Just kidding ;-)   But now that I have your attention...

The title of this post refers to a recent request we received to build two 120 minute-long online research communities.  By no means is this post a criticism of this individual and their request (they acknowledged they were in a pinch and had no time at all to research the methodology - their client had merely asked for a community).  Of course, they were really looking for an online focus group so I suggested the names of a few vendors they could contact.  However, the conversation got me thinking...

Are we all hyping communities to death?

Calls like these make me worry that people are just looking for the word "community" in anything that they do because it's the hot new thing, and aren't stopping to think about what a community actually is, how the approach should be applied and what it's good for (and not so good for).  Don't get me wrong - companies like PluggedIN have benefitted quite a bit from all the attention given to communities the past few years so I'm not complaining, but having so much hype and confusion around the term isn't good for anyone in the long-term. 

I have a feeling the dust will settle eventually, but I worry about companies that end up with a bad taste for "communities" when in practice what they're really getting is what most qualitative market researchers would call an online focus group or bulletin board.

What is an online research community?

Of course, this also brings up the broader question of what a research community is, and that's where things get a bit trickier...  Going back a few years to Forrester's report "Will Web 2.0 Transform Market Research," a MROC is defined as "captive interactive groups of people online joined together by a common interest, which are systematically harvested for qualitative market research purposes."  Nothing in this definition explicitly states duration or size of the community, so I guess with a definition this broad an OLFG could be considered a form of MROC.

Jeffrey Henning (@jhenning) of Vovici put together a helpful chart with the variations of online research communities ("Online Research Communities by Type") according to whether they are temporary/permanent and open/closed.  The chart includes OLFGs, although Jeffrey acknowledges in the comments that he de-emphasized them on purpose...      

My take on it...

Having been involved in many OLFG, BBFGs, short-term MROCs and continuous MROCs over the years, I can only appeal to personal experience running each.  I can say "qualitatively" that even a short-term MROC (which I'm defining here as at least one month) has a very different feel (and value) than something that is a few hours or days long (like an OLFG or BBFG), but that's just my experience...

What's your take? 

Is the buzz around communities going to help or hurt in the long run?  How do you define a research community (or insight community, market research online community, online research community or whatever you prefer to call it)? 

I'm jumping in late to the game on this conversation so forgive me if I'm rehashing old wounds, but I've been thinking lately about the debate between calling online communities for research/insight "Market Research Online Communities" (MROCs) or "Insight Communities."  The conversation started largely on Twitter and then found its way into various research blogs over a few weeks, including a post shared by Tamara Barber of Forrester that seemed to include many research community industry players chiming in.

First, a bit of background...  When Forrester first introduced the term back in 2008, we were ecstatic.  PluggedIN had spent quite a bit of time at that point educating people on how to use "online communities for market research," so when a nifty acronym came out to describe what we had been trying to educate people about all along, we jumped all over the chance to use it!  Sure, it didn't sound all that sexy, and it still used the "market research" moniker that everyone seems to want to run away from these days, but for convenience sake we decided to run with it, and I'm glad we did.  I hated the acronyms BBFGs and OLFGs back in the day, but they were useful, convenient to use and clients understood them right away so I didn't care...  

When the talk of "insight community" started making the rounds, I was initially excited because it definitely sounded sexier than "MROC" and makes me feel a bit more "warm and fuzzy" inside, but I still have my hesitatations...  Namely, over the years I've noticed the word "insight" is misused, overused and really hard to define exactly.  It's one of those "you know it when you see it" type of moments, which isn't easy to describe or promise in advance.  For a great blog post on this topic alone, look no further than Tom Ewing's recent post on "A Brief and Biased History of Insight."

To me, "insight" doesn't automagically emerge from an online community, so it can be misleading.  One can run an online community for market research without uncovering the magical "insight" we're all looking for (though that would be a shame).  The point is that the "insight" is what should (hopefully) emerge after synthesizing data across a community and other methodologies, as the result of deep observation and analysis.  It doesn't happen just because you're running an online community; rather, it happens as a result of everything a consumer insights team is doing to provide value to the organization.  

However, here's my real point of this blog post...  My problem isn't with the name - call it whatever you want, it's the fact that we're debating topics like this in the MR industry while we face so many other threats.  It's a bit of the old "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" argument (I'm being a bit dramatic here, but you get the idea).  We're selecting the proper acronym to use while our clients are complaining about 70 page decks that make no sense and sit unused on the dusty shelves of the company intranet.  If you haven't already seen this, check out this interview on Research Live with Volkswagen's Insight boss.  This is what we should be figuring out as an industry!  This should be the "hot topic" on Twitter, not "MROC" vs. "IC" and which hashtags we should be using.  Research Rockstar also alluded to the bigger picture challenges in the research industry the other day in her great blog post on market research decentralization.

I know that "MROC" isn't perfect or sexy or whatever, but it works.  It's worked now for more than two years since it was introduced, and it will work for a long time from now.  Let's refocus the conversation away from terminology and toward what really matters - our clients... 

- Matt

I recently read an article on CNET (Sorry, Facebook friends: Our brains can't keep up) about Dunbar's number playing out the same way online as it does offline.  I've blogged a bit about this in the context of other topics, but thought it would be worth mentioning again as it seems to come up quite a bit in the debate on proper MROC sizes. 

For those not familiar with Dunbar's number, it's basically a mental limit to the number of "relationships" that one can maintain at any given time.  The term "relationships" here is a bit fuzzy for some people, but generally means that you know everyone else in the group and have a sense of how people relate in that group.  For more, check out the Wikipedia entry on Dunbar's number.

What does this mean for MROCs?

To me, Dunbar's number provides a starting point for thinking of the size of the MROC you should build.  If you're interested in having members develop connections with each other, and in turn learning through listening carefully to those conversations, then you should consider a community that doesn't exceed 150 active participants.  

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 

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

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

With community members available at your fingertips 24/7 (and a portion of your budget dedicated to a MROC), it can be tempting to want to launch as many topics relevant to internal customers as possible.  However, it's critical to balance moderated activities each day/week between topics relevant to your organization and topics relevant to the community members.

This may sound like a fairly obvious tip, but the temptation can be strong.  The risk is higher attrition rates among members, who become frustrated with the lack of attention to their needs and eventually leave.  

We recommend trying to keep a 2:1 ratio of company-relevant to member-relevant topics in order to ensure there is sustained interest from community members.  Otherwise, you'll end up spending more money and time constantly recruiting new members due to high attrition rates.

Just another tip from your friends at PluggedIN.  If you'd like more, check out our paper on "10 Tips for Creating Successful Online Research Communities."  Happy MROC'ing :-)

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