Results from an online community platform satisfaction study by Forum One have been making the rounds lately, and I thought I'd weigh in with a few thoughts I had as to how these results apply in selecting online research community platforms (since the study related more to all-purpose/marketing community platforms than research and insight communities specifically).

First, the not-so-surprising findings from the report:

• Chat is the least-used feature in these community platforms - In today's time-strapped, fast-paced world, very few community members have time for real-time chats in communities, regardless of whether it is a "conventional" online community or an insight community.  While you can certainly corral them into the occasional chat session, most prefer the convenience of asynchronous discussions in a forum area, or direct messages from a moderator, to requests for real-time chat sessions.
• Multimedia Galleries follow chats as one of the least-used features in online communities - This also comes as no surprise.  While most audiences are comfortable sharing photos these days, many hesitate to take that next step into video on their own accord unless there is a clear benefit (read: incentive) to them creating and sharing a video with the community, and it's simple for them to share.  I'll caveat this by separating multimedia content shared in online communities from content shared in ad-hoc studies where members are recruited specifically to take video of a given task or subject (e.g., video ethnography or video chat groups).  In the latter, they are obviously going to share video since that is what they were specifically recruited (and paid) to do...
• Feature set of platform is the number one selection factor - This comes as no surprise, given that feature set is a unifying element that allows for easy comparison between platforms (for more thoughts on this, check out a previous post - "Online community platforms - the feature race is on").  The UX geek in me wishes that something like "community member experience/user experience" or "ease of use" was on the list (and near the top)...  

Now for some of the surprising findings (to me, at least):

• Surveys are the fourth most commonly used feature - Surveys and polls are fourth, which was even ahead of activity feeds.  In the context of marketing communities that do not have a research/insight focus, this is rather surprising.  I have seen studies where polls help increase engagement, but I didn't expect them to be near the top of this list... 
• Service and support by the vendor is in the middle of the list - Given much of the talk about how services are a critical element for many organizations embarking on online community initiatives, I was surprised to see this near the middle of the criteria.  I suppose part of it has to do with how this is more difficult to compare across vendors than the platform feature set...

I haven't seen the full report, so I can only comment on what is in the summary post.  What do you think?  What (if anything) surprised you about this report?

-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 recently came across an online community for online community professionals called "Commania" and just had to share what they did for their profile pages with readers of this blog...  

When you click to sign-up for the community, the default avatar is one scary looking hybrid human-pig-mouse thing.  If you don't change it, you're stuck as the "pig guy" for the rest of your time in the community.  I think this is a brilliant little trick.  Granted, it's a little extreme, but it helps address a real challenge in online communities - getting people to take that initial step in customizing and sharing something personal.  If you can get your members to upload a custom profile picture, fill out a bio and at least introduce themselves to the community, you're going to have much better odds of keeping them around (provided, of course, you don't drop the ball as a moderator after that).   

Compare this to the current default avatar we use for the PluggedIN Platform...  Still annoying to have as a default, but downright benign compared to the "pig guy."  A better approach might be choosing to use your company's logo as the default avatar, or perhaps use a simple text message to indicate the profile picture needs to be change.  Nonetheless, I like the "creative" approach of the "pig guy" if you can get away with it :-)

-- Matt 

I recently came across a great post on "Manufactured insights" by Katie Harris over at Zebra Bites that discussed the types of communities available for gathering qualitative research insights.  In her post, she breaks down online communities into two types:

1. Existing communities that naturally evolve around a shared purpose/topic
2. Manufactured communities where people are recruited and asked to participate in structured activities over a defined period of time

She goes on to explain the relative advantages and drawbacks to conducting qualitative market research in each environment...  I won't rehash the entire post here (since the link is above if you want to check it out yourself), but I would like to comment on one part of the post here - namely, the idea that trying to conduct qualitative research in existing communities (what people sometimes call "netnography") can have its share of drawbacks, particularly when compared to conducting research in "manufactured" communities (which is a way to think of market research online communities).

The benefits of research in existing communities

Before I get into the drawbacks, let's talk about some of the potential benefits of observing an existing community for research insights.  Two advantages I can see are as follows:

• Unbiased feedback - One advantage of researching existing communities is the ability to glean unaided, unbiased insights from naturally occurring conversations.  This is the type of research environment that qualitative researchers and ethnographers dream of...
• Cost savings - Since the conversations are happening all the time, it's fairly cost effective to casually observe the conversations rather than create a "manufactured" community designed specifically for targeted research insights.  

