While there are many ways to derail a market research project, the most common one is unclear objectives. Unclear objectives lead directly to design delays, poor methodology fit, and unrealistic client expectations.

Lack of clarity is often due to one of the following:

1. Imprecision. The goals are documented and discussed at too high a level—and that vagueness leaves too much room for interpretation during the research design, analysis and reporting phases.

Example: A team agrees on an objective of creating a market segmentation model. Sounds good, right? Not really. There are many ways to do a segmentation model, and many initiatives that segmentation can support. Which ones are relevant? A better objective would be, “To develop a segmentation model that will support near-term sales strategy development,” or “To develop a segmentation model that will help us understand emerging customer opportunities.”  In the first example, the study would likely focus on purchase plans, budget/spend behaviors, brand preferences, and might be primarily quantitative. In the second, the study would likely include a rich discovery phase. Two segmentation studies, different true objectives, and different methods.

2. Unrealistic scope. If a project is defined with too many objectives, the scope becomes too broad to execute well.  In quantitative projects, this often is evidenced by a questionnaire that is so long and onerous, that the resulting data is weak.

In most cases the root cause of an unrealistic scope is conflicting agendas. Sure, everyone on the team may agree that they need to better understand customer needs, so they agree to do a project. But the team members may have their own spin on how they want to look at needs.

Here is an example. Without some discipline, a study about “customer needs” could easily end up with 5 or 6 objectives, such as:

1. Understand relevant product category needs
2. Understand customer service needs
3. Discover customer perceptions of how to address current needs
4. Measure potential value of addressing emerging needs (for pricing implications)
5. Identify which brands have permission to address different needs

Without an agreed upon, and small, set of precise objectives, your project is at serious risk. None of the objectives will be met with excellence. You won’t have enough data specific to any one objective in order to generate any clarity or insights. And chances are, none of the stakeholders will be particularly satisfied, nor will they be likely to have enough conviction about the results to take action. And that is the real disaster.

[Want help planning a market research project? Please check out the Research Rockstar on-site workshop offerings here: LINK]

In various blogs and discussion sites, you may have noticed a recent spate of generalizations from some researchers which seem to imply that all in-house research is “DIY”, and that all DIY research is poorly done. Obviously, implying that all in-house research is “bad” is as ridiculous as asserting that all agency-led research is “good.” (Anyone recall a survey that circulated in some research-related groups just a few weeks ago from a “professional” agency? Now that was bad).

So why is this happening? Unfortunately, not everyone deals well with change. Indeed, we all know from experience that change can be painful and scary.

For some researchers, the momentous changes occurring in the wonderful world of market research are troubling—especially because so many directly impact client-supplier dynamics. Old “rules” about who does what, when and how no longer apply. Of course it isn’t surprising that we are seeing a rise in in-house research. In-house researchers have access to more tools and skills than ever before. And at the same time, other shifts are reducing the role of traditional agency offerings. For some agency-side researchers, these are big, scary, uncomfortable kinds of change.

So to client side-researchers who may be appalled at some of the comments and sarcasm about DIY research, please know that most agency-side researchers do understand that there is a continuum of research quality that exists in both the client and agency sides of the research realm. Most suppliers are constructively looking at the changes taking place, seeking out new opportunities to evolve methods and business practices.

But if you do run into researchers who seem to have forgotten that all client and agency-side researchers are ultimately on the same team, feel free to send them this as a nudge in the right direction:

In the current issue of the MRA’s Alert! magazine, I have an opinion column titled, “Market Research Departments: The Hero of the Market Research Story.” My premise is that one of the  market research world’s greatest challenges is that market research departments spend 70% or more of their time on project management—as opposed to the strategic functions that would lead to more innovation.

We see articles all of the time lamenting lack of innovation in market research (see just about any market research-related blog or LinkedIn discussion group). What I have observed is that many client-side market research managers are so swamped with project management that they have little time for the truly strategic work of planning for innovations. I believe we need to raise awareness among corporate executives that the market research department can only innovate if it has the time and resources to do more, much more, than manage projects. My article details my suggestions on how this can be made a reality; you may not agree with my suggestions, and I know many of you won’t, but it’s a start.

So why are market research departments heroes? Because they are on the front line, fighting the battle to do more—yet they are constrained by out of date “marching orders.”

Alert magazine does require MRA membership: Link to Article.

[Do you already subscribe to the Research Rockstar newsletter? If not, sign up here: SIGNUP]

The AMA’s 2010 Market Research conference is coming soon (September 26-28). I will be there, and encourage anyone interested in educational and peer networking opportunities to join me.

Great Keynote Speakers

Take a look at these speakers—what an amazing list!

• Stan Sthanunathan, VP Strategy and Global Insights, Coca Cola
• Daniel Marcu, VP Research, IFC/Sundance
• Lane Cardwell, CEO, Boston Market
• Joe Batista, Chief Creatologist, HP
• Julie Propper, Director of Advertising Analytics, ESPN
• Dave Norton, CMO, Harrahs
• Clare Hart, Former Executive Vice President, Dow Jones & Company

My Top Pick

There will be many great speakers, but I always particularly enjoy practical market research applications. That is why I am especially  eager for this session: Isabelle Helms and Morgan Richards from AutoTrader.com will be presenting, “Building a Cost-Effective, In-House Normative Concept Test Program.”

Interested in seeking user feedback before you launch a new idea on your site? Limited concept testing research budget?  Then join us for this innovative session as we share how AutoTrader.com developed the “Concept Lab”, an in-house research solution enabling researchers to test new and revised online concepts with site users in a cost-effective manner.

My Session

I am pleased to announce that I will be presenting with Michaela Mora, at one of the Advanced Learning Sessions: Market Segmentation & MaxDiff: A Practical Application.

“Have you ever used MaxDiff in a market segmentation project? If you are looking to add an option for designing segmentation studies, join us for an interactive session on MaxDiff for Market Segmentation.

This session will start with a brief introduction to MaxDiff, for those audience members who may not have used it before. We will then proceed to scenarios of using MaxDiff to support a market segmentation analysis, including an actual case study. This session includes an interactive exercise for audience participation. The session will also include practical success tips.”

Conference Details

Place: Atlanta , GA
Date: 9/26/2010 12:00 PM  – 9/29/2010 12:00 PM

Sign up: Register by 8/26/2010 11:00 PM  for early registration fee (Registration Info)

I hope to see you there!

If you engage with a market research agency to do a study for your company, you get lots of benefits. Access to research experts. Learnings from their extensive experience with similar studies.  Confidence that professionals with appropriate skills and credentials are working on your behalf.

