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 

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!

Is it possible that a research community can influence future purchase decisions and loyalty to the organization sponsoring the community?  It's likely... 

A 2002 study for the Harvard Business Review by Paul Dholakia and Vicki Morwitz suggested that merely running a single customer satisfaction survey had an impact on customer decision making and loyalty.  If this is the case with a single survey, what impact could an ongoing research community have on customer satisfaction and loyalty, given that customers are contributing their feedback daily or weekly basis?

While we've never studied this specifically, our own observations of member feedback and behavior suggests that an online research community positively impacts the perceptions of members toward the sponsoring organization.  (I should note here that we are always careful to temper this potentially positive disposition with unbiased and carefully constructed questions, as this is our role as independent community managers and researchers). 

The ethical dilemma

Is this ethical?  We've blogged before about why it is wise to completely separate research objectives from marketing objectives, and have suggested that this a main reason many online research communities remain separate from other online community and social media initiatives. 

One should always avoid "sugging" (selling under the guise of research) at all costs.  The temptation to market in an online research community can be avoided with independent moderation from an outside research organization and a carefully designed facilitation plan.  

That said, this potential impact on satisfaction can be a useful tool if you're a researcher trying to convince a skeptical marketing or sales team to contribute customer sample for a research community (as we've seen happen before), or working with a CMO to convince them to open the budget up for a private research community.   

The takeaway...

Is this reason alone to setup a research community?  Absolutely not.  There are many benefits to an online research community that go far beyond the potential impact it can have on customer satisfaction, purchase decisions and loyalty.  

Companies should be listening to their customers all the time anyway with the more "altruistic" motives in mind (e.g., a geniune desire to improve products and customer experiences).  In my (humble and somewhat biased) opinion, the potential impact of ongoing monitoring of customer feedback goes far beyond the enhanced loyalty of a handful of targeted customers...

Chris Brogan had an interesting post today about how to “Sell Benefits Not Features” of social media. He uses one example of how Twitter itself isn’t amazing; rather, it’s the ability to connect with many voices in a collaborative way that is valuable. Anyone can build Twitter. It’s who is there and how it is used that matters… His post got me thinking about the features and corresponding benefits of online research communities, as well as the role technology, moderation and analysis/reporting play in the delivery of a successful research community.

All too often we have a tendency to focus on the “features” and software (especially given the wide variety of community and SaaS research platforms available) at the expense of taking a step back and looking at what the benefits really are. It’s a fairly trivial marketing concept, but one that is easy to forget when everyone is in the race for the “latest and greatest” features and functionality inherent in a community platform. So without further ado, here are a few “features” of an online research community and the real benefit of those features…

Feature: Discussion forums - Benefit: Run qualitative activities on-demand and explore customer needs in-depth

Let’s face it. A discussion forum is a discussion forum. Even though we have little tweaks in the PluggedIN Research Community Platform that help us run research activities more effectively, at the very core we’re really just running ongoing conversations with a targeted group of people. That’s the feature. However, the benefit to a company using a research community is the ability to run a 24/7 conversation around a their brand/product/service in a manner that is more convenient, efficient and effective than many other research methodologies. That’s the real benefit that companies should be focusing on, as well as how they intend to apply the feature to create research value and insights.

Feature: Blogs - Benefit: Keep an ear to the ground on what your customers are saying

By now, most all community platforms have some type of blogging capability for members to keep an ongoing journal/diary of their thoughts, stories and experiences. Again, that’s the feature to advertise (which is pretty consistent across the board). The real benefit is the ability to listen and learn from community members, and guide your conversations from there. You don’t have that luxury in a focus group, for example, since you don’t have an ongoing venue to listen.

Feature: Photo Albums - Benefit: “See” and really learn about your target audience through the images they share

It’s been a long time since Flickr and other early photo sharing services were first launched. By now most community platforms have something resembling a photo sharing feature. That’s the feature. The benefit is to learn about what customers or prospects are like through the photos they choose to share of friends, family, hobbies, places they’ve visited, etc… It’s about structuring the sharing of these photos in such a way as to produce insights that wouldn’t have been attainable in other research methodologies. That’s the qualitative “color” that just doesn’t emerge through other methodologies, and is one of the real benefits of having a photo sharing feature available.

Feature: Research community platform - Benefit: Stay plugged in.

You get the idea… This list could go on and on with features, but ultimately it’s not about the software or the platform. Our developers will kick me for saying this, but most any community software can “get you there” (or at least most of the way there). It’s about how you use it to stay plugged in to the needs of your audience, stay on top of trends, collaborate with customers to build innovative new products and services, etc…

What’s the takeaway?

