Market research needs to be more captivating

I think we can all agree that you can learn more about someone over a drink at a bar than you can if you take that same person into a focus group room and interview them for an hour. The environment and overall participant experience is so important, even though your questions may be the same.

Online qualitative needs to be more captivating

I think this has some definite implications for online qualitative research, especially as companies seek an extended relationship with respondents. The environment and member experience is so crucial because you want people to stick around for weeks/months rather than hours/minutes. Also, many people assume that because online is more convenient then it must be more engaging, but this is not entirely true. Some of the most technical bulletin board/forum software is also some of the least user-friendly and least entertaining for participants to use over the long term.

People don't love the research experience

Additionally, market research is not widely respected by the general population (speaking mostly for the US audience, here). Many don't like the thought of participating - and who would blame them? They associate market research with annoying phone calls, check box surveys, long batteries of open-ended questions (yes, even in qualitative forums)... It's telling when Facebook has a group called "I work in Market Research & no I don't stand in the street with a clipboard." There is a disconnect between how researchers and participants perceive the experience.  I think we all need to consider the participant experience more carefully and do all we can to make it less repetitive, more engaging, more entertaining, and genuinely more fun.

Market research online communities have a opportunity to change perceptions

One of the great things about online market research communities is that they provide a more engaging, less "clinical" experience for participants. We hear from our community members that they think the experience is fun and captivating, especially compared to conventional surveys, discussion forums, and other modes. Also, in research communities (whether 2 months or 2 years) your core members feel more vested in the goal of the research than they do with other modes. Having research participants that want to participate, are genuinely having a good time, and are vested in the direction of your research objectives is an ideal situation.

Perceptions won't change automatically

However, even with this more engaging tool we still need to be vigilant about the member experience. Part of this may be the look/feel of the community site, but more importantly it is about the way you incorporate the various tools (e.g., discussions, blogs, polls) and the type/mix of activities that you run that ultimately help make research more fun and captivating.  

Chime in if you have any specific exercises/activities on this. I know we have posted a few in the past.

- Ben

So you've spent a few weeks or months planning out your research community, including defining your objectives, drawing up your facilitation plan, seeding your site, screening participants, etc...  Launch day comes and goes, and things go off without a hitch.  Your research participants start signing in, introducing themselves to you and other members and participating in early research activities.  Life is good.  

A few days later you start to notice that the initial buzz and excitement is beginning to die down a bit, so you check the stats.  People are still signing in, but it seems a bit different somehow than the "honeymoon" right after launch date... 

No worries, this is completely normal for a community launch and nothing to be too concerned about (yet).  The "lull" right after launch is bound to happen.  The key is to make sure it doesn't stay, and that the community builds into something sustainable, with regular participation from a broad cross-section of members.  Here are a few tips to help you get your MROC off on the right foot... 

1. Throw a few "softball" activities out there - Try throwing out a few "softball" activities at first.  Think of the types of questions you would ask in the first five or ten minutes of a focus group when you're building rapport with the group...  Those are the perfect questions to start with in an online research community.  They're personal and fun, without being too deep.  Every moderator has their own bag of tricks that will probably work just as well in the online environment, so why not try them out to see what works best...
2. Try out some surveys - Also try starting with a few surveys or polls that may or may not be related to the topic, and be sure share or discuss the results with members.  Surveys are easy to fill out and provide a quick engagement point for members that are just getting their feet wet in the community.
3. Email them more at first (and regularly) - In the first few weeks, be sure to setup a regular schedule for emailing participants about community news and updates.  We like to email all of our communities every Tuesday with news and reminders that the latest research activities are available.  As long as you're fairly routine in your communications (and set this precedent early), you'll be assured of regular participation among a core set of members.
4. Get personal (on their profile pages) - We like to add a welcome message to member profile pages initially, and then find any excuse we can to follow-up with additional messages.  That lets members know you're paying attention and sets up an expectation for reciprocation. 
   

