In a recent blog post, the folks at PluggedIn pose the question, “Can your company’s culture support a continuous MROC?”  The authors wisely suggest that before investing in such a program, you carefully consider A) Do your really need it, and B) will your colleagues use it?

I’d like to expand this list of questions, by adding one more:

Is it a rational investment given the participant profile? Let me give you an example. I am working with a client in the B2B software space who was intrigued by the idea of an MROC. After all, the idea of a pool of engaged customers available for fast turn-around feedback is appealing. But upon consideration of their target market (job titles, job responsibilities, current brand engagement), we realized that the cost to maintain the community properly year-round would be prohibitive. For the target market, it would simply be unrealistic to expect any regular engagement on a long-term basis.

Instead, we ended up putting together a plan for expanding their customer advisory board program by adding several new sub-committees. This way, they still have an opted-in list of customers for feedback, but without the expenses of platform maintenance, moderation, retention management, and so on.  Is it the same as an MROC? Of course not. But since in this case an MROC didn’t make sense, it is a fine alterative.

As the PluggedIn team advises, an alternative to an ongoing MROC is a short-term one (which may be scheduled to be active for as little as a few weeks). There are also options such as:

• An expanded customer advisory board (as described above)
• Custom research panels (having customers opt-in for future research events)
• One-off research events (such as online focus groups, scheduled chats, online surveys), which may be scheduled on a monthly or quarterly basis for more frequent customer input (with participants provided by either a custom research panel or 3^rd party source)
• Third party communities (accessing existing communities managed by third parties).

The bottom-line? Yes, MROCs are a great fit for some companies’ research needs. But before assuming an MROC is the best choice, be sure to consider your internal audience and target market profiles.

[What do you think about MROCs? Do you have any MROC-related questions? Please post them here!]

Cathy’s point, “Customer satisfaction surveys are for measuring, not intervening.”

And Jeffrey’s, “Follow up with every dissatisfied customer who takes a survey.”

To be frank, my opinion on this topic has changed in just the past year or two. Before then, I was an ardent believer that all research must by anonymous—no matter what. I felt that any direct follow-up would show research participants that their survey responses could result in unexpected communications—and even if “helpful”, this experience could still impact future willingness to participate in research.

But in the past couple of years, two things have happened:

• First, I have been working with many clients who need to show that market research is not an academic exercise. Who need to demonstrate that research can directly, immediately, have positive outcomes. Many client-side market researchers have to negotiate for budget with non-researchers, who often view such studies as nice, but not necessarily actionable. Imposing anonymity on customer feedback reduces the research’s potential for clear, measurable usefulness.
• Second, I have seen raw data from several studies where it was obvious that participants expected follow-up. Indeed, anyone who has done a customer satisfaction survey knows that open-ended questions will often return entries such as, “The last software upgrade didn’t work—can you please fix it?” or “I have called your customer service number twice and can’t reach a live human being!”  You can bet that if they take the time to type that into a survey and you don’t follow-up, the damage will be irreparable.

Anonymity in Market Research

Yes, most surveys should be anonymous. But customer satisfaction surveys are an exception. Make it clear at the beginning or end of the survey that respondents can opt out (or opt in, if you prefer) of follow-up. Provide a phone number, web site or email address that can be used for any questions about how responses will be used.  The reality is that most customers expect follow-up.

What do you think? Do you agree? Have a different perspective? Please add your comment here or call the blog comments line at 508.691.6004 ext 702.

Want to learn more about customer satisfaction research? Check out the Research Rockstar class here: ClassList.

Why?

Because big projects are risky, slow and yield too much data for anyone to digest. Most of the data gets used ineffectively, if at all.

Small projects have less risk. They get done quickly. Results get shared while they are still fresh. And conclusions can be communicated within the attention span of a busy recipient, so they actually get used.

In market research, small can be beautiful.

What do you think? Do you agree? Have a different perspective? Please add your comment here or call the blog comments line at 508.691.6004 ext 702.