The drawbacks of research in existing communities

While the concept of casually observing people in an online environment as they talk about a given product or service sounds wonderful to most qualitative researchers, in actuality it rarely works out as intended...  Here are some of the drawbacks of the "netnography" approach:

• Negative impact on community - I'll start by mentioning of the potential impact on existing community members.  There is a real potential for the community atmosphere to be disrupted once it is revealed that researchers are in the midst observing the conversations (which is the ethical route to take).  I can distinctly remember this happening when researchers first entered Second Life.  There was a backlash among some members, and people demanded that researchers make themselves known immediately.  
• Who are you talking to? - Without an established process of screening/profiling community members, it's difficult to determine who you are talking to and whether or not they actually fit the profile of your target audience. 
  
• Depth of feedback - Observing conversations "in the wild" is great, but what if the conversations end up being fairly "high level" and don't answer the true research questions you have?  While a "manufactured" research community gives you a place to ask whatever you want (whenever you want), trying to conduct research in an existing community doesn't afford that same level of flexibility.  Trying to change the course of the conversation for your own objectives does nothing but disrupt the community (as I mentioned in the first drawback). 
• Time - While there might be cost efficiencies in observing an existing community, it doesn't take into account the time involved in finding and following these conversations as they occur.  Of course, there are basic (and free) tools for following these conversations (RSS readers like Bloglines or Google Reader come to mind first), but that says nothing for the time involved in finding the right communities and conversations to listen in on...

How research in an "existing" community compares to research from "manufactured" research communities

Of course, this post is painting a rosy picture of "manufactured" research communities by virtue of tearing down the merits of research in existing communities.  In fairness, research in "manufactured" communities has drawbacks as well (which Katie also points out in her post). 

For example, the "authenticity" of responses inherent in an existing community can be lost in the translation to a "manufactured" environment.  Also, "manufactured" communities tend to be a bit more structured around a set of research objectives and resemble an ongoing focus group a bit more than a "true" community (which we've blogged about in our post on the "continuum" from a focus group conversation to a "true" online community). 

However, the ability to define and control the environment, people, topics, technology, etc... in a "manufactured" community environment can far outweigh some of these drawbacks.

What's the takeaway?

Ultimately, there doesn't need to be a choice between using "existing" or "manufactured" communities for your qualitative research needs, as you can generally pursue both options simultaneously.  However, it is worth thinking about the relative merits of each before developing your approach to using communities for qualitative market research insights.

What do you think?

Are we on track here?  Have you seen examples of qualitative research in "existing" communities that might help to dispel some of these perceived drawbacks?  Our ears (and comments) are open!

One of the early decisions to make in setting up an online research community is the incentive strategy to use for encouraging members to consistently participate in research-related activities. 

Below are three sample research communities, along with what we would recommend for incentive strategies in each approach.  By no means are these the only "right" way to approach an incentive strategy; rather, they provide guidelines to think about for your own research community endeavors.

Scenario #1 - Branded, ongoing research community with 50 IT Managers from small organizations

This might be a case for a points-based system based, with a point value being allocated based on their participation in individual research activities.  We'll assume that since it is an ongoing community (what we call a Nation) that the required amount of participation each week is relatively low (~15 minutes/week).  The maximum incentive value will vary based on their experience and level within the organization.  At 50 people, we may recommend a maximum incentive of $50/month (depending also on the budget for the study).

Scenario #2 - Branded, customer community with 50 members over 3 months

Since this is a short-term community (what we call a Neighborhood), it's likely that each week will require a fairly decent amount of time on the part of participants (on the order of 45 minutes/week or more).  However, this is also a customer community, meaning that members may have a vested interest in participating and helping to improve the products/services of the sponsoring company. 

For this community, a points-based system may also make sense.  However, the amounts could be based on monthly totals, with participants only receiving their incentive based on their point totals for each month.  Actual incentives amounts may vary from $10 - $50/person/month, with the biggest variable being time required each week.  

Scenario #3 - Unbranded, ongoing community with 300 affluent consumers

In this case, it may make sense to again use the points system, but have their points accumulate with the intent of donating to charity at the end of the month.  We may run a survey to choose which charity the community will donate to each month.  If participation starts to wane, an occasional sweepstakes may help to keep some members interested.  Budgeting for a sizeable honorarium for up to 300 members on an ongoing community is just not feasible (for most companies, at least).  

The variables in deciding on an incentive strategy...

You may have noticed from these scenarios that there are some key variables that influence the recommended incentive approach.  These include:

• Branding - Branded communities tend to get slightly better participation rates than unbranded communities, by virtue of the participants knowing who is sponsoring the research and potentially having a greater affinity toward that brand.
• B2B/Consumer Audience - Similar to traditional focus group studies, consumers are generally offered a lower honorarium than B2B audiences.
• Size - Offering an incentive to everyone in a large community can be a budget breaker.  In these cases, points or sweepstakes-based incentives may work best.
• Duration - Attrition occurs naturally in any community over a long period of time, and accounting for that in the incentive strategy is important. 
  
• Incidence Rate - Losing a recruit from a hard-to-reach audience can be expensive.  Providing them with an appropriate incentive for their time can be money well spent.
  