Those are just some tips that have worked for us in the past.  Feel free to share any ones that have worked for you in the comments to this post!

I was talking with an old colleague yesterday and she asked me how moderation in a research community is different than traditional focus groups or other online qualitative tools (e.g. bulletin board groups, chat groups). As I was thinking about my answer, I realized there are quite a few differences:

Depth through variety

As a whole, communities are far less regimented (or at least should be) than typical qualitative methods. With discussions especially, you want to minimize the layers of questions and think about topics as a whole. That's not to say you can't go deep. There are ways to achieve this depth through a series of related community activities (e.g short polls, discussions, sentence completion activity), but the way you approach this depth is likely from multiple activities and not through one post alone.

Mix it up 

Communities are typically long term in nature, so mixing up the types of activities you post is very helpful for users, and even for us moderators!  It keeps things interesting and less monotonous which is very important in these ongoing research communities where you want keep people engaged over time.

Open up

One of the great things about communities is that they allow people to share their real identity through profile pages, photos, blogs and other tools. As a moderator, it is crucial that we use these same tools to show the community who we are and what is going on in our own life. The better you are able to do this as a researcher, the more the community in turn will open up about themselves and contribute.  

Let go

One of the hardest things for me to learn initially was the idea of letting go of control of the conversation. As moderators we want to "ask, ask, ask," but in communities it is really important to listen to the community and circle back on topics of interest. If there is a particularly interesting comment or user generated discussion, incorporating it into a future activity (and acknowledging the member that posted) reinforces the fact that you are listening to what the members are saying. Also, this approach is much more effective for "probes" and follow-up questions. Creating a new discussion and engaging the community as a whole is oftentimes more effective than trying to follow up inline with individual members, plus it opens up the opportunity to hear several opinions rather than one individual opinion.

Build community & fun

Equally as important as designing compelling research activities is the task of building community (which could be another post altogether). Responding to, acknowledging, and engaging members is crucial to establishing a sense of community as well. Also, proactively posting "community building activities" is important. These can be simple blog posts about a new game you found online, a gallery of funny Youtube videos people can contribute to, ridiculous celebrity death match surveys or even a book review of the month. Mixing in the fun goes a long way.

Know the outside

No matter how advanced your community platform is, it cannot possibly include every feature known to man. That's why it is important to have a list of sites and tools that you can link to for compelling content. Whether it is a collage tool, virtual avatar creator, or card sorting tool - there are a ton of clever and insightful tools out there that are only a link away. These items also break up the monotony for users as well and keep things interesting inside your community.

Time is relative

For our continuous communities, we try to keep the weekly participation requirement to about 15 minutes per week. However, for shorter term communities, participation can go as high as 30 minutes, depending on the duration of the project. This is not a hard/fast rule, but generally speaking the longer the initiative, the lower the regular participation requirement you want to place on your members.

Be regular & spontaneous

Inevitably, whatever the mix of activities you choose to launch, launching these at fairly regular intervals helps set the expectations of members that new content is released at a specific time. This will get them in the habit of checking in on a regular basis. Also, mixing in the spontaneous along the way let's them know that community activity has a sporadic nature as well. This will hopefully encourage members to check in throughout the week and months when they get a free minute. Breaking news and current events are a great source for this more "spontaneous" activity.

As you may have heard by now, Facebook is planning on opening up its platform and massive user base to marketers and market researchers for quick polls and surveys some time this year.  Check out this article from the Guardian for more info on the initiative.  The news brings about a few questions, including...

How will this impact the Facebook community?

While most users will likely not notice the change (after all, polls have been on Facebook for a long time now), a vocal minority is likely to not feel comfortable with the move.  Some will note that users voluntarily agree to give up this information when they register.  While this is true, it's not likely to quell the concerns of privacy advocates.  If the reaction to this news in the comments on Digg.com this morning are any indication, Facebook will have a bit of an uphill battle with privacy advocates...  