[Want more information about Research Rockstar classes or services? Use this easy form to request more info: InfoReq. Thanks!]

• Sample quality? Hmmm…. a huge problem, but no.
• Inappropriate use of methodologies? Always a challenge, but no.
• Poor survey design? Another good one, but I think it’s part of a bigger issue.
• Over-hyping of social media-based methods? A definite issue, but not the biggest.

The biggest problem we have is that too much research gets ignored. Too many studies lose momentum. Too many important findings get disregarded.  Even if end-clients sit politely in a final presentation, not enough of them use the research to make real decisions and take real actions.  And that’s a problem because it leads to negative perceptions of research itself.  Too many people perceive research as academic or theoretical; they don’t see it as something that truly can impact business success. Indeed, many non-researchers see market research as having a poor ROI.

If we want people to really use research, it needs to be more credible to them. And that means 3 things:

1. Let them see it, so they can believe it. When end clients are removed from the process, they are less likely to believe the findings. Especially any that contradict their personal opinions.  Jon Last, former MRA president and president of Sports and Leisure Research Group., talks about data proximity. He’s right. http://www.researchrockstar.com/why-internal-clients-ignore-market-research-results/
2. Let them have a say in it’s design and execution. Involve them in the process, start to finish. And I mean real involvement. Cross-functional teams sounds like a nice way of keeping people involved, and can work in some company cultures. But in reality? In most cases I have seen, the team members from outside the research function have neither real responsibility nor authority; they come to the meetings as clients or even just semi-interested observers. Research isn’t in their job description, its not what they get evaluated on, and they are easily intimidated by the “experts.”
3. Train them. Market research isn’t a secret society. A lot of the stuff we do is teachable. A little education will overcome many of the poor assumptions that lead to perceived credibility issues.

So here’s the point: to really address these three items, we need to re-think what market research functions should be centralized versus decentralized.

My proposal is that for many (not all) organizations, decentralizing market research can address these 3 items very well. Let different functional areas have their own mini-market research teams. Better still, have some  people in existing functional areas take on some market research responsibility for their groups; they will have a unique blend of expertise areas, which will help ensure actionability.

Objection: Research takes too much Skill, You can’t just Train People

My, what egos we researchers have! Do we really think that all market research projects are so hard, that other business professionals couldn’t possibly learn how to manage them?

In my 25 years’ of market research experience, I have seen that at least 70% of market research projects are pretty simple. They don’t require multivariate analysis. They don’t require lengthy questionnaires. They don’t require complex skipping or branching programming. Many don’t even require weighting.

Of course, 100% of research projects do require certain quality standards. Length. Objectivity. Scale choices. Knowledge of basic statistics.  All of which are teachable to any reasonably motivated professional.

One Vision For The Future of Market Research Departments

A centralized research function will remain an important resource, and support the decentralized teams.  In this scenario, the centralized research function of the future will focus on four functions:

1. Policy creation and enforcement. For example, how many times a year customers can be invited to research events, and what types of incentives are permissible. Heck, you can even have a policy that says, “Any questionnaires over 20 items long must be approved by (name of the organization’s market research director).” This is something, BTW, that many market research groups never have enough time to do!  If they can delegate some of the smaller projects, perhaps they will have more time for this type of important, strategic role.
2. Resources. Centralized access to research tools, secondary reports, in-house research results, standardized questionnaire templates, sample sources, in-house panels and communities.
3. Sophisticated studies and Trackers. Management of high-end, organization-wide studies (those requiring advanced analytics and longitudinal tracking)
4. Training. For example, either producing directly, or through partners, ongoing training, which will include “Market Research 101” as well as functional area specific content (such as “Product concept testing” for product development groups, and “Message testing” for marketing teams).

In this scenario, the decentralized functions will be specialists that serve the unique research needs of specific areas. They will have day-to-day relationships with the people who will be using the research. They will speak their language, and make research accessible and credible to them.  They will have the skills to do basic research, and have access to experts as needed.

