I recently came across a great post on "Manufactured insights" by Katie Harris over at Zebra Bites that discussed the types of communities available for gathering qualitative research insights. In her post, she breaks down online communities into two types:
- Existing communities that naturally evolve around a shared purpose/topic
- Manufactured communities where people are recruited and asked to participate in structured activities over a defined period of time
She goes on to explain the relative advantages and drawbacks to conducting qualitative market research in each environment... I won't rehash the entire post here (since the link is above if you want to check it out yourself), but I would like to comment on one part of the post here - namely, the idea that trying to conduct qualitative research in existing communities (what people sometimes call "netnography") can have its share of drawbacks, particularly when compared to conducting research in "manufactured" communities (which is a way to think of market research online communities).
The benefits of research in existing communities
Before I get into the drawbacks, let's talk about some of the potential benefits of observing an existing community for research insights. Two advantages I can see are as follows:
- Unbiased feedback - One advantage of researching existing communities is the ability to glean unaided, unbiased insights from naturally occurring conversations. This is the type of research environment that qualitative researchers and ethnographers dream of...
- Cost savings - Since the conversations are happening all the time, it's fairly cost effective to casually observe the conversations rather than create a "manufactured" community designed specifically for targeted research insights.
The drawbacks of research in existing communities
While the concept of casually observing people in an online environment as they talk about a given product or service sounds wonderful to most qualitative researchers, in actuality it rarely works out as intended... Here are some of the drawbacks of the "netnography" approach:
- Negative impact on community - I'll start by mentioning of the potential impact on existing community members. There is a real potential for the community atmosphere to be disrupted once it is revealed that researchers are in the midst observing the conversations (which is the ethical route to take). I can distinctly remember this happening when researchers first entered Second Life. There was a backlash among some members, and people demanded that researchers make themselves known immediately.
- Who are you talking to? - Without an established process of screening/profiling community members, it's difficult to determine who you are talking to and whether or not they actually fit the profile of your target audience.
- Depth of feedback - Observing conversations "in the wild" is great, but what if the conversations end up being fairly "high level" and don't answer the true research questions you have? While a "manufactured" research community gives you a place to ask whatever you want (whenever you want), trying to conduct research in an existing community doesn't afford that same level of flexibility. Trying to change the course of the conversation for your own objectives does nothing but disrupt the community (as I mentioned in the first drawback).
- Time - While there might be cost efficiencies in observing an existing community, it doesn't take into account the time involved in finding and following these conversations as they occur. Of course, there are basic (and free) tools for following these conversations (RSS readers like Bloglines or Google Reader come to mind first), but that says nothing for the time involved in finding the right communities and conversations to listen in on...
How research in an "existing" community compares to research from "manufactured" research communities
Of course, this post is painting a rosy picture of "manufactured" research communities by virtue of tearing down the merits of research in existing communities. In fairness, research in "manufactured" communities has drawbacks as well (which Katie also points out in her post).
For example, the "authenticity" of responses inherent in an existing community can be lost in the translation to a "manufactured" environment. Also, "manufactured" communities tend to be a bit more structured around a set of research objectives and resemble an ongoing focus group a bit more than a "true" community (which we've blogged about in our post on the "continuum" from a focus group conversation to a "true" online community).
However, the ability to define and control the environment, people, topics, technology, etc... in a "manufactured" community environment can far outweigh some of these drawbacks.
What's the takeaway?
Ultimately, there doesn't need to be a choice between using "existing" or "manufactured" communities for your qualitative research needs, as you can generally pursue both options simultaneously. However, it is worth thinking about the relative merits of each before developing your approach to using communities for qualitative market research insights.
What do you think?
Are we on track here? Have you seen examples of qualitative research in "existing" communities that might help to dispel some of these perceived drawbacks? Our ears (and comments) are open!