Will this impact Facebook sample providers?

I also wonder the impact this will have on companies like Peanut Labs who have built up a business on cultivating targeted sample from sites like Facebook.  Will these companies hold an edge over a Facebook poll by virtue of having a larger, opt-in database of profiled Facebook users?  I would think that would be the case, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out... 

It could also be interesting to see if Facebook somehow cuts these players out of the market to capitalize on the value of their user base to marketers and market researchers.  That move alone could cause a ruckus within the community of companies built around the Facebook platform, far beyond research companies and into the realm of Facebook application developers.

Will this decrease the reliance on focus groups?

The article states that this move could reduce the reliance on "expensive and time consuming focus groups" for some companies.  I find this to be a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.  I highly doubt that a quick poll question to the Facebook community will be replacing focus groups any time soon, but it remains to be seen how comprehensive they make the features that are available to researchers.

Is this further rationale for setting up a private research community initiative?

This move speaks to the advantage of setting up a separate community specifically for market research.  Members of a research community are told throughout the recruiting and sign-up process that the site is specifically constructed for market research purposes.  That means fewer surprises and less of a backlash among members, unlike what Facebook is likely to experience with this move...

Related Posts

We've touched on Facebook and its impact on market research in posts before, including our popular post on "Why not use Facebook for an online research community?"  Check that post out if you get a chance, or leave us a comment below.  We're interested in hearing your thoughts on the news!

While we've learned a lot over the years about how to run successful research communities, we've also had our share of mistakes.  However, it's from these mistakes that we've learned some of our best techniques for running research communities... (To learn about some of these techniques, download our "10 Tips for Creating Successful Online Research Communities" paper).

Here are three examples of where we've gone wrong in the past, and what we've learned from our mistakes.  Hopefully they'll help you as you setup or run your own online research community.

Mistake #1 - Trying to do too much, too soon

It's easy to get really excited about all the possible topics a research community can cover in the planning stages.  In the past, we would sit down and brainstorm every possible topic and try to figure out how we could cram that into a facilitation plan that made sense. 

Since then we've learned that it's best to pace out the activities over the life of the community for two reasons:

• It is more mindful of the member experience - While participants are generally compensated for their time and are usually very willing to share their opinions, there is a certain point of no return.  Overwhelm them early on with too many activities and they won't come back.
• It acknowledges the role of "organically" building out the facilitation plan - We've learned that it makes more sense to start with a few guided topics/areas of interest to the client, and then let them build into detailed discussions over time.  It's impossible to anticipate everything members want to talk about.  Once you realize and accept that as part of your planning, you're on your way to a more authentic and in-depth discussion with participants.   
  

Mistake #2 - Combining segments that don't fit

We've made this mistake on a few occasions now...  There is often the temptation to combine segments during the community design phase since it saves money and is generally more efficient to moderate and manage.  However, it's wise to carefully consider the topics you intend to cover with each and whether or not the segments belong together.  I've covered this before in my post on "Should I combine segments in a single research community?"

If you have a primary segment of interest, we recommend starting there first and then thinking about the segments you can cover otherwise.  If budget is a concern, perhaps using an already-established shared research community would be a better option to cost effectively run ongoing research with your secondary segments. 

Mistake #3 - Not varying activities

This is an easy mistake to identify, but a hard one to overcome...  We've made the mistake before of just running discussions, since research communities are ideal for ongoing qualitative feedback.  Over time, this impacted attrition rates in some of our larger ongoing communities. 

Since then we've learned that it's wise to vary up activities with a short survey or multimedia exercise from time-to-time, just so the experience doesn't become boring for participants.  This seems like a fairly obvious recommendation, but it's one that can be tricky to plan for.

Care to share?

Have any "lessons learned" from mistakes you've made with research communities?  Comments are welcome!

Whenever we launch a new online research community we get the inevitable question from our clients…

Should I setup a profile and participate in the research community?