Bottom Line: Improving Market Research ROI

A decentralization approach has the potential to boost research credibility AND also address the issue of rogue, unsanctioned, DIY research.  We all know there are plenty of bad questionnaires going out these days (though many come from “professionals,” too).  Clearly, more non-researchers WANT to do research. They want fresh insights. They want involvement in the process. So let them! With some intelligent policies, access to resources, and training, we can have the best of both worlds: quality research and greater research ROI.

Now what? I say: test it. Pick a functional area to test this with, preferably one where you know there is some rogue research going on anyway. You can take advantage of the existing interest to build a satellite research team.  Provide some training and policies, and give them some time. See how they do.  Do their projects go well? Do they have impact? Is the ROI good? Are the internal clients satisfied?  You just may be surprised.

As always, all comments welcome!

Note: This blog post was inspired by the Tweetoff held at the AMA’s virtual market research conference on June 24th. Thanks to @JHenning and @VirtualMR for a GREAT event! You guys are fun to debate with!

[Hey, did you miss my new white paper on online panels? Check it out here: GET WHITEPAPER]

There are some obvious cases where you hold it tightly. Data that is specific to proprietary product ideas is a good example.  But other cases aren’t so clear-cut.

When in doubt, share it. At least some of it.

A Tale of Lost Market Research Opportunity

A few years ago, I worked with a technology company on a large survey project. Very fresh stuff.  They discovered customer needs and values that could be leveraged in totally original marketing messages. They identified unmet customer needs that could be addressed simply by repackaging existing products.  In short: we had lots of cool data on our hands.

Enthusiastic about the research’s findings, a VP at the company invited me to a meeting with one of their largest distribution partners—a huge, well-known company. He asked me to share a subset of the data with them. At the meeting, the distribution partner had 12 attendees—all people who have direct influence over their business relationships. I presented some key findings. They loved it. They even offered to reciprocate by sharing some new research they had done. We started to talk about the results, generating ideas about possible implications for business opportunities and product innovations. We planned next steps.

It was great. There was real energy.

The next day, I got an email from my client. He had returned to his office to have his hands severely slapped for sharing research results. And not too long after that, this clear-thinking, collaboration-minded VP left that company. I wasn’t surprised. I would have, too.

The Greatest Market Research Risk?

Yes, market research can yield a competitive advantage. And it costs a lot of money. So I understand the inclination to keep it secret and for inside-eyes-only.  But really, in most cases, what is the risk? The biggest risk is that you share the data with someone and they give it to a competitor. How likely is that, really? It’s a lot more likely that you will give them data, and they will ignore it.

But if you did share fresh market insights with another organization and as a result created new opportunities, wouldn’t that be great? Isn’t that a risk worth taking?

If research results can help business partners, inspire clients, encourage employees or motivate suppliers, I encourage you to consider it.

The potential upside is fantastic. And few companies are bold enough to do it.

[What do you think? I welcome comments here or contact me by email: KKorostoff@ResearchRockstar.com]

After all, you may very well have a list of customers that would be convenient for you to use for your survey project. But is that a wise choice? Maybe, maybe not.

In the quest for objectivity, we often do research with a mix of customer and non-customers. At the end of the project, we compare their responses to answer questions like:

• Do our current customers perceive our brand differently than do non-customers?
• Do our current customers value our product category differently than non-customers?
• Do the two groups differ in terms of feature requirements? Price sensitivity? Other purchase behavior?

Clearly, there is a lot of value in surveying both current customers and “potential” customers.  But realistically, it can be a lot easier and faster to survey current customers. After all, you may have their contact information so emailing them a survey invitation is a snap. They know who you are, and may even like you enough to want to help out by sharing their opinions—so response rates are good. And you know they are real—no worries about the veracity of responses.