But working with any type of consulting agency requires some level of project management on your part.  There are many risks when conducting market research; know them to mitigate them.

There are several points in a market research project where you, as the client-side manager, need to be  particularly cautious. Here are two of the big ones:

1. Risk: Ignoring sample quality. If your project is one where the agency is providing sample sources, you need to know what sources and something about their quality.  Ask how many sources the agency intends to use, what they are, and their experience with each source’s quality. A professional agency will be able to give you a clear, credible response. If you get a vague, confusing response, beware.
2. Risk: Not previewing final deliverables.  Ah the big day! The research agency is sending a sharp, knowledgeable professional to present your findings. The mistake? Not looking at their presentation at least 3 or 4 business days ahead of time.  It is totally appropriate for you to have a chance to preview and approve the presentation.  Don’t do it and you risk these very real scenarios:

• The presentation includes some conclusions that your colleagues, as experts in their market, know can’t possibly be correct. There goes the entire project’s credibility, all because of 1 or 2 poor slides.
• The presentation uses language that you just know will antagonize people. I am not saying you hide bad results; I am saying that you know your company culture and know how to present “bad news” in a productive way.
• The slides contain obvious errors.  Alas, it happens. The agency was swamped with deadlines the week your report was due, and insufficient time was spent checking your slides.  I know a research director from a Fortune 500 firm who bumped into a presenter in the parking lot 30 minutes before an executive-presentation; the speaker was still creating slides in the rental car!

Want more tips? Please check out the book on Amazon, “How to Hire & Manage Market Research Agencies.” OR, access a free chapter here: FREE.

During the June 23, AMA MRC TweetOff session with myself, Jeffrey Henning (@JHenning), and Cathy Harrison (@VirtualMR), one topic we debated was the role of anonymity in customer satisfaction surveys.

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.

Given a choice between funding 1 big market research project each year versus a bunch of small ones, I usually prefer the small ones.

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!]

What is the biggest problem facing market researchers today?

• 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]

If your company invests in market research that generates fresh customer insights, should you hold it tightly, or should you share it?

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]

Planning to hire a market research agency to help with a project? Before you do, be sure to create a list of questions you will use to assess potential agencies for fit and qualifications. Some questions are obvious: experience with similar projects, years in business, company size, and so on. But here are two important questions that are often overlooked:

1. Do you belong to any professional associations? The answer should start with, “Yes, we are members of…”, and should finish with some combination of:

• The MRA (Marketing Research Association)
• CASRO
• ESOMAR
• AAPOR
• QRCA

If they haven’t even heard of these groups, run. Run far.

2. What risks are we likely to run into with our project? All market research studies have some level of risk. An honest, clear-thinking researcher will easily be able to tell you what risks he or she foresees, and how they plan to mitigate them.  If you hear a response like, “There are no risks,” be skeptical.  At minimum, most studies have risks in terms of sample quality, data collection timeframe, and the possibility of “bad news” from the research results. All are manageable, but they exist. And an experienced market researcher will be able to tell you how they can be mitigated.

There are hundreds of market research agencies out there. Choose wisely.

[Want more tips on hiring market research agencies? Check out the book, on Amazon:  BOOK ]

At last week’s MRA conference in Boston, I heard a speaker assert, “Market Research has been on the sidelines for 3 decades.” Being an analytical sort of person, this made me wonder: how was the speaker defining “sidelines”? So I asked him. His position is that market research is on the sidelines because when market research data is presented to the CEO of a company, it is usually not being presented by a market research professional. It is more often presented by someone else, often a VP of marketing.

Based on his definition, the speaker is correct. But, in my opinion, this definition of research success misses the point. Market research success is not defined by who “sits at the table” or who gets the glory.

Market research is successful when it leads to decisions being made and actions being taken. The research is the star, not the researcher.

When we deliver a market research project and no decisions are made nor actions taken, we fail. And it has repercussions. The next time a study is proposed, the audience knows that research can result in wasted time and money—after all, they have seen it happen before. They invested the time and money in a study, got the results, and did nothing with it. Maybe the research was great, but it doesn’t matter. Nothing happened.

But when we do research and the CEO, marketing VP, sales VP, or anyone else cites it when making a decision or taking an action, we are successful. Would it be nice if someone with a market research title were in the room during critical decision-making? Yes. But if we have done our jobs, we have communicated the research’s results, the conclusions it supports, and relevant context around reliability.  The marketing VP doesn’t have to be a PhD in statistics to use it or represent it. If he does, we haven’t done our jobs.

Before we researchers complain about “not having a seat at the table” or “being on the sidelines” we need to ask ourselves: have we done everything we can to make our research results the star?

A recent post here about online panels resulted in some interesting conversations with both in-house market researchers and a panel provider. Based on these conversations, I was inspired to elaborate more on the topic of online panels for those who may not have had the experience of working with them yet. So, if you are considering using an online panel for an upcoming project, and want some tips on how to manage this important resource, please check out my new white paper on online panels.

Online Panels: 7 Threats to Market Research Success

This 5-page white paper elaborates on what can go wrong when using an online panel, and how to mitigate these risks.

Truly,  panels are a great resource for anyone conducting surveys these days. And with a little practical advice, you will be able to use online panels successfully.

Yes, I want the Free White Paper about Online Panels! CLICK HERE

Online surveys and research panels go together like…well, milk and cookies. If they are both high-quality, yummy snack. If either is poor quality, the experience is ruined.

These days, there is a lot of awareness of online panel quality issues. So what does a market research buyer need to know?

Here are 5 things you need to be aware of to find the best panel sources for your needs, and mitigate potential risks.  Why is this so important? Because panel quality varies. A lot. You can’t assume all research panels are the same.

1. Some panel companies focus on selling to market research agencies—not folks looking to do research in-house. So don’t be surprised if you find some agencies have a sales process that feel awkward to you.
2. Panel suppliers have different processes for validating the authenticity of their members.  Some do a better job of weeding out “incentive hunters” and “professional respondents” than others. A key concept here is “digital fingerprinting.” For an excellent introduction, I strongly recommend this very easy-to-read article, “Digital Fingerprinting and Sample Quality,” from Simon Chadwick  as a guest blogger on the QuestionPro blog.
3. Panel suppliers have varying policies about research participation for their panel members. In some panels, a member can take 10 surveys a day. In others, it is restricted to a few per month. If you want to know more about some of the brutal realities, read the new and controversial report, “The Dirty Little Secrets of Online Panels”, thanks to the research of Ron Sellers from Grey Matter Research. Read the article for instructions on how to get the full document.
4. Just because a panel company allows you to use a very long, onerous questionnaire with their panelists, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. They just make more money that way.  For more on this and related points, read Jeffrey Henning’s excellent article, “Data Quality & Validation Lessons from Panel Professionals.”
5. Some panel companies aggregate multiple panels. Some panel companies sell access to their own panels. But there are a few that aggregate, and de-duplicate, across multiple panels. These aggregators can be handy, especially if you are doing research with a hard-to-find population.

