We just want to say thanks to Kathryn Korostoff for including our blog as a Top 10 Market Research blog in Quirks!  We're honored to be included alongside MR bloggers like Jeffrey Henning, Tom Ewing and Ray Poynter (among others), and hope we can continue to live up to the standards set in the article...

We'll keep trying to share weekly posts on best practices, trends and ideas around online communities for research and insight (and include some humor whenever we can :-)  In the meantime, if you have anything you'd like us to cover in future blog posts, feel free to leave us a note in the comments to any of our posts.

Thanks again to Kathryn and regular readers of the MROC Talk blog!

- PluggedIN

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?

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 

Market Research Design

As a researcher, one of the most important jobs we have is to craft research exercises (e.g., survey questions, discussion guide questions) that absolutely address our client needs. It sounds simple enough, but it can be hard to really know where you clients are coming from. We may know the client's objectives, but we sometimes don't have their level of knowledge about the product, the brand, or even the audience at times. Also, it can be difficult to completely understand their internal challenges (e.g., product limitations, executive pressure) that research needs to address in some way.

Background & Context

One way to achieve this understanding is to ask clients to associate a goal and a hypothesis with every research objective. For example, if they want to evaluate a concept, it is helpful to know why they are evaluating it. What decisions will be made as a result?  Also, it is helpful to have them share a hypothesis about what they think people will say. The purpose is not to prove a hypothesis true, but to give our questions/method a certain context that will address the hypothesis directly.

Actionable Research

The more specific goal/hypothesis we have, the more insightful our research activities are going to be, and the more actionable the result will be as well. Our method of choice happens to be market research communities, so this has a tremendous implications for long-term customer communities and managing client expectations over time. However, I think this has merit for all types of research methods from qualitative research to quantitative research, even extending to secondary research.

 -Ben

Readers of the blog here might be interested in checking out a recent article in Advertising Age on the "death of consumer segmentation."  If you haven't read it already, here is the link:

The Death of Consumer Segmentation? 

While this article isn't directly related to market research online communities, it does have some implications for researchers and MROCs.  Here are my thoughts on the article...

Reasons why consumer segmentation doesn't always work

In the article, the author (Michael Fassnacht) argues that society is volatile, segments are changing faster than ever before and that people now belong to a multitude of segments.  In this sense I think he's right on, especially with the latter point... 

For example, we'll often recruit participants for MROCs based on targeted segmentation profiles (typically derived from comprehensive segmentation studies run prior to the community).  While participants are recruited to meet these specs, we often notice overlaps as we get to know participants over time.  Someone who may have fit a certain segment perfectly at first may end up blending into other segments as we learn more about them.

Overreliance on this segmentation criteria (particularly while conducting research) can be misleading.  It's important to leave some room for the "gray area" between segments, and identify those in the analysis.  While analyzing the feedback by segment can be a useful exercise, it should be approached with some caution due to the overlaps that often exist.  

Reasons why the "self selection" method isn't always accurate

The author also suggests that enabling self-segmentation can be a way to move away from brand-controlled segmentation to a more accurate representation of a segment.  However, that might not be the "holy grail" of segmentation either.  Consider, for example, the 90-9-1 rule of participation on the web.  If you're relying on consumers to self-segment, you are inherently relying on the 9% of interent users who actually self-segment themselves in any meaningful way by customizing their experience in on a social site (e.g., Facebook).  In what ways does that inherent participation bias impact the way segments are identified through self segmentation?

To me this is akin to the arguments of "crowdsourcing" back in the day...  The buzz around it became so powerful that companies thought consumers would end up creating entire campaigns for them like magic, as long as they provided the means to do that.  Of course we all know that isn't true (as we've blogged about before with regards to participation in online communities)...  Relying on consumers to self-segment so you can create a more meaningful segmentation profile sounds wonderful in theory, but will still need to be supplemented by brand-controlled segmentation to have an impact in any "actionable" way. 

Takeaways and thoughts...

Is consumer segmentation as we know it "dead," only to be replaced by self-segmentation (or a blend of both)?  Probably not likely any time soon...  To me this holds the same credence as the age-old "the focus group is dead" argument - a lot of huffing and puffing, but little substance.

What do you think?  What implications does this have for market research?  Comments are welcome...

Matt

(If you're interested in reading more analysis of this article, check out Simon Kendrick's post on the Curiously Persistent blog for a very thorough breakdown of the article...)

eMarketer posted an article today on "Why Now is Not a Good Time to Slash Your Market Research Budget."  In it, they indicate that anticipated spending on market research is likely to stay the same or decrease at many organizations, halting the trend of increased spending over the past 20 years.  The article also outlines a few reasons why a budget cut isn't the right path to take...

How will this impact researchers and the way budgets are spent?  Those facing tighters budget may consider turning to online qualitative research methodologies (and specifically online research communities) as a way of spending money more efficiently within the constraints of their new budgets. 

For example, consider a company that sets up a community to evaluate and follow the decision making process their target audience goes through over the course of a typical research and purchase cycle.  That kind of community could help uncover insights into where people are spending their time and money, what they pay attention to, purchase influencers, how they actually make their purchase, concerns they have during the process, etc...  This information could then help a company adapt their marketing strategy accordingly, saving significant money on ineffective methods that prospective customers are less likely to notice.