In contrast, getting access to non-customers can be expensive, time-consuming, and risky. Sure you can buy sample from a panel provider, or seek other options (partnerships with professional associations, user groups, etc that may meet your needs). But how much will it cost? How long to arrange it? What kind of response rate will you get? How are those respondents authenticated?

So, what’s a time-constrained, budget-sensitive researcher to do?

In an ideal worked, you would examine your research objective, and then decide if it is best met by surveying current customers only, or a mix. For example, if your objective is to choose which features need to be in the next release of a software product, you may very well want both groups. Current customers, to keep them happy and maximize their likelihood to upgrade to the new release when it is available. New customers, in hopes of attracting them to the product for the first time.

But if time or budget doesn’t allow reaching non-customers?

Then you need to ask yourself two questions:

1. Are my customers an acceptable proxy for non-customers? Do I know enough about both groups to understand how different they are—to have an informed opinion of the likelihood that they have similar attitudes and behaviors relevant to the study I am planning? The answers will tell you how much of a risk you are taking, so you can deliver the research with appropriate caveats for anyone who will use it.
2. Is there an acceptable fallback? Even 10 interviews with non-customers is better than nothing. Or perhaps an outside expert with relevant experience is available (try Zintro or GLG for quick access to expert networks) for an objective sanity check.

Customer insights gathered through research deliver great value. But we always need to think about what we really mean by “customer”—current customers, or potential ones? Even if time or financial constraints prohibit you from conducting research with the ideal mix, take the time to understand the risks or consider fallback options.

[Subscribe by email to get the latest blogs as they are published. Click here:  Yes, Send me Blog posts by email!]

The following topics are being scheduled:

• Introduction to Market Research Project Types & Methods (2 hours)
• Introduction to Market Research Project Management (2 hours)
• Product Concept Testing (1.5 hours)
• Designing Online Questionnaires (2 hours)
• Divide & Conquer: Introduction to Market Segmentation (1.5 hours)
• Creating Your Market Research Strategic Plan (1.5 hours)

Interested? Fill out this short form and you’ll get date and location information:  Seminars.  As soon as details are confirmed, you’ll get an invitation.

Thanks!

Unintentional misuse of market research is best avoided through effective quality assurance processes and well-documented (and communicated) methodologies.  Making sure report readers understand what types of conclusions are appropriate to draw from a research effort, and making sure results are reported in a precise fashion, are both key parts of managing any market research project.

The harder challenge is preventing intentional misuse.

This is truly one of the biggest challenges for market research managers—preventing clients (internal or external ones) from purposefully manipulating results for self-serving purposes. But wait, is it the market research manager’s job to keep clients honest? Yes, at minimum, to point out inappropriate use.

What’s a market research project manager to do? Here are 2 tips to prevent market research abuse:

1. Find an executive advocate for the research. Having someone from outside the research function endorse the research does two powerful things. First, it sends a message that the research has value. After all, if an executive is taking the time to digest the results and be vocal about how they plan to use it, it must be important. Second, if the executive is associated with key conclusions from the research, it becomes harder for others to manipulate the results. It doesn’t prohibit the possibility of a constructive debate about how to interpret key findings—which is always to be encouraged. It just minimizes the risk that someone will hijack the project and make inappropriately self-serving conclusions from the data.
2. Include others in the analysis process. If you know the research is at risk of being abused, make a preemptive move by inviting a team of people to participate in the analysis process. If it’s a quantitative research project, host a meeting where you share a selection of key charts and facilitate an open discussion about their implications. If it’s a qualitative study, you can invite a group to view some video highlights or to receive a preview of selected verbatim quotes; again, to facilitate a group discussion. Including 4 to 8 people in an open discussion about research results and what they mean for the organization is a great way to keep everyone honest—and has the added benefit of promoting the research.

What do you think? Do you agree? Have a different perspective? Please add your comment here, or call the blog comments line at 508.691.6004 ext 703. Thanks!

But sometimes the incremental time, cost and sweat of that extra effort simply doesn’t make sense. Sometimes, “good” is just perfect.