OK, those 5 points are key. But if you can handle a little more, I also recommend reading these 3, short articles for more tips and practical insights into online market research panels:

• From Forrester’s Reineke Reitsma, on Online Panel Quality.
• From ESOMAR, the wonderful “26 Questions” to ask before you buy online sample.
• From the QuestionPro blog, Steven H. Gittelman  wrote a short blog about how Microsoft has dealt with buying online panel sources.

Look, I am not trying to scare you off. But there are risks, and by being informed you will be able to make better decisions about which panel companies to work with. There are plenty of them out here—but you do need to be vigilant to find one that will best meet your needs.

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

Some of our online market research classes have been updated, and we need feedback!  We’ll be testing the content by offering in-person seminars in Massachusetts. So here’s the deal: attend a free market research seminar, and all we ask in return is that you provide feedback.

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!

Never skimp on budget for:

• Quality sample.  Having quality sample is critical. Avoid sources that can’t talk credibly about their recruitment tactics or list sources. You don’t want to bake a cake with spoiled eggs.
• Sufficient sample quantity. If you are purchasing outside sample, be sure you have access to enough—or at least have a fallback strategy in place in case your incidence rates are tragically low.  I have seen many otherwise brilliantly managed projects experience dramatic schedule slips because of poor sample quantity planning.
• Expert research design. Don’t sabotage a project by fielding a poorly constructed questionnaire or applying an inappropriate methodology for the given objective.  Even if you intend to do a project in-house, getting help in this area will pay for itself by avoiding wasted time and money.
• Competent data analysis. If you spend the time and money to collect beautiful data, don’t skimp on the analysis. This can be harder than it sounds, especially for projects that have had data collection problems. In these cases, you can become so exhausted with the project that by the time data analysis is due, you are just ready to be done with it. Resist the temptation or get help.  Skipping on data analysis can backfire in 2 ways. First, someone else will look at the data and find an important result that you missed. Ouch. Second, you won’t get a good return on the research investment—leaving a bad impression that may derail you the next time you try to get budget for a market research study.
• Decent reporting.  Rushing to get the research delivered is understandable—but unfortunate typos, mislabeled charts or poor writing can turn off the audience and damage the research’s credibility.  Yes, really.

If you have people with these skills in-house—great, do it in-house. If you want to augment with outside expertise for discrete tasks, there are many boutique agencies and market research freelancers available for such work. And if you want an experienced expert to run the project for you, by all means hire a market research agency. But don’t skimp—it always backfires.

[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.]

Well, “abuse” may be a little strong…but market research results certainly do get misused. Sometime intentionally; twisting results to confirm existing opinions, or ignoring results perceived to be inconvenient. In other cases, the misuse is accidental—issues such as poorly labeled charts or unclear methodology documentation can easily lead to erroneous conclusions.

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!

Great news! My article on DIY research “Why It’s Good for Everyone” won the counterpoint contest recently run by the MRA’s Alert! Magazine.

The article is reprinted in the MRA blog, here: Link1

I’ve received some amazingly positive response to the article. Most notably, from one of my favorite market research bloggers, Jeffrey Henning of Vovici, who declared it, “The best thing @ResearchRocks has ever written!” (@ResearchRocks being my twitter name).  It got circulated widely around the Twitterverse, and was even cited as inspiration for a wonderful blog entry by Canek Riestra (@criestra) here: Link2,  or in English here (using Google translate—so an ok version, but not perfect): Link3

Winning the contest also means I will have the opportunity to write 4 more columns in 2010 for Alert! My next article will be in the June issue.

So in case you missed it, here it is: Link4.  I welcome any feedback! And I always enjoy a good debate

Clients seeking to conduct a market research project typically choose one of two paths:  do it in-house or outsource to a full-service market research agency. Pretty simple.

But now, a third option exists: out-tasking.

Today, there are plenty of fantastic freelancers and micro-boutiques that have deep expertise. And on the client-side, there are lots of cases where research needs are high but budgets are low. Consider these two trends together, and the emergence of a new option becomes obvious: market research out-tasking.

My old boss (eegads, I worked for him in the mid-80s!), IT industry analyst Jeff Kaplan, coined the phrase out-tasking to describe the selective outsourcing of specific tasks to third-party IT service providers. At the time, 1994, this was a pretty important distinction because IT projects until then were typically done in-house or outsourced in entirety.

Market Research Out-tasking Example

Here’s a perfect example. A client I have been working with for some time (providing training to their growing market research department), had a need for a project. They knew it was too big for them to handle in-house, so they talked to a few research agencies and got back bids averaging about $50,000.

The thing was, the client was doing the data collection. So that was $50,000, with no sample costs. Upon further reflection, the client decided there had to be an option. So I discussed various scenarios with them, helping them weigh the respective pros and cons. Their ultimate decision? Do the project management and reporting in-house, but hire an experienced researcher for questionnaire design and data analysis—two very discrete parts of the process.

I referred them to several freelancers for their consideration, and while they haven’t made their final choices, the client’s out of pocket costs will have dropped from $50,000 to roughly $16,000.

Of course, there are far more costs than that $16k. They are also going to dedicate a significant amount of staff time (2 mid-level marketing professionals, and access to an internal graphics pro), survey hosting, and data collection costs. So while the OOP is low, it’s not the only cost. Further, they won’t get the benefit of a full-service agency’s experience.

Not a Fluke

In the past year, I have connected several clients with freelancers. And so far, the feedback has been excellent. The clients know very precisely what the freelancer will deliver, and frankly, get a very good rate. And the freelancers, most of whom typically contract to agencies, get the benefit of direct client interaction.

