, particularly if it was a branded customer community where your company's reputation is on the line.  You want to do everything you can to preserve the relationship with community members and acknowledge that their feedback was critical.  

While members of a typical research community are likely to have a fair number of positive things to say about a brand, product or service, they are also very likely to share their negative feedback and "constructive" criticisms.  After all, the relatively anonymous nature of the internet puts brutally honest opinions literally a few clicks away from the public. 

This isn't something to be avoided in a research community; in fact, it's often from the negative comments that community managers and moderators are able to create the most valuable research activities focused around ways companies can overcome these criticisms.

From researcher to client service representative

However, one thing we've noticed when moderating research communities is that there is a tendency among many community stakeholders to jump into the role of customer service rep once they hear the slightest mention of a negative customer experience from a community member.  I've seen this happen in the backroom of many focus groups, although it's especially prevalent in online qualitative research where the feedback is highly visible to multiple stakeholders.  While the motive to solve the customer's problem right away is noble, it can have a few potential negative impacts on a research community, including:

• It changes the dynamic of the moderator to community member relationship - When a community manager or moderator is forced to jump to the role of customer service representative, it can change the way community members view the community and moderators/researchers.  Over time, they may see their role evolve from the "trusted advisor to the company" they were told they would be initially, into a role mirroring a more "conventional" online community or ratings/review site.
• It can lead to an over-emphasis on the negative - If community members notice that negative feedback is given special treatment or somehow called out differently, it can reinforce those behaviors in a way that isn't necessarily authentic to the way they would otherwise participate.
  
• It can seem "defensive" on the part of the sponsoring company - It's important not to be viewed as a company that bristles at negative feedback.  Members want to know they can be honest without hurting anyone's feelings (after all, that's part of the reason the "independent" moderators are there).
• It reduces the anonymity of members - If the situation calls for following-up with a member by email or a private message (as it often does), it can make members feel "singled out" or "watched," and lead them to feel their feedback might be misused.  Given the mandate for market researchers to protect the personally identifiable information of research participants, this can lead to an ethical dilemma on the part of the researcher.

What's the takeaway?

If you can, resist the urge to jump in and resolve every customer issue that is mentioned in a research community.  Instead, focus on ways that these criticisms can generate positive conversations around improvement.  It will help maintain a positive and proper researcher-to-participant relationship, while potentially generating valuable new ideas.

Whenever we launch a new online research community we get the inevitable question from our clients…

Should I setup a profile and participate in the research community?

It’s something we struggled with for a little bit before deciding on the answer:

It depends.

Read on for the pros and cons of participating in your online research community if you are a client-side researcher, marketer or stakeholder with a vested interest in the output of the community.

The Pros - Why companies should participate directly in their online research community

Here are a few reasons why it might make sense to have employees of the sponsoring company participate in their research community:

• It can make community members feel like it’s more authentic and they have a direct voice - One of the primary motivations for member participation in an online research community is often the desire to help shape the direction of a brand, product or service. They just love to know they’re really being heard. When a company steps in as an active member in the research community, it can significantly boost this sense of being heard, by providing them (and the sponsoring companies) a direct way to communicate with each other.
• It can make clients feel more involved in the process - When clients are community members, they face the same user experience as members. They get a sense of what it’s like and what the “hot button” issues are as they are participating in the activities, leading to activities that are better in-line with what participants want to naturally discuss.
• It can “humanize” the sponsoring company - Creating profiles and sharing select personal information of company employees helps “humanize” the company and provides a face to the sponsoring organization.
• It’s in the spirit of social media & community - This might be a bit of a stretch, but part of the “spirit” of social media is really about participation. Consumers appreciate when companies are involved in the conversation and form an authentic dialogue with them, as it shows they care more about them and how they can satisfy customer needs.

The Cons - Why companies should not participate directly in their online research community

While there are potential benefits, below are some drawbacks to having companies directly participate in their online research community:

• Community members may feel a bit awkward and less likely to open up - Part of the beauty of having an “unbiased voice” in the form of independent community moderators is that participants feel like they can candidly express their opinions about a company. Invite the company into the conversation and this feeling may go away, leaving some members of the community to potentially feel like they are unable to truly open up and share their thoughts, especially if they establish a connection with a company employee.
• Clients sometimes ask biased questions - No offense to anyone out there on a client-side research team, but I’ve seen some badly phrased and biased questions come out of clients. It’s not that client-side researchers are not able to develop great questions (quite the contrary), it’s just that their minds are often so wrapped in the product, company acronyms and corporate speak that they often can’t form a question that is going to translate well to the audience. Leave it to the researchers and moderators to take an unbiased look at the community and develop questions accordingly.
• Clients rarely have time - People start off with the best intentions to participate regularly, but often end up getting dragged away from the research community to their other responsibilities. If clients decided to initially become members of the research community, that might leave community members wondering why the client suddenly doesn’t show up. Is it because they don’t care anymore? They don’t think the feedback is valuable?
• What starts as research could end up as customer service - Issues around customer service are often hot topics in research communities. If a client has a profile, you can expect to find a number of customer service and support questions posed to them in the form of comments on their page. This can be a nightmare for clients if it isn’t managed properly.
• “Too many cooks in the kitchen” - The old saying is true in research communities as well. Sometimes it’s best to have a small team of moderators managing the research community, rather than having too many parties involved. A single voice can help provide needed consistency for community members, and ensure their experience as members is positive.

What is PluggedIN’s recommendation?

More often than not we recommend that companies stay away from participating directly in their online research community, in favor of waiting for the monthly reports and developing reports back to the community on what they are doing with the findings. Sending monthly reports back to research community members has the same effect as participating, only without the drawbacks. Clients are usually very relieved to hear this recommendation

I like to draw the comparison to an in-person focus group… Many of the same concerns about bias exist if a backroom company observer decided to step into the room and participate directly in the conversation. Members may feel a bit awkward and less likely to open up, for fear of offending the employee. The employee may ask questions or pose thoughts that are (unknowingly) biased.

With observer access into a research community, it’s effectively like watching the action as it unfolds anyway. Having a profile might make you part of the action, but be wary of the drawbacks before stepping into the “room.”

What do you think?

Phew, that was a long blog post… Time to hear what you think! Are we missing a pro or a con? What have your experiences been like? Feel free to leave a comment below!