• Purpose/Objectives - One variable not included in our scenarios above is the objective of the study.  If the objectives tend to be fairly broad (e.g., general lifestyle/audience understanding), then some members may be turned off by the lack of focus.
• Customer/Prospect - Customers tend to (though not always) participate more than prospects, as they have a vested interest in the outcome of the research and the background knowledge of the company's products and services.
  
• Time Requirement/Activity Level - If you're asking people to spend a lot of time each week in the community, you should really think about adjusting the incentive amount accordingly.
• Budget - Last, but definitely not least in today's economy, is the budget available for the study.  While we would all like to pay an audience/situation appropriate honorarium to effectively thank people for their time and opinions, sometimes it's just not possible to fit within the budget... 
  

The conclusion

As you can see, there is no "one size fits all" approach when it comes to incentive strategies in online research communities.  There are just too many variables to account for...  However, this post will hopefully give you a few guidelines to think about in preparing an incentive strategy.

Thoughts?

Have an incentive strategy you'd like to share?  Wondering what makes sense for your community?  Comments/questions are welcome!

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!

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!

There's the old adage that once your mom understands (or uses) some new technology that mainstream adoption is soon to follow.  That's a comforting thought considering a conversation I recently had with my mom about what we're doing at PluggedIN. 

She was asking how PluggedIN is coming along and if the economy is impacting how we're doing.  I told her business is fine despite the economy.  Then I started to explain some of the benefits of research communities to help her understand why more companies are turning to them.

My example for the value of research communities

I decided to compare it against something she knows (focus groups), so I gave her the example of how a focus group only lasts for a couple of hours and costs thousands of dollars, and how a community can do more to help most companies at roughly the cost of a focus group (or two) per month.  I also told her how much faster we can turnaround our results because of the community.  Finally, I explained how it helped us get to know the participants better because we could learn about them over time. 

To my surprise, she just "got it."  She started to ask me questions about what kinds of people participate and the kinds of questions companies ask - questions that let me know she really did understand what they are all about and how they help companies, participants and researchers alike.

Taking a step back...

It's really easy to get lost in research lingo, to think about "best practices" in community management and where the industry is heading.  Sometimes it's worth taking a step back and explaining things to good ol' mom to see if she gets it before taking the message to the masses.

What do you think?

Are we at the point where everyone just "gets it?"  Will research communities ever become the "mainstream" way to do things in the market research industry?

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.

As the old saying goes, "all good things come to an end."  The reasons for deciding to close down a research community will vary from company to company.  Sometimes it's a research or marketing budget that has been cut.  Other times it's a lack of support from stakeholders in the organization.  For some, the community fulfilled a certain need for the company that is no longer strategically relevant.

Regardless of the reason for deciding to close down a research community, the company sponsoring the community (and the research community vendor) have a responsibility to end the community as gracefully as possible.  Here are a few suggestions for how to gracefully close down an online research community.

1. Give community members a place to connect afterwards

Consider setting up a free group on Yahoo or Ning for members to continue their conversations and the relationships they have made with other community members.  Also consider setting a designated member of the community as someone who can administer this group without your assistance.  You may find value in stopping into this group from time-to-time to see what members have been up to and what they're talking about. 

2. Provide advance notice (up to a month before)

While this isn't always feasible, try to give members as much advance notice as possible.  Usually one month of advance notice is sufficient.  This allows members enough time to download some of the personal pictures and blog posts they shared with the community.  It also gives them time to share contact info with other members they care about (if they haven't done so already).  Finally, it provides the research team with some time to summarize the feedback they heard over the life of the community, provide final recommendations for the sponsoring company and handle the administrative tasks involved in closing a community.

3. Summarize and reflect on what their feedback has done for your organization

If possible, try putting together a report for community members highlighting the top things you learned through the community and how your organization acted on their suggestions.  This can be a tough exercise for some organizations, given that the findings from a research community can have an impact across the organization and are sometimes difficult to track.  However, a simple summary of what you have learned and what you intend to do with the feedback will suffice.  This helps members know their time spent sharing their ideas and opinions was well worth it.

4. Leave the possibility open for another research community

We've seen it happen a few times where a company decides to close down a research community, only to re-launch it months or years later.  As with the rationale for closing the community, the reasons for re-launching it vary considerably (budget, new product launch, new leadership, etc...).  If there is a possibility you may want to pick the community back up again later on, it's wise to at least acknowledge that as you are closing down the community.  While you shouldn't "string" members along if there is absolutely no intention of opening it again, it doesn't hurt to at least mention it. 

5. Thank them (profusely)

This one should go without mention, but unfortunately it's not always followed.  It is critical to thank members over and over for their contributions, particularly if it was a branded customer community where your company's reputation is on the line.  You want to do everything you can to preserve the relationship with community members and acknowledge that their feedback was critical.