But it isn’t a risk-free proposition. You should only consider out-tasking a viable option if:

• Someone on your team has experience managing market research projects.  There are lots of risks in market research; you need a project manager who can navigate around them.
• You have access to a known, quality sample source. Warning: I have seen many cases where clients thought they did, and found out the hard way that they were incorrect. BTW, not all panel companies happily sell direct to clients (some prefer working with agencies).
• You don’t mind a little risk. Freelancers are, after all, individuals. They generally don’t have back-up.  Someone gets sick, or has a sick child, and your schedule could slip.
• Your internal clients will find an internally delivered report credible. Sometimes research results simply have more authority when delivered by a reputable third party.

Bottom-line

Market research out-tasking is a legitimate choice for clients seeking to augment in-house resources with specific skills sets in order to get the job done. There are many highly-skilled, independent researchers available, offering various skills. If a full-service agency isn’t an option, out-tasking is a great alternative.

[BTW, if you are an independent market research consultant interested in such gigs, please fill out this form: link.  I am always happy to refer my clients to qualified researchers.]

Poor PowerPoint. It has many two-faced critics who on one hand use it to create market research deliverables but on the other deride it as an over-used crutch.

The debate tends to get framed in an over-simplified way as, “Should researchers use PowerPoint to deliver research results?”

This is over-simplified in 2 ways:

1. It assumes that a PowerPoint report is the only deliverable (which among good researchers, is rarely the case)
2. It assumes all PowerPoint reports are mammoth-sized piles of boring charts.

If you are planning a market research project, you do need to think ahead and craft a comprehensive deliverables strategy. The key components of this strategy will likely include some mix of:

• Interactive workshop (to engage clients—internal or external—in the data analysis process)
• Internal blogs or podcasts
• On-site presentation(s)
• One-on-one briefings for key executives
• Slide deck (either brief or comprehensive)
• Text document: Written executive summary or top-line report
• Web conferences (perhaps one for each regional or functional division of a company)
• White papers (most common in technology fields)
• For quantitative projects, deliverables may also include:
  • Raw data
  • Tables (the tables showing all data as cross-tabs)
  • Online reporting tools (these vary a great deal, but generally allow you to do data analysis on the fly)
• For qualitative projects, deliverables may also include:
  • Video, often edited to show only the most important parts
  • Audio files
  • Transcripts

So a slide deck, in reality, is only one part of the strategy. It alone can’t carry the messages from a study with impact or credibility.

That said, a well-crafted PowerPoint (or Keynote, for some Mac users) report is an excellent way to deliver a research project’s key findings. It allows for easy sharing, reference, and reuse. Of course, the reports need to be well designed, the charts clearly labeled, and options for customization offered. Simply chugging out a slide deck where you have a chart or table for every item that was in a questionnaire is awful.

And if you want to jazz up those charts, there are options available (check out iCharts). And if you want to complement or replace PPT with an online tool? Great. Most of the major online research tools also include interactive reporting (check out ConfirmIt and Vovici).

But the most important thing? A good presenter! An engaged, articulate speaker who can bring the data to life. Who can add context to the results. Who can weave otherwise lifeless data points into compelling “so whats.”  Market researchers will start using more interactive reporting tools in the future. But without a good presenter—grounded in both research methodology and relevant project context—the deliverables are still going to be ineffective.  I don’t care how flashy your interactive tool is; if a compelling, intelligent speaker isn’t there to discuss the key findings, it ain’t gonna have much more impact than a slide deck.

Consider your college experience: which professor had the most impact on you? The one who was charismatic in the classroom or the one with the best lecture materials? Or consider television: which TV talk show personality do you like best? The one with the fanciest set, or the one who strikes you as most authentic?

Bottom Line:

It’s always great to challenge the status quo. To get researchers rethinking how we do things. But PowerPoint is too often blamed for research’s inability to impact decision making. PowerPoint is a software program.

So let’s use it, without abusing it. Let’s stop blaming slideware, and start using it sensibly as one part of a comprehensive deliverables strategy.

[Interested in more on planning and delivering research results? Check out the Research Rockstar classes, “How to Package and Deliver Market Research Results” (available to Free and VIP members) and “How to Promote Market Research” (available to VIP members)]

The US 2010 Market Research conference season will be starting soon. Luckily, this year they are a bit more spread out than last year.

The MRA’s big conference will be in Boston in June.

The AMA’s annual Market Research Conference will be in Atlanta in September.

And IIR’s The Market Research Event will be in San Diego in November.

I can hear the sighs of anticipated exhaustion already. Travel, sessions, expense reports.  And the dreaded, overflowing inbox that faces you upon returning to work the next week.

Besides, we have to ask ourselves: do in-person events matter anymore? Look, I am in the business of online training—I LOVE online content. But I do believe that there is still a place for in-person events as well.  And here is why:

1. Networking. Whether you are looking for a new client, collaborator, employee, job, supplier, peer or friend, there is nothing like getting together with a group of like-minded professionals for meeting new people. People who may inspire you, inform you, connect you, or just make you smile. I always meet smart people at these events, and that alone makes attendance worthwhile. Some of these events even offer “speed networking” sessions to help you meet new people even more efficiently!
2. Serendipitous learning. With online venues, I tend to find what I am looking for. I want to learn about X, so I find it. Yes, I might pick up some useful tangents along the way. But I am pretty much on track. But what about all of the great stuff I may not know enough about to seek out?  At conferences, I often see a session on something new to me…something I wouldn’t otherwise learn about. I take a leap and give it a try. Is it always a success? Nope. But when it is, it more than makes up for the duds.
3. Engaging debates. I find great value in participating in real-time debates and Q&A. A healthy exchange of different options. An unexpected opportunity to listen, really listen, to a different point of view. And again, as much as I love the exchanges I participate in online (and I have participated in my fair share of exchanges on LinkedIn and various blog sites), in-person debate is simply a richer experience. There. I said it.

If you are like me and enjoy making new connections, discovering new resources, learning new topics or simply meeting smart people, I encourage you to make time for at least one of these three events.

Also, I’ll be speaking at both the AMA and MRA conferences this year, so I will hope to meet you in Atlanta or Boston!

[Want access to online market research training? Try us out with a FREE membership:  FREE!]

A few days ago, I posted a blog about market research agencies and their websites.

Do these websites matter? Aren’t they just electronic billboards?

I think they do matter.  A lot of people who buy and use market research visit agency websites. And frankly, they are more likely to visit an agency site than that of a professional association (such as the MRA or CASRO) or of a trade publication (such as Quirk’s or Research Magazine). So these agency websites are, intentionally or not, a key source of client education.

And at the risk of sounding preachy, I think all market research professionals have a responsibility to promote market research ethics, professional standards, and innovation. And one of the ways to do it is through our public faces.

