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     

This past weekend I finally got around to watching the first few episodes of "Mad Men" at the suggestion of friends.  I nearly shed a tear when a scene in the first or second episode involved the company's market researcher presenting their findings to Don Draper (the leading man and ad executive), who then promptly discarded the report into the trash.  It left me with the sinking feeling that this has probably happened at some point over the course of my career (although likely not nearly as dramatic :-)  It also made me think of the state of research now, and how we can make ourselves more visible and strategically relevant to organizations.  

Fast forward to this morning, when I caught a recent article from Adweek on how "Clients Could Make Better Use of Research." The article points to a recent BCG study suggesting that most companies are approaching their market research from a largely tactical perspective, while missing the strategic insights that are possible through research.  I've seen this play out in market research online communities (MROCs), where the initial objectives are very much on a strategic level, but slowly start to move toward quick hit tactical activities once internal clients realize that the community is an excellent resource for these types of insights.  It can be difficult to keep the focus on the strategic once this start to happen, although it can definitely be done.  Here are a few suggestions for how:

1. Set aside a set of activities each week for "big picture" objectives - A big advantage of MROCs is the ability to get tactical insights quickly and cost effectively, and this benefit shouldn't be ignored...  However, it's important to set aside time for "big picture" objectives each week.  Consider ways of carving out time in the facilitation plan to address these objectives weekly, and standing your ground when tactical activities start to encroach on these strategic exercises.  
2. Review the objectives whenever possible - Use weekly community meetings or weekly/monthly webinars as an opportunity to review the objectives.  While internal clients might get sick of hearing the same message over and over, they'll eventually get the point that there are strategic objectives in play and the time must be spent to uncover these types of insights. 
3. Clearly tie findings with strategic objectives - Whenever possible, try to tie back specific summaries and insights to the initial objectives, rather than just reporting on them as standalone summaries.  For example, in a recent community we made a separate section of the report that was dedicated to one specific strategic objective, and were sure to include this in each monthly report.  This helps communicate how these objectives are being addressed, and stresses the importance of them as well.  

MROCs represent a new opportunity for market researchers to gain visibility across our client's organizations.  However, it requires that we all take a leap of faith and change the way we uncover findings, deliver them and ultimately rally internal stakeholders around research findings.  This is something that we're working actively on here at PluggedIN...  Be on the lookout for a new product we're launching in January that will help companies move from Stage 1 of BCG's scale (the tactical research organization) to Stage 4 (strategic).  In the meantime, I hope these suggestions help!

--Matt

In previous blog posts, we've talked about how it is important to have a shared purpose or background for members in a research community.  The stronger that shared purpose is, the more vibrant the community will (likely) be.  For example, a research community of iPhone users is likely to be a really vibrant group...  However, even if you don't sell a "sexy" product like the iPhone that people naturally talk about, you can still build a successful online research community...  You just have to be a little "creative" in the way you define your shared background.

One relatively easy way of defining the shared background for just about any industry is to invite a targeted group of customers to a branded community and position them as trusted advisors to the company.  The shared background in this case is merely the fact that they are all customers, which is usually sufficient for establishing an ongoing research community.  While they may come from all walks of life and may represent any number of target segments, they at least know why they are there and what they share in common with other members. 

Of course, this post is for anyone looking to create an ongoing market research online community.  If you're using a MROC on a very short-term basis (e.g., a few weeks or months), then finding a shared purpose is far less critical to the success of the initiative.

At some point during a pitch there is always the inevitable question - how much does it cost?  When designing an approach to a market research online community (MROC), a few key variables play the greatest role in deciding the ultimate price of the initiative, including:

• Community Size - As you can imagine, the more members in your community, the higher the price, as the costs for incentives, recruiting and overall community management scale with the number of members.  Building smaller research communities can help keep your costs down, while offering a number of advantages over larger communities.
  
• Length of Time - Running a MROC over many months (or years) is going to be more expensive, although the average monthly cost tends to decrease over time due to certain economies that result as the community progresses.
• Activity Level - Some research communities are highly active (e.g., daily research-related activities), while others tend to be moderately active (e.g., weekly or bi-weekly research activities).  As you can imagine, the costs for incentives, community management, moderation and reporting will scale accordingly.
• Sample Source - Recruiting from client-provided sample will result in significant savings over purchased sample, as will using an online recruiting method over phone-based recruiting. 
  
• Frequency and Type of Reporting - Last, but definitely not least, are the reporting requirements for a MROC.  Weekly memo community reports can be less expensive than a comprehensive summary report, although they may lack some detail. 
  

