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!

Don't let your community come to this...

You may have come across this already since it was posted and sent around quite a bit earlier this summer, but there was a recent blog post on the Wall Street Journal site around “Why Most Online Communities Fail.” Here is a link to the article, just in case you missed it…

WSJ: Why Most Online Communities Fail

I completely agree with the reasons cited in the blog post (as well as the Deloitte study the post references), and here’s why…

The Lure of “Bells and Whistles”

The article mentions how one of the main causes of failure is businesses being seduced by bells and whistles and blowing their budget on technology. It goes on to suggest that businesses spend their resources reaching out to potential members instead of technology. In the online research community world, this recommendation is akin to spending more money on recruiting the right mix of targeted members through surveys and/or phone based recruiting methods, rather than the latest and greatest in technology.

I’ll admit it - I’m a “tech” guy (some would say a complete “geek”), and I’ve been known to fall prey to nifty features, knowing fully well that I’ll probably never use them. However, in online research communities the old saying of “less is more” goes a long way. Lail Brown (PluggedIN’s VP of Design & Technology) will be sure to touch on this point a bit more in future posts, and I’ve even touched on this a bit in my “ People Over Platform ” post. Spend the money on getting the right mix of people in the community, develop great activities, write great reports and the rest will take care of itself. Let the technology sit in the background as support.

Inexperienced (or no) Community Moderation team

The article also notes that online communities fail due to a lack of staffing the community appropriately, with some companies putting part-time workers in charge of their community. From my own experience, it’s hard enough keeping tabs on all the activity that happens in a private research community. In fact, we usually build a small team of moderators around custom community initiatives. I can’t even imagine what it’s like having a part-time worker keep tabs on a public community (the type the article and study is likely referencing). Setup a moderation team that can connect with the audience, is clearly in-touch with the objectives of the community, and is responsive to the needs of members, and you should be successful in the long-term.

Measuring the Success of an Online Community

The last point the article makes is around metrics for success of an online community. The point made here is that number of visits is used as one metric for success, which doesn’t necessarily describe the actual success of the initiative. This too is another great point, that is particularly relevant in online research communities where metrics should focus more on client satisfaction, ideas generated, insights gathered, etc…, rather than “hard” numbers around visits to the site or duration of their stay. I also touched on this a bit in my post about Qualitative Research versus Quantitative Research in Online Research Communities .

Other Factors in the Failure of an Online Community

I would add a few more factors to the ones listed in the article (and cited above), including:

• Lack of buy-in from internal teams
• Inability to use the community effectively or for the right reasons
• Lack of initial focus and a clearly stated purpose/objective for the community
• Lack of resources put into the initial design and planning stages of the community initiative
• Few updates to content or placement of content valuable to the audience
• No understanding of who the target audience is for the community
• No understanding of the target audience’s needs and how they are likely to use the community

So what do you think?

Is this article (and my thoughts) on point? Have you witnessed the demise of a community due to some of these factors (or others)? Share your thoughts with a comment!