The Method to My Madness

I selected 6 websites from the Honomichl list and applied my 4 criteria. To refresh, the criteria are:

1. Educational content.
2. Standards and ethics.
3. Friendliness.
4. Innovate thinking.

Grades of A-D were assigned based on specific criteria within each metric. As an example, an agency that has at least 20 educational white papers, videos or similar forms of content got an A on the Education metric. As another example, an agency that has no mentions of market research ethics or adherence to ethical standards got an F on that metric. And if I had to search for an item for an hour only to find it buried in press releases, that gets a D. Please note that in some cases I may have missed relevant content—but if I spent an hour seeking out content for a given metric and could not find any, it is for all purposes, a low grade.

So how did the agencies do? I selected the following agencies from the Honomichl list:

Burke

IPSOS

Maritz

Market Probe

Synovate

TNS

And to be clear, I am not looking to pick on anyone. I did this as an exercise to see how well agencies do on these metrics.  My key take-always:

• Educational. Incredibly inconsistent, though a few shining stars.
• Standards and ethics. As a group, agencies do this poorly. None had mentions of ethics or standards on their home page or other prominent pages on their web sites.  Professional association badges are hard to find, if evident at all.
• Friendliness. Again, very inconsistent.
• Promotes innovative thinking. Very inconsistent. A couple of agencies do a good job; a couple seem to neglect this angle altogether.

So How Did They Do?

The top 2 grades go to….drum roll….IPSOS and TNS.  Both have web sites that have the highest scores on the metrics applied. IPSOS has a bit more content that promoted market research innovation. But both sites do a great job on education and friendliness.

I welcome any feedback here, or by phone: 508.691.6004 ext 705. Thanks!

Websites are the virtual storefronts of market research agencies. It’s where you often get your first impression of a potential research supplier. You peek in the window and see if the goods are narrow or diverse, dated or current. You get an impression about personality and culture. You may even get a sense of trustworthiness.

But if you have ever looked at more than 2 or 3 agency web sites, you will see that the quality and content vary dramatically. Almost dismayingly so.

So how to compare them? How to decide if an agency is worth further consideration?

I recommend using the following 4 criteria to assess market research agency websites:

Educational content. Number of white papers, videos, blogs and other content that educates client-side visitors. An agency that invests in client education is an agency that values its client relationships

Standards and ethics. Visible statements about market research ethics, and adherence to standards promoted by the industry’s professional associations such as CASRO, the MRA and ESOMAR. Choose agencies that have solid credentials; alas, there are many that do not.

Friendliness. Based on a site’s overall readability and ease of navigation. Why hire an agency that can’t communicate about research in an accessible way?

Innovative thinking. Has staff-authored books or papers on innovative topics, promotes new methods on website or blog. Perhaps even shares agency-funded “research on research.” An agency that spends some time and money investing in research methods will be able to best advise you on what methods will best meet your needs; you don’t want to go to a doctor that hasn’t been trained in 20 years, do you?

Obviously, a market research agency’s website is only one way to become exposed to its capabilities. Still, it is an important one. To find links to market research agencies and their websites, try the AMA’s Green Book, Quirk’s directory, the MRB Directory, or for a more global listing, ESOMAR’s online directory.

[This is part 1 of a 3-part blog series on market research agency web-sites: the next post will cover some of my favorite agency websites which meet the criteria above. Be sure to get the RSS feed so you don't miss parts 2 and 3: subscribe.]

The difference between good market research and great market research can be significant.

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]

When selecting a market research agency to carry out a project, many people buy on price. Often, the proposals from different agencies show similar methods, sample sources, and timelines. So of course you pick the least expensive.

Using price as the selection basis is simple and comfortable.

So here’s the catch: if you are sending RFPs only to agencies that come back to you with similar ideas, it’s time to rethink your short-list.

These days, there are innovators out there. Agencies using cooler tools, applying newer sample quality processes, and even offering new deliverables. Their methods may push you out of your comfort zone. Their proposals may be harder to read because they won’t be full of the same boilerplate you’ve been seeing for years.

But if you want research that will have an impact, break you out of a market research rut, and create more excitement among your internal clients at the end of the day, it’s time. Create a new agency short-list that includes innovative firms, perhaps even a few that you are skeptical about. You may be pleasantly surprised at the options they offer you.

[If you’d like help rethinking your agency short-list, I can help. Contact me at 508.691.6004 ext 705, or KKorostoff@ResearchRockstar.com]

[Want more market research ideas? Subscribe to the newsletter: FREENEWSLETTER]

Perhaps my favorite thing about reading blogs is that I can have a dialog with the author and fellow readers. Friendly debates or spontaneous collaborations are a lot of fun.

But when comments I share that are “pending moderator review” never appear, it really annoys me.

About 10 days ago, I read an interesting article on TMCnet—a site that I like for technology-related topics. But it just so happened that this article had some important omissions. So I posted a thoughtful reply. Nothing incendiary. Nothing rude. Just a friendly sharing of information with the author and fellow readers.

It never appeared.

After a week, I emailed the editor. Still nothing.

The original article recommends NPS (Net Promoter Score) as the optimal standard for customer satisfaction with telecommunications providers. Ummm, no. So since I didn’t get to share on the TMCnet site, let me share some information here for those of you interested in measuring customer satisfaction in the telecommunications space.

• “There are many scenarios in which customers may be satisfied with certain service levels or offerings yet refrain from recommending or referring the larger offering to their friends.” Yes, this is very true.
• “…customer referrals – should be the ultimate measure of customer satisfaction and should be cultivated to the greatest extent possible.” Not necessarily.

In telecommunications, willingness to refer is not always the best metric. Having done over a hundred research studies on telecomm topics over the past 20+ years, I know that other items can be more relevant. For example, two items that are very important in the telecomm space:

1. Willingness to renew (vs. propensity to brand switch). For some service providers, lack of brand loyalty is a huge challenge. And cost of customer acquisition can be quite high. So for them, the most useful metric can be renewal intent.
2. Interest in “add-ons” (incremental features/services that would increase $/customer). Again, because the cost of customer acquisition can be high in telecomm, some service providers focus not only on retention but on extensions; how can we sell more to the existing customer base? That’s why in telecomm you often hear people talk about raising ARPU (average revenue per user). And customers’ willingness to buy more says a lot (like how well the proposed add-ons align with their interests, and how far the brand has permission to extend).

Yes, NPS is a wonderfully efficient approach to measuring customer loyalty. But it isn’t the only one. Customer satisfaction and loyalty research is not a one-size-fits all proposition. Telecomm providers need to take the time to identify the best metrics for their research to be truly useful.

