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

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      

I met a great moderator named Barry Zinger. He was a little frustrated after a recent round of focus groups. He had an interesting encounter with a professional research respondent and sent us the clip... check it out!

- Ben

Social media is the web.

If you are like me, you are just a bit wary of the word "social media" (this includes web 2.0 and the newly coined web 3.0). Do you ever ask yourself the question, what is social media anyway?

In my opinion, it is really just a combination of different sites and the multitude of tools that websites now use. Yes, I know it is a dialogue. It is about losing control, but in short, it is now the web. So let's state the obvious:

• Yes, the way people communicate has already evolved (e.g., more social and collaborative).
• Yes, "social media" sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIN, Twitter) are popular.  
• Yes, "social media" tools can be useful (e.g., microblogging, photo sharing, forums)
  

How does social media help market research?

So, the tougher question we have to answer is (drum roll)...  How can we use social technologies to help us do our job better? If it doesn't help you, then why use it?

Well, I work in qualitative market research, so the answer for me is rather simple. There are some basic limitations in traditional qualitative research, specifically:

• It's point in time. What do we know about people after they leave the room?
• It's finite. How much can you cram into a 2 hour FG guide?  
• It's slow. What, is 6 weeks too long to wait for a report?
  

So, I need to figure out how to use social technology to:

• Develop extended relationships with people to explore what they are like over time.
• Manage a wide array of client research needs.
• Speed up the research process, giving my clients better access to insights.

How does social media make you better?

Truthfully, though we run private market research communities, we can learn a lot from the Facebook's, Twitter's and Digg's of the world. I'm on board for the next great web revolution, but only to the extent that it helps me do my job better. So, the next time you hear the term "social media," ask yourself, what are the challenges you hope this phenomenon will help you overcome.

- Ben

I was out watching the election last night when the dreaded “what do you do for a living” question was thrown my way. I usually use one of three variations on this question:

• The “extended” version - This version describes how I help companies like T-Mobile, Dell & Kraft connect with people to better understand and deliver on the needs of customers and prospects. I usually go on to explain what a research community is, how it helps companies connect, how it’s different than conventional research techniques (like focus groups) and provide a few research community examples. Chances are you’ll get the extended version if I know you’re also in marketing/research/consumer insights and are likely to understand the value of a research community
• The “medium” version - This version is just like the extended, except I leave out the case studies and just mention a quick example of a research community we’ve done (our work with T-Mobile is usually the best example for someone who might not be in marketing). This version is my way of probing to see if they’re at all interested in the subject, since I’d hate to bore anyone if they don’t find it interesting.
• The “short” version - This version is basically just “I’m a market researcher.” I might add the “qualitative” designation to that, but generally it’s just “market researcher.” It’s sort of my lazy way out of explaining what I do. It’s usually reserved for situations where I feel like the “medium” or “extended” version would just bore the heck out of the person, or feel it might not be the right time/place to go into a drawn out version.

Anyway, back to last night… Given that the election was on and my eyes were glued to the TV, I decided to give the “short” version. The response was typical. There was a brief moment of acknowledgment, followed by a blank stare, followed by a slight feeling of disdain. I knew instantly what he was thinking… I’m one of those guys who interrupts his dinner with a telephone call asking for “a few moments of their time to take a survey,” or I’m one of those people who spam them by asking them to take daily surveys. Ugh. Why does it have to be this way? Can the industry change?

Read on for my two cents.

Why the negative perception of market researchers?

This all made me wonder… Will this negative perception of market researchers ever go away? Will researchers get “hip” to the times and stop using methodologies that people inherently don’t like participating in? What role will online research communities play in helping this progression?

My sincere hope is that over time our industry will become better attuned to the needs of participants, and start to use methodologies that are less intrusive and more in-line with how people are connecting (particularly online).

I think that online research communities will play a big role in this transition, by providing a natural way for people connect that is similar to the social networks they are accustomed to participating in, but has the shared context of research.

What do you think? Are you a market researcher who has experienced this?

Are you a researcher who has been subjected to this treatment because of our industry’s somewhat sordid history? Do you see this perception changing over time? If so, what do you think will drive the change?

Comments are appreciated!