It’s something we struggled with for a little bit before deciding on the answer:

It depends.

Read on for the pros and cons of participating in your online research community if you are a client-side researcher, marketer or stakeholder with a vested interest in the output of the community.

The Pros - Why companies should participate directly in their online research community

Here are a few reasons why it might make sense to have employees of the sponsoring company participate in their research community:

• It can make community members feel like it’s more authentic and they have a direct voice - One of the primary motivations for member participation in an online research community is often the desire to help shape the direction of a brand, product or service. They just love to know they’re really being heard. When a company steps in as an active member in the research community, it can significantly boost this sense of being heard, by providing them (and the sponsoring companies) a direct way to communicate with each other.
• It can make clients feel more involved in the process - When clients are community members, they face the same user experience as members. They get a sense of what it’s like and what the “hot button” issues are as they are participating in the activities, leading to activities that are better in-line with what participants want to naturally discuss.
• It can “humanize” the sponsoring company - Creating profiles and sharing select personal information of company employees helps “humanize” the company and provides a face to the sponsoring organization.
• It’s in the spirit of social media & community - This might be a bit of a stretch, but part of the “spirit” of social media is really about participation. Consumers appreciate when companies are involved in the conversation and form an authentic dialogue with them, as it shows they care more about them and how they can satisfy customer needs.

The Cons - Why companies should not participate directly in their online research community

While there are potential benefits, below are some drawbacks to having companies directly participate in their online research community:

• Community members may feel a bit awkward and less likely to open up - Part of the beauty of having an “unbiased voice” in the form of independent community moderators is that participants feel like they can candidly express their opinions about a company. Invite the company into the conversation and this feeling may go away, leaving some members of the community to potentially feel like they are unable to truly open up and share their thoughts, especially if they establish a connection with a company employee.
• Clients sometimes ask biased questions - No offense to anyone out there on a client-side research team, but I’ve seen some badly phrased and biased questions come out of clients. It’s not that client-side researchers are not able to develop great questions (quite the contrary), it’s just that their minds are often so wrapped in the product, company acronyms and corporate speak that they often can’t form a question that is going to translate well to the audience. Leave it to the researchers and moderators to take an unbiased look at the community and develop questions accordingly.
• Clients rarely have time - People start off with the best intentions to participate regularly, but often end up getting dragged away from the research community to their other responsibilities. If clients decided to initially become members of the research community, that might leave community members wondering why the client suddenly doesn’t show up. Is it because they don’t care anymore? They don’t think the feedback is valuable?
• What starts as research could end up as customer service - Issues around customer service are often hot topics in research communities. If a client has a profile, you can expect to find a number of customer service and support questions posed to them in the form of comments on their page. This can be a nightmare for clients if it isn’t managed properly.
• “Too many cooks in the kitchen” - The old saying is true in research communities as well. Sometimes it’s best to have a small team of moderators managing the research community, rather than having too many parties involved. A single voice can help provide needed consistency for community members, and ensure their experience as members is positive.

What is PluggedIN’s recommendation?

More often than not we recommend that companies stay away from participating directly in their online research community, in favor of waiting for the monthly reports and developing reports back to the community on what they are doing with the findings. Sending monthly reports back to research community members has the same effect as participating, only without the drawbacks. Clients are usually very relieved to hear this recommendation

I like to draw the comparison to an in-person focus group… Many of the same concerns about bias exist if a backroom company observer decided to step into the room and participate directly in the conversation. Members may feel a bit awkward and less likely to open up, for fear of offending the employee. The employee may ask questions or pose thoughts that are (unknowingly) biased.

With observer access into a research community, it’s effectively like watching the action as it unfolds anyway. Having a profile might make you part of the action, but be wary of the drawbacks before stepping into the “room.”

What do you think?

Phew, that was a long blog post… Time to hear what you think! Are we missing a pro or a con? What have your experiences been like? Feel free to leave a comment below!