[As always, please add a comment or question here, or call the Blog Requests line (508.691.6004). Thanks!]

If you need to set expectations with colleagues about the quantitative market research process, here you go (see bottom of post): the key steps layed out in a simple flowchart.

I have used this diagram to walk market research newbies through the process many times, and it always gets rave reviews. While the chart is pretty self-explanatory, a few items are worth pointing out:

1. Two major steps (questionnaire design and deliverables) are iterative.  I always point out that for both of these steps, you need to plan for at least 2 and usually 3 rounds leading to final, approved versions. Inevitably, this leads to a discussion about roles and responsibilities—which is great.
2. I always stress that during the data collection process, we need to take time to document an agreed upon analysis plan and deliverables plan. Since I am often using this with folks new to market research, this leads to an important discussion about options, which is great to have well before a project starts.  Occasionally I get push back on the concept of a “deliverables plan.” But given all the ways of delivering data these days, and the unique needs of different audiences, having a plan documented is great way to avoid last-minute panic.
3. And yes, I really do talk about celebrating. Maybe that sounds trite, but with folks new to research, adding a little fun to the process scores some points. And let’s be honest; at the end of a big quant project, a little celebration is in order!

Please feel free to use this chart. If you want me to email you a separate image, just send me a message (KKorostoff@ResearchRockstar.com).

[If you like the blog posts here, you will love the newsletter! Not yet subscribed to the Research Rockstar newsletter? Sign-up here: SIGNUP]

Every market research study has two objectives.

That’s right. Two.

There’s the stated research objective. Perhaps something likes, “Determine current levels of brand awareness in 5 key market areas,” or “Test 6 potential new marketing messages for alignment with emerging customer needs.”

Then there’s the other, assumed objective: getting engaged respondent participation. This is an implicit objective that too often gets minimized. Yes, we all know we have to do everything we can to maximize response rates, but the choice of methodology is too often driven by the research objective—not the respondents’ needs.

As researchers, we talk a lot about matching the methodology to the first objective. But given low response rates and the preciousness of qualified respondents, we need to focus a lot more on matching the methodology to the audience.

An Example

A researcher I know from a software company was upset after working with a market research agency on a huge study of IT executives. They collected over a thousand responses to an online survey, but data collection was brutally slow due to low response rates. When she finally got the data, she had a lot of important items to which there were a surprising percent of neutral or even “don’t know” responses. Putting aside that this issue should have been caught during the pre-test phase of the project, this was hugely disappointing.

I looked over the screening criteria myself, just to see what the scoop was, and it was obvious that the audience they were targeting was too senior for the 25-minute, very technical, online survey. The topic was about a fairly new technology, so chances are they were interested in the topic—but the methodology choice and level of detail was wrong.

The Shadow Objective

It’s always there. The need to match the project’s methodology with the target respondents’ preferences and behaviors. Maybe you want quantitative data, but the target group gets too many similar requests as is. Maybe you want to do focus groups, but your target population works in a field where scheduling is too uncertain for them to commit to 2 hours of time. Maybe you want to do a phone survey, but your audience has a low penetration of landlines.

Bottom line

Choosing the best methodology for any research study requires considering the project’s objective and the shadow objective. The good news? These days there are so many methods and tools that can make the research experience engaging, there is no need to be constricted by the choice of survey versus focus group.

[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]

Do you trust your market research agency?

• When you ask questions, do they listen and respond respectfully and credibly?
• When you ask for recommendations, are the responses thoughtful?
• Do they come to you proactively with suggestions and ideas?
• When you read their reports and memos, do you feel the information is reliable and credible?

I recently spoke with a long-time client who confessed that the only reason he hasn’t fired his market research agency is fear of change. For him, it’s the “devil you know…” syndrome. But because he doesn’t trust his agency, he is spending an inordinate amount of time checking their work and documenting communications via memos.  I’m working on a new short-list for him so that at least he can see what his agency options are. Will he take the plunge? I’m not sure. But I feel compelled to encourage him to look.

There are hundreds of market research agencies and hundreds of market research consultants. Changing agencies can be painful, but you deserve an agency that you can trust with your valuable market research investments.

Need to rethink your agency choices? Interested in finding agencies that offer more methodology options? Check out the directories at the MRA (http://www.bluebook.org/index.cfm) and Quirk’s (http://www.quirks.com/directory/index.aspx). Want help creating a new short-list of potential providers? Contact me at KKorostoff@ResearchRockstar.com. Thanks!

There has been a lot of debate lately about the use of outsourcing, and more precisely offshoring, by market research agencies. The real issue is, of course, transparency.

If you hire a market research agency, they should readily disclose:

• What parts of your project, if any, will be done by subcontractors, outsourcers, or any other flavor of 3^rd party.
• How the agency will enforce quality, confidentiality and data security policies with their 3^rd party partners.

If your company has specific policies about offshoring in particular, that’s simply something to state in your RFPs. I find that with most clients, the requirement is that use of any outside suppliers is disclosed. That said, there are some exceptions: I know of companies with management teams that feel strongly about “subsidizing” companies that export jobs. Fine. That’s their policy. They get to select business partners accordingly.

Does Offshoring = Low Quality?

No. Quality is a concern no matter what country an outsourcing provider is based in—the US, India, France, Canada…anywhere.  If you work with an agency and they outsource, you need to have some evidence that the outsourcing partner provides great work—and was not selected simply because they had the lowest price or a well-connected brother-in-law.

Are outsourcing providers in some countries getting a bad reputation? Yes.  But as someone who has personally completed 100s of primary research projects, I know from experience that poor work quality comes from all over. A company that only works with in-country partners cannot be assumed to have great quality. And one that does use offshore providers should not be assumed to have poor quality.

Looking to mitigate risks when working with an agency that does use offshore subcontractors? Then simply ask them how they manage the relationship. You should be given a clear, credible answer. Some agencies even have on-site managers at offshore locations—such that work quality is being monitored in-person. And yes, that costs more.

Don’t shoot yourself in the foot

If you are sending out an RFP for a big project and you tell the bidding market research agencies that you want the lowest possible price, guess what? Some will come back with very low prices…because they are outsourcing to suppliers with low labor costs and are not budgeting money to manage those providers adequately.