As you can imagine, the actual amounts for each of these categories will vary by the vendor, objectives of the community, etc...  However, I hope this provides you with a starting point for the variables to consider when outlining a MROC approach for your organization.

--Matt

Plato once said that, "You can learn more about a person from one hour of play than from a year of conversation."  After reading this quote, I can't help but think about the state of market research today...  Where is the "fun" element in market research and how can we incorporate that into our (qualitative and quantitative) research studies?  How much more can we learn about our audience if we're able to effectively incorporate "play" into our research methods?   

All too often we're so busy wrapping our heads around the research and business objectives, that we fail to take into account the participant experience.  Stepping outside of the realm of the traditional Q&A session and into the area of "serious games" might yield us insights we couldn't obtain through "traditional" means.  What might be misconstrued as a frivolous activity (i.e., merely a forum game), could actually be a tremendously valuable way to dive deeper and really learn about an audience. 

We've experimented with different "serious games" in market research communities here at PluggedIN, but I'm curious if anyone out there has had success with incorporating games in traditional or online research venues...  I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments to this post, or email me directly at mfoley@pluggedinco.com.  

We've been hearing some rumblings lately about how the term "community" is starting to lose a bit of luster in the market research industry.  Specifically, communities are associated with expensive, long-term initiatives that yield a ton of information which organizations have little ability to digest effectively. 

While we know this is the minority of opinions out there, it naturally has us concerned with how they are perceived.  We'd like to use this post to dispel some of the myths of online communities for market research...

Myth #1 - Online research communities are expensive

The key to this is to compare the cost relative to other methodologies.  The communities we run at PluggedIN generally cost about the same each month as two small focus groups (without travel costs).  However, a community can offer many more benefits than two focus groups.  For example, you can spend much more time (on average) with participants, dive deeper into a variety of research topics, get feedback much faster and learn more about participants than in a focus group setting.  

It's also useful to think about what these benefits mean to your organization on a larger scale.  For example, let's imagine a community cuts your product development cycle down by just 1-2 months.  Or imagine that it yields 2-3 highly promising new product concepts.  How much potential revenue does that represent? 

Finally, consider what it would cost to obtain feedback through other research methodologies.  How much can a community save over time by reducing the reliance on other methodologies to address a variety of research objectives?  In short, communities may seem expensive as a lump sum but once you dissect the cost a bit you'll realize how much value they can provide.   

Myth #2 - Online research communities include hundreds of members (typically between 300-500 people)

While research communities can ultimately be any size, they don't have to include hundreds of people.  In fact, we've had success with as few as 50 participants.  Larger communities can end up driving the price up without corresponding value to the overall study (given that communities are primarily a qualitative methodology).  We've found great results at around 150 participants, since it allows you to get enough meaningful feedback on each activity while still getting to know participants on a one-to-one basis.   

Myth #3 - Online research communities are designed to last for the long-term

Communities don't always need to be an ongoing affair.  In fact, they can be very useful when they are targeted around a set of objectives and shut down once those objectives have been satisfied.  While some companies can get a tremendous amount of value through an ongoing community, other companies simply don't have the need for a continuous research venue.     

Myth #4 - Online research communities are hard to manage

While there is indeed a lot of information that emerges from an online research community (particularly in a longer-term community), there are techniques for effectively managing the output.  For example, having a separate project management site for clients and researchers ensures everyone is on the same page throughout the study.  In addition, frequent summaries of activities help to distill the findings into manageable pieces for quick dissemination across the organization.   

In conclusion...

As with any new technique or technology, there tends to be quite a bit of hype followed by some backlash.  Some companies may have been burned in early community experiences where the community was larger and longer than it needed to be, and this may be where the current backlash is stemming from.  

However, we encourage everyone to think carefully about what is possible from a flexible methodology like an online research community, and how the investment can lead to many new opportunities for your organization.

What do you think?

What's your take on the buzz about communities?  Comments are welcome!

This morning we had the opportunity to talk with a large financial services company interested in setting up a private research community with a targeted audience of customers.  As we talked about their goals in setting up an ongoing research community, a member of the company's research team asked us where an online research community fits in the "continuum between an online focus group and a 'true' online community." 

His thinking was that an online focus group is a heavily moderated environment with far less emphasis on user generated discussions, while a "true" online community (as he deemed it) was initiated entirely by the community members with very little or no moderation on the part of a third party.  I'll admit - I had never really thought about research communities in this way and think his assessment of the landscape is right on.  After the meeting was over, I got to thinking about where exactly a research community fits in this spectrum...

