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!]

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]

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]

*****

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]

Cool: As airlines roll-out WiFi, they will also start doing customer satisfaction surveys in-flight. Capturing customer feedback in near real-time—very cool!

Trend: As more clients do research in-house, they are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about research tasks and their time requirements. And sometimes they learn that their agency has been taking advantage of them. One example: a client who found out that a task she had previously paid thousands for was a simple SPSS feature that takes just minutes. Yikes.

Sad: Some clients are referring to their online communities as research resources, but are clearly using them for both marketing and research. In one case, the client seemed very excited about how sanctioned “leaks” of new products to the online community creates buzz. She seemed far less interested in research integrity. Sigh.

Trivia: The famous Chevy Nova Spanish language fiasco is apparently a myth. Apparently the Nova sold very well under that name. Still, ALWAYS back translate your surveys!

Practical: In designing market research across multiple cultural groups, don’t equate language with culture association. For example, most second generation Latinos speak English well, but their cultural context is still distinct. Cultural sensitivity and context cannot be based solely on primary language.

Be There Next Year!

Overall, a great conference, good people, and a worthwhile trip. Next year’s MRA conference will be in Boston (June 9-11) Mark your calendars now!

But to be honest, I never really thought of it as much more than a curiosity…sort of a twist on trivia. What words are most frequent on a favorite blog’s page? Wordle would show it in cool colors and an appealing mix of horizontal and vertical lay-outs.

So when I saw that Tribe Research’s Tribal ToolKit now includes a word cloud tool, I was eager to take it for a test drive.  How could word clouds really add insight? Be more than just a toy?

CloudMaker is a word cloud tool that can draw input from web pages, Twitter feeds (though, alas, restricted to Twitter’s self-imposed 20 tweet limit), and CSV files.  The CSV files part is the important one—since this is what allows you to import any text you want…like open-ended responses from a survey you were loathe to tally the hard way.

To get started, I set up an account (you need to buy some very reasonably-priced credits). Once I had my account, my first use was to check my blog page.  Was my content well-aligned with my intended message? Well, let’s use CloudMaker to find out. Here is the result (I could have added colors but I chose to keep it simple):

(I am not sure why it is pasting in sort of fuzzy; the original image looks much better on my computer).

The process was easy. With no training, it took me 6 minutes to specify the web page from which to draw the blog entries, and set some parameters. For example, I only wanted words that appeared at least 5 times to be included in the cloud.  I also spent a couple of minutes blocking common words (“you,” “your,” “some,” “very,” etc.).

The real power will be for people with open-ended responses to analyze.  Simply create a text file (easy to export from SPSS), and upload it to CloudMaker. You can even opt to have CloudMaker include the frequency counts. I’d also like to try this for analyzing interview transcripts.

Small is Beautiful: The 1-question Survey

There is a survey option as well. Want to know what 3 words people associate with your product, service, or overall brand?  The survey tool in CloudMaker lets you create a 1 question poll that accepts up to 3 text answers (best for 1 or 2-word answers). You get a URL to forward to survey-takers, and the software has built-in security (like preventing the same computer from answering the survey more than once). One catch: write your question carefully—once you create it and start data collection, you can’t edit it. So if you want to pre-test, plan accordingly (either do the pre-test via an email version of the question, or plan to use your CloudMaker credits for a pre-test).

Overall, Tribe Research has created an easy tool for applying word clouds to real business.

[I welcome any and all comments! Every 2 weeks I randomly select a commenter to win a Rockstar Mug: PIC. Next drawing is 10/23.  Our last winner was Joy Levin—Congrats Joy!!]

– I feel confused by all of the different methodology recommendations I am getting
– I feel a bit stunned by some of the proposed budgets
– I am wondering how my organization will actually use the results when the project is done
– I am worried that I don’t know enough to anticipate likely roadblocks

If some or all of these statements apply to you, don’t worry. These are perfectly common concerns, and just show that you are thinking carefully about the realities of conducting a customer satisfaction project.

So to help you get started, I’ll address some of these items briefly.

What methodology will be best?

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Lots of methods can be used (including various qualitative and quantitative ones).  Your best mix will be selected based on:

• How you plan to use the research results. For example, a design meant to provide inputs to executive bonus calculations will be different than one designed primarily to inform organizational performance goals. In fact, any consultant or sales person who tells you their approach is the only legitimate one is only interested in sales—not insights.
• Your customer base. Its size, profile and geographic distribution all come into play. A customer sat (and yes, that is the vernacular) project designed for a consumer goods manufacturer in a highly competitive market with millions of customers worldwide will not be the same as one for a B2B software company with a primarily US-based client base of 500.
• Your budget. Yes, I said it. Any customer sat project can be designed (or, over-designed) to the tune of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. But maybe your budget is limited. If your budget is $50,000, or even $20,000, options exist. Not all research firms will be interested (some are operationally optimized for larger studies), but plenty will be. Be honest about your budget limits and you will get appropriate proposals.

How will my organization use the final results?

The most common real-world uses of customer sat data are:

• To set and track organizational performance goals. For example, a company may have as a stated goal, “80% of customers report they will buy from us again in