Additional resources:

Article by Brian Tarran: LINK

From The Future Place blog: LINK

Some lengthy discussions on LinkedIn as well, here is one: LinkedIn

So what do you think? I welcome all comments & questions! Please add your comment here or call me at 508.691.6004 ext 705

In Great Market Research Blogs Part 1, I reported that I regularly read these 5 blogs:

• Vovici (Vovici blog)
• MRB, the Market Research Bulletin (kinda a blog, kinda an online newsletter. Whatever).
• Zebra Bites by Katie Harrris
• Compete’s blog
• MR Heretic’s “Market Research Death Watch blog”

I mentioned that I would be writing up some more faves in a Part 2. The cool thing is that while I had my Part 2 blogs already in mind, several readers suggested others that were not on my planned list. Some are blogs I knew of but hadn’t visited recently, but others were entirely new to me! So I took some time to check them all out, and rounded out my favorite Market Research blogs, Part 2, below.

Caveat: When it comes to blogs, I have some personal biases. First, I tend to avoid blogs written less often than once a month. Second, I read blogs to be informed about trends, emerging issues, and news—not to read about someone’s cute new puppy. So the first time a blog shows me 200+ words of family anecdotes, that tends to end it for me.

More Market Research Blog Faves

Forrester Customer Experience blog. I read a few different Forrester blogs from time to time, and this guy (Bruce Temkin) is simply the best. Could one argue the blog is not strictly market research? Yup. But it’s semantics—he researches and analyzes trends in customer experience. How companies plan and implement customer experience programs, trends in actual customer experience results and how customer experience impacts companies. Anyone doing customer research should read this blog.

The Market Research Event’s blog is a must to stay informed and get useful links. Topics generally include recent research studies, market research events, MR news and links to important commentary. Wonderfully short, to-the-point writing. A must-read for professional researchers seeking to stay current.

All professional market researchers should read Ray Poynter’s blog. Ray keeps a constructively critical eye on market research topics and will keep you informed of the most current insider debates. Ray is also working on a book project and often posts excerpts of his drafts—and asks for reader input.

The CRO-ing about Research blog by Joel Rubinson, Chief Research Officer of The ARF is full of fresh, thought-provoking content. Doubt me? Then check this out and tell me it didn’t get your gears churning: LINK.  Joel puts market research in the context of marketing innovations and best practices.  Well written and recommended for anyone who thinks about the intersection of marketing and customer research.

Looking for a take-no-prisoners perspective on market research? Then you should read Tom Ewing’s blog. Tom delivers deep thoughts and challenges the status quo…with a social media twist. If nothing else, read this one post: NEWMR.  I also enjoy Tom’s Twitter feed (@tomewing).

From the guys at PluggedIN, a must read blog about MROCs—practical insights, creative ideas.  And I’m not just a fan because they recently cited one of my blog posts. Any client-side researchers even thinking about online research communities should read this blog.

QuestionPro blog: From Rob Hoehn and the folks at QuestionPro. Current topics and good guest posts (full disclosure: including one from me).  A good blog for client-side market researchers looking for a mix of research topics and some free education.

Tom Anderon’s blog covers current market research issues, and is also a platform for some of the topics Tom is passionate about—including his offshore transparency initiative. I don’t agree with everything Tom says, but I enjoy his perspectives and breadth of knowledge. He identifies the most important issues worth discussing. Truly a must-read blog for professional market researchers.

Want More? How About 4 More?

Readers suggested a few more blogs that look great, but I honestly haven’t had time yet to get to very familiar with them. So for your consideration:

• Merrill Dubrow, president of M/A/R/C, blogs here: blog link. Merrill seems to cover many things, including market research, market research-related humor, and personal musings.
• This one is embarrassing–I should have known it already. A reader suggested this blog, so I checked it out and found that it’s from InSites Consulting, also home of Tom De Ruyck of Baqmar, who I follow on twitter (@tomderuyck).
• The blog of Discovery Research Group looks interesting, but again, I haven’t had time yet to really dive in.
• I’ve just started to check out a wonderful blog by Diane Hagglund of Dimensional Research. I have only read 3 of her articles so far, but the blog strikes me as a great resource for anyone new to market research; Dianne has a flair for making market research incredibly approachable.

[OH NO! The Research Rockstar RSS feed recently self-destructed. So please click here for RSS or email updates: SUBSCRIBE]

Peter Shankman advocated for market research today. I was there. Not 10 feet away from him when he did it.

It’s great to hear a social media authority praise—even promote—the benefit of asking customers’ about their views. In this case, Peter was making the excellent point that companies need to ask customers how they want their information delivered. At today’s presentation in downtown Boston, Peter specifically advised the business folks in attendance to take the time to ask their audiences (clients, prospects, donors, whatever) how they want to receive information. He points to the fact that the way information is delivered these days is extremely fragmented. Nobody can afford to simply guess how their audience wants to get information.  He points out that simply taking the time to ask people how they want information delivered can save huge amounts of money.

Now granted, he didn’t go beyond that to advise the best ways…or potential challenges…of asking people how they want to receive information. But as someone who has done actual primary research on this for many business clients over the years, I can tack on two bits of advice.

Self-reporting can be way off, so augment with actual behavioral data. If you simply give people a list of information sources (newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc) and ask them which are their preferred ones, you will get a very particular picture. If you ask the same people which ones they have used in the past 48 hours, you will get a very different picture. Why? People don’t always like to admit—either to themselves or others—how few sources they use. Consider my Aunt Sally. If you asked Aunt Sally how she gets news, she would emphatically tell you that she reads The New York Times, The Economist, and watches the evening news. Well, what she really means is that she wishes she did, but in reality, most of her news comes from the radio and her Yahoo home page.

Sure, it’s still good to ask people what they want. But balance that with some actual behavioral data as well. What have you read in the past 24 hours? What websites have you visited today? Nice, concrete questions.

Understand the behaviors associated with different information sources. This can be very enlightening. For example, let’s say IT buyer Jack works for a large retail chain. He gets information about IT companies from trade magazines, business magazines, and CNET. But what does he do with the information?  Maybe with the trade magazines he tends to rip out anything of interest and throw the rest into recycling. Business magazines? Perhaps he occasionally forwards an issue to a colleague, but less than once out of every 4 issues. CNET? Turns out he loves the email feature (email a story to a friend), and forwards at least 3 CNET articles a week to his peers—internal and external. So if I wanted to get on Jack’s radar screen and optimize the chance of him sharing info, I now know what to do.

How about you?

So do you know what information sources your target clients actually use? Trust? Share? The topic of information sources is actually pretty complex, and there are lots of other cool research tricks that can be used to understand behaviors. But as Peter Shankman said today, simply finding out what sources people use is a huge step towards optimizing a communications strategy.