Of course, research communities and other forms of online qualitative research also help save money through:

• Decreased travel costs
• Lower rental charges and associated fees
• Lower recruiting costs (over time)
• Lower incentive and incentive management costs
  
• Increased geographic reach (leading to a reduced need for multi-city studies)
  

If you followed our blog from last week, you know that we think key developments and trends in qualitative research will heavily involve the reporting end of our business. As I was preparing this blog, I realized that in an ironic twist, a more interactive version of this blog was necessary. So fittingly we have prepared an "old school" and a "new school" version of this post:

Trends in qualitative reporting (New school)

Trends in qualitative reporting (Old school)

Understanding Lifestyle

Clients will always want a fairly detailed summary of findings from the topics we cover, but there is an opportunity to give them much more. Many clients want to know more about the backstory. They want to know details about an individual's lifestyle and how they think about the world around them. Being able to present this to clients as part of our solution will be key.

Speed

With continuous qualitative methods comes the need for more ongoing reporting mechanisms. Here at PluggedIN we talk a lot about how the ongoing nature of MROCs helps clients stay in touch. The scary truth of this is that our own reporting needs to be delivered with a speed and efficiency that allows clients to capitalize on this access.  Clients cannot wait "2 weeks after field" for a report to inform their decisions. They need insights quicker. Thinks days instead of weeks.

Get to the Point!

Gone are the days of a 100 page "slide-ument." Even if you impress your clients with the speed with which you can prepare this report, people do not have time nor attention span to sift through an insanely comprehensive report. As researchers, we need to be more simple and concise in our language. We also need to find ways to make details easier to decipher. Things like Top 10 lists, colors/icons to note key content, and other techniques will be appreciated.

Creative Delivery

We live in a multimedia world and to help clients pay more attention to what we are saying, we need to be more creative about the forms we communicate in. Things like Podcasts, video reports, Slideshare presentations, persona flash cards can all help to make our reports more engaging. These formats also allow us to communicate findings in things other than text (e.g. photos, music, narration). This also helps us better communicate lifestyle related insights (see point 1) which can't always be replicated in text.

Storytelling

Matt had a great post this week linking to a Slideshare about storytelling by Joyce Hostyn. It's a great example about how powerful storytelling can be to share ideas. The great thing about qualitative research is that we talk to real people and figure out who they are and why they do the things they do. We tell stories for a living. Finding better ways to share our stories will make our reports more engaging and grab more attention from our clients. 

True Collaboration

I think the biggest development in qualitative reporting has to do with what happens after a report is delivered. It's the conversations we have with fellow researchers and our clients that go beyond the findings we prepared. These conversations inform future research, give us a better sense of client needs, and help us understand the areas that our report delivered (or failed to deliver) on. This interaction forces us be better at our job and helps us inevitably give clients what they really need. Finding more efficient ways to have these conversations and opening them up to as many perspectives as possible will be a great development (if you can stand it!)

Interested in getting the most out of your research community? Think about some of the following:

Make your research wish list

What are the specific issues and topics you will want to explore over the life of the community? In what ways do you want to "understand" your customers better? List these out before you get started.

Set your expectations 

What are you hoping to achieve through your research community? Are you replacing or supplementing other research efforts? What are the tangible measures of success for you? Share these with your vendor and review them over time.

Nominate a community champion

Who at your organization will be responsible for the research community? Who can liaise with your community vendor and your internal teams to make the experience the most rewarding? Responsibility leads to success.

Build a plan

How long do you want your community to last? How are you going to manage the flow of research activities over the life of your community? Does your business cycle require a certain focus on particular research items at specific times throughout the year? A plan is important to sustaining your community over the long haul.

Choose the right vendor 

Are you a DIY or a DIFM client? Who do you want to manage your community and more importantly, can that vendor deliver on what you need? If your focus is research, make sure you are comfortable with the researchers working on your community.

Know your audience 

Is there a natural affinity for your brand or are people more skeptical about you? What special characteristics does your audience possess that will impact the community design and overall facilitation techniques? Different types of people require different approaches to communities... one size does not always fit all.

Last week I was in Philadelphia and Chicago for an in-person study with doctors and patients.  Given that we focus on research communities here at PluggedIN, this is something that I don’t get the opportunity to do as much anymore.  As much as I enjoy moderating online research communities, I appreciated the chance to get back out in the field conducting “traditional” methods again.

After the sessions were over I got to thinking - will online qualitative research methods (like research communities) ever replace traditional in-person methods?  If so, what would it take to “replace” traditional qualitative research methods (like focus groups, in-depth interviews and ethnography studies) with similar online methods?  If not, why not?  What are the barriers to replicating the offline experience?

Replicating the traditional research experience

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the “traditional” research methods will likely never be replaced by online qualitative research.  As much as I’d like to believe in the future of online research (and online research communities in specific), the experience of speaking in-person with respondents just can’t be replicated by any currently available online methodology (that is, of course, until CNN releases their crazy Star Wars hologram technology to the world :)  Interviews with web-cams try to replicate the experience, but it’s just not the same as the “traditional” one-way mirror setup.

Instead, I see the future of qualitative market research as traditional methods being closely aligned with online methods to allow for a much deeper look into an audience over time.  For example, I foresee a day where participants at the end of every focus group are asked if they would like to join a corresponding online research community to further the discussion from the group.  I see companies and researchers collaborating with participants between in-person sessions using the tools provided in the research community.  This is happening now, but unfortunately only a few companies have realized the potential value of this online/offline relationship.

What do you think?

That’s my two cents…  What do you think?  Will online qualitative methods ever replace traditional methods?  If so, when will this happen?  What will drive this move to online qualitative research?