The heavily facilitated environment of an online focus group

As he noted, the environment in an online focus group does tend to be heavily facilitated, with far more of an emphasis on the role of the moderator in guiding the group and discussions that center almost entirely around the objectives of the company sponsoring the research.  Depending on a company's objectives, that is often sufficient.  It also provides answers to a research question fairly quickly.  However, it leaves open the possibility that the participants had topics or ideas to discuss that may not have been covered in the moderator's guide...

The open environment in a "true" online community

The other end of the spectrum is what he dubbed a "true" online community, where members are congregating around a shared purpose and creating the community on their own accord.  While natural leadership roles may emerge among members, it's not "managed" in the sense that a focus group is.  The advantage to this environment is that it serves as a fairly natural venue to listen to what is "top of mind" among members.  The disadvantage is that members may or may not get around to discussing topics of interest to an organization, and that the audience in the community may not represent a target segment.   

So where does an online research community fit in?

Online research communities tend to fall somewhere in this spectrum, leaning slightly more toward the carefully managed focus group environment.  The key is to build a community environment that fosters a combination of direct questioning and careful listening.  It's what that we sometimes to refer to as "push/pull" research.  On the one hand, you're "pushing" targeted activities out to the community, while creating an environment that encourages sharing and "pulling" out ideas and insights. 

This is one of the areas that fundamentally makes a research community different from a conventional "online community."  It's the combination of a heavily facilitated research tool with a more "authentic" venue to listen to customer needs that makes research communities unique.

BusinessWeek posted an interesting article yesterday called "Will Work for Praise: The Web's Free-Labor Economy." The article talks about the challenges of encouraging participation online, both with and without financial remuneration.

While the article focuses mainly on a company called ThisNext and the public online community they have built around the concept of sharing shopping/product recommendations, it has implications for online focus groups and research communities as well.  There are a few interesting points from the article I'd like to comment on, including:

• The $10 Stipend - The article mentions the position of Communispace, a fellow online research community provider, and their belief that a small $10 stipend can boost participation.  This is something we have noticed as well - a small stipend can go a long way in boosting participation when combined with intrinsic forms of motivation (e.g., acknowledgement of contributions, emphasizing exclusivity, reporting back to the community on progress, etc...).  We also agree that the impact of the stipend diminishes as the amount is raised, unless you are able to tie contributions directly to the honorarium amount (e.g., through a points system).
• 4% to 6% Participation Rates - Yahoo notes that 4% to 6% of their users contribute their energies for free, which is in-line with rates I've heard for public communities.  In a private research community, however, those kind of participation rates would be difficult for many companies to stomach, especially if they are paying in the six figures to keep their research community open.  It would be like paying for a focus group where only one participant talks, and points to another reason why sometimes it makes sense to monetize contributions from community members.
• Varying Incentives by Personality - From the article, the chief of Yahoo Research also suggests that point systems must be varied by personality.  While we believe that providing an honorarium for members is generally a good idea, there are indeed situations and audiences where an alternative approach may be warranted.  For example, it wouldn't be appropriate to pay a $10 stipend to a research community of physicians or business executives.  In those examples, it makes the most sense to emphasize the intrinsic rewards above any monetary compensation.
• The Role of the "Maven" - The article talks about the role of mavens in boosting participation and creating valuable content for the community.  However, many researchers may be uncomfortable relying solely on the opinions of mavens to fuel the decisions they make as a result of their research community.  While mavens can be very valuable to a community, it's important to encourage feedback from a cross-section of users.  To extend the focus group metaphor again, relying on mavens would be like listening mostly to the overpowering participant in the group...

Predictions for the "Free" Labor Economy

If I had to make a prediction among online communities in general, I would guess that many will look to ways of monetizing the contributions of users.  This will especially become more common as the technology to setup and maintain a social site become widely available and the active users of these sites are increasingly more valuable.  I believe companies will look for ways to reward "average" users, and that this will likely be accomplished through point systems that are customized around the primary audience for the site.

What do you think?

Where will the direction of the web's "free labor economy" head?  Will more sites start monetizing the contributions of users?  What impact will this trend have on research communities?  Comments are welcome!

Related Posts:

If you've been following the blog here, you may have caught our earlier post on incentives in online research communities, which outlines some of our thoughts on why it is often appropriate to pay incentives in online communities.