[Do you get Research Rockstar blog posts via RSS? If not, here's the link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ResearchRockstar]

Have you ever delivered a big market research study, and had your internal clients completely ignore it?

It is an unfortunately common and painful experience.

Sometimes the challenge is that audience members find numbers too impersonal.  They see charts and graphs and they just don’t seem to represent living, breathing customers.  And nobody is going to take action based on market research data in which they don’t completely believe.

In many cases, bringing the data to life can be done easily.

Try conducting a handful of in-depth interviews with some of the research participants to capture verbatim quotes about some of the surprising results. Was there a result in the research that revealed customers are less satisfied than expected with a new product? Quoting an actual customer about this can make it feel more real.

Did research participants indicate a preference for competitor A’s packaging? Bring some samples to the final presentation—let your audience see and touch the packaging as you discuss the results. Of course, your audience is hopefully already familiar with competitive packaging, but having an example in hand during the presentation adds impact.

Did the research suggest that customers who receive your print catalog buy more from your online store than customers who do not receive your print catalog? Pass around the print catalog during the presentation. Engage the audience in a discussion of hypotheses as to why this might be the case.

While these are just a few simple examples, hopefully they will inspire you to add quotes or physical “evidence” to your presentations. Both techniques will help make your research results feel less theoretical, and more concrete. And that will help your audience take action.

[Do you get Research Rockstar blog posts via RSS? If not, here's the link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ResearchRockstar]

This is my response to a well-meaning but misinformed article published in Forrester’s Groundswell blog. I address the 2 most obvious factual errors below.

*****

Yes, online research communities have their place.  I ardently believe that there are many organizations that can benefit from structured online communities (MROCs or ORCs, as many now call them), or even just well-run, online customer advisory boards (link). In fact, there are some markets for which I think online communities can be one of the best ways of getting honest, objective customer insights. But let’s not oversell it; if we do, we’ll only cause a lot of heartache (and wasted research dollars).

So, please, some reality checks:

“And if you worry about whether these collections of consumers function like real communities on the Internet, you shouldn’t.”  Well, I think what the author meant is that “some of them do.” But nobody thinking about funding (and we are talking about significant funding here) an online research community should assume they are guaranteed to have the same experience. Few communities have the defining bond that cancer patients have (the example cited in the Forrester blog).  Some organizations simply don’t have customer bases so eager to connect with peers for experience sharing, support, etc.  Some do—there are some brands that have very passionate customers (Apple comes to mind). So be real: does your organization have a customer base that will be self-motivated to participate? Does your product category engender “team spirit”? If so, great; online communities may be realistic for you.

The statement, “But research communities can do things no other form of research can do. You can ask follow-up questions to get clarification or more detail. You can look at the profiles of members, to put their questions in context”, is factually  incorrect. You can do that with most types of research. Doing focus groups or interviews? You can easily ask for more context or follow-up clarifications, and do so with the benefit of reading body language (follow-up is also feasible for surveys, though the response is generally not real-time). Any half-decent researcher knows to gather contextual information (either for focus groups, interviews or survey projects), and in many cases the screening process uses techniques to ensure this context is valid.  Doing online research? There are most certainly tools available that allow you to do real-time probing; two that come readily to mind are Invoke Solutions and iModerate.  Yes, online communities can do these things too—but to say “no other form of research can” is simply untrue.

Online Research Communities have a place. But whenever we gather customer insights, or insights from the broader market, we always need to first ask, “What are the objectives? What do we want to learn? What will we do with this data?”  The answers to those questions will drive the key decision about best methodology. Should the research be “blind” (the sponsor kept anonymous to avoid bias)? Should it be quantitative? Is directional insight sufficient? Should it be done in one country or many? Should it include our customers and/or competitors’ customers? Only then can you pick which tools, or combination, will be the best choice for your market research dollars.

For more reading about online research communities and their use I recommend these articles:

MROC talk blog: LINK

From Research Live and well-regarded market research thinker Tom Ewing: LINK

From Vovici, a balanced review of one happy online community client’s experience (ABC Studios): LINK

[Do you get Research Rockstar blog posts via RSS? If not, here's the link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ResearchRockstar]

Managing in-house market research is tough work. And your internal clients don’t make it easy, do they?

Your internal clients say they want powerful, fresh, objective customer insights. But too often, their behavior shows that they just want you to confirm their personal views.

Your internal clients are enthusiastic at project kick-off. But by the time data is delivered—even just a few weeks later in some cases—they seem to have lost interest.

They say they want current customer data to fuel an important decision. But then tell you that decision needs to be made next week.

They fund an important, time-sensitive research study, but neglect to tell you that they will be on vacation during the design phase. Oh, and that they want final approval on any instruments.

Sound familiar? I bet it does. You have a tough job.

If it helps, you are not alone. I work with lots of people who face these challenges daily. So we work on educating internal clients, establishing sensible (not onerous) customer research policies, and taking other actions to improve how market research is designed, managed and shared.  In some cases, some pretty dramatic changes are required. In others, just some minor tweaks.

Even a few small changes can make your tough job a little bit easier.

[Do you get Research Rockstar blog posts via RSS? If not, here's the link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ResearchRockstar]

I hate when I go to museums where other patrons crowd too close to the paintings. Don’t they know that you sometimes need a little distance to really see the art? Or that they are preventing others from viewing the painting from an appropriate distance? Very annoying.

This is especially true for art created using pointillism. I can stare at a pointillist piece for 20 minutes, easy. I can appreciate the technique—the way one group of simple dots can create a totally different dimensional feel than another equally labor-intensive group of dots.

Same with customer data. You may have collected thousands of data points. You savor them for a time (I know I do!), and that’s fine. But then it’s time to step back, and take it all in…unless something blocks you. It may even be that you have colleagues who are so hung up on examining the little dots up close, that you get stuck too.

Be bold. Break away from the crowd. Step back.

Read a book, and then come back to the data. Or take a walk. View a webinar on an unrelated topic. Read a favorite magazine. Anything to break the trance.

Those of us who spend a lot of time analyzing data know that too much time is wasted by being hung up on the small points. Then we risk running out of time for the creative thinking necessary to distill out the big “so what” findings.

With pointillism, the mind blends individual paint dots into a single image. With market research data, we have to let the data “dots” become our masterpiece of synthesis.

Are you too close to your data? So close that all you see is the thousands of little data points? What can you do to get the distance you need to really see the whole picture?

Not yet subscribed to this blog? Enter your email address here to receive the RSS feed.