In the long run, the features don’t matter. With the advent of free/low cost social media and collaboration tools, the features are largely ubiquitous - especially in the “online community” space. Instead, focus on the benefit of these features to your organization, and concentrate on how you (and the company you’re working with to get you there) plan to apply these features to create real value for your business.

I’ve blogged before about the confusion around the term “online community ,” but thought it made sense to follow-up with some specific reasons why companies should consider setting up a separate online research community.

First, some background on why I’m writing this post… In the interest of creating efficiencies, some companies are using their existing online communities as a means of gathering research insights. For example, they might ask a question in a community on their corporate website about a new product or ad concept and hope for some directional information to guide their decisions. I’m all for efficiency, but this practice of using general online communities for research has a few drawbacks that are worth acknowledging.

There are some strong reasons to setup a separate online research community and treat it very differently from more “conventional” online communities. Read on for 10 reasons why it makes sense to setup and maintain a separate online research community…

Why setup a separate online research community?

Here are 10 reasons why it makes sense to have an online research community apart from your other online community initiatives:

1. Privacy - Online research communities provide companies with an ideal venue to test new concepts (products, ads, websites, etc…) before they are launched, without the fear of competitors gaining access. This level of privacy can be difficult to attain in a public community.
2. Control - In a private online research community it is far easier to guide the conversation around topics of interest to you and your stakeholders to get at your research and business objectives. If you tried to do the same in a public community, members might view you as exerting too much control over what they have been building on their own. It could hurt the dynamic of your other online communities to guide the conversation too much, whereas research communities have that built-in expectation. Of course, research communities also benefit from “losing control” on purpose (which is another blog post entirely…).
3. Shared Purpose - Setting up an online research community and being transparent about the purpose of the community (e.g., market research and consumer insights), gives you another shared purpose around which participants can bond. While it shouldn’t be your only shared purpose, it can be something that helps them make connections faster.
4. Smaller Size - The smaller size of most online research communities (generally less than 500 participants), allows for a much more “intimate” look at the audience and their needs. In a larger online community it is easy to lose track of people and the context for their responses to research activities.
5. Exclusivity - Going with the smaller size theme, members of an online research community may also feel more personally vested in the community, knowing that their voice is one of hundreds rather than thousands. The “exclusive” element can be a big driver of sustained participation in the research community.
6. Cost - Trying to build the tools that a researcher needs into an existing community (for example, on your company’s website) can actually be more costly than using a specially-designed (and separate) platform for conducting ongoing market research.
7. Technology - Going with the cost theme, there are certain tools inherent in an online research community that allow for better ways of conducting research. For example, sometimes we ask “unaided” questions in PluggedIN research communities to minimize the impact of group think. That may seem like a small feature, but it’s big when you’re trying to get an unbiased look at a concept/issue.
8. Context - In a private online research community you know the participants and their associated demographic/psychograhic data as a result of profiling every member before joining the community. This allows you to push targeted activities and understand the context for the answers far better than in a general online community. In a public community, you have no standard understanding of who they are beyond what they provide in their profile page. Some may tell you a lot, others nothing.
9. Environment - I used to travel quite a bit down to Austin to moderate groups and in-depth interviews at Dell’s corporate headquarters. While it was convenient and cost effective for Dell, I always got the sense that participants felt a little “awkward” giving their unbiased feedback in the Dell building with Dell logos everywhere you turn. The same can be said for communities. Conducting research on a corporate website has a different feel entirely than a dedicated site for research.
10. Separating research from marketing - Last, but definitely not least, is the idea that research objectives should be separate from marketing objectives. It’s hard to ask for honest, unbiased opinions on the one hand, while providing obvious mechanisms purchase a product or spread the word about a brand on the other hand. Leave those objectives for a buzz building or customer loyalty community, and leave research objectives for a separate research community.

My assumptions

Of course, I’ve made a few assumptions here about the online research community you are using. For example, the feature described in “Context” is something called “user lists” in our PluggedIN Research Platform, and the feature described in “Technology” is something specific to our discussion section. Depending on the technology you choose as a backbone for your online research community, these features may or may not be available.

I’m also assuming that you’re starting out with research and customer insights as a priority, when in fact these might be ancillary objectives for your organization.

Conclusion

I hope this list gave you some ideas for why it makes sense to keep an online research community separate from other online communities, particularly those that are used for marketing initiatives. I’d recommend taking a good hard look at your objectives first. If the majority are research-oriented then it might make sense to setup a separate research community for many of the reasons I’ve cited above. You can then leave the rest to other “marketing-oriented” online communities/social networks that many companies already have setup.

What do you think?

I’m sure there is something missing here… What would you add (or subtract) from this list? In your opinion, does it make sense to separate online research communities from online communities? Why or why not?