I was reminded of this last week at the Launch Camp conference in Cambridge. The event, for entrepreneurs seeking social media wisdom, had some interesting speakers; the one from whom I learned the most was Dharmesh Shah, Chief Technology Officer and Founder of HubSpot (on Twitter as @Dharmesh).

In three years, this company has gone from start-up to 2,000+ customers, most of whom pay a monthly fee. Dharmesh shared his start-up success insights at Launch Camp and advised the attending entrepreneurs to focus on practical marketing. Selling stuff. Tracking key metrics to understand what sells stuff. And in his case, this clearly works.

He observes that many entrepreneurs get bogged down by over-analyzing their decisions—ultimately missing their window of opportunity. Key areas for such analysis paralysis? Product optimization and pricing.

ACK! Product concept testing and pricing research are two key pillars of market research practices around the world! But of course, he is correct. Especially in the context of new or rapidly evolving product categories.

Product Concept Testing

Market research offers proven methods for testing new product concepts—methods that can prioritize features or optimize feature-price combinations. And that’s great.

But I have seen companies completely miss windows of opportunity because they kept adding on less-than-critical features before they would launch. Kept conducting more and more research to inform (or justify) their decisions. Their leaders traded early market feedback for an over-engineered product. Dharmesh chastised this approach and emphasized that while market research is useful, at some point you need actual market feedback in order to inform further improvements. The ultimate feedback: will people buy it? If they buy it, will they return it?

Of course, these days, there are ways to simulate actual product releases to do this—although that is not a realistic option for all categories.

Pricing Research

Look, if you are talking about mature consumer product categories (like toothpaste and laundry detergent), pricing research is a very defined, concrete sort of practice. But in many B2B markets, emerging markets, and new product categories, it simply isn’t perfect. Yes, do some research. Do some primary research, analyze competitive/substitute pricing, understand your target market’s overall budget, know your expected ROI. But at some point you have to take a leap with pricing. And as Dharmesh said, despite long-held tenets to the contrary, you CAN adjust your pricing down the road.

Imperfect Data is Better Than No Data

Yes, it is true—imperfect data is better than no data. And sometimes, directional data sooner is better than quantitative data later.  In any case, knowing when to stop conducting market research in order to price and release new products can be tricky. Luckily for busy professionals seeking to inform product and pricing decisions, there are many options along the continuums of research speed and exactitude.

BTW, Dharmesh has a book out—I ordered my copy and can’t wait to read it: Inbound Marketing.

[Would you rather take one market research class for $2000 or get unlimited access to 12 online for $600/year? Or how about 5 for FREE? I thought so!  Sign up for a Research Rockstar membership today: http://is.gd/87vvd]

[For more info on Launch Camp search #LaunchCamp on Twitter for great links to blogs, RTs and even videos from the event]

If you allow employees to invite customers to take customer satisfaction feedback surveys, make sure they aren’t saying things like, “The highest score is a 10. I hope I earned a 10!” You have probably experienced this yourself, perhaps at an auto dealership or retail chain. Upon completion of your transaction, the clerk give you the feedback survey instructions (perhaps advising of a phone call you will receive, or giving you a URL to use), and then says something like, “I’m hoping you rate me as “extremely helpful.”

Obviously, such behavior not only taints the data, it can also make customers uncomfortable.

So how can you determine if your customer feedback system is being abused? Here are three easy options:

• Simple analysis. For example, if you are in retail you may be able to run the statistics on individual sales people or customer service reps to see if their scores appear artificially high or simply too consistent.
• Get outside help.  Deploy some mystery shoppers on a discovery mission. What do they experience?
• Ask. In the feedback survey itself, ask respondents if anyone told them how to respond or suggested a desirable feedback score.

[OH NO! The Research Rockstar RSS feed self-destructed in December. So if you have not re-subscribed recently, please click here for RSS or email updates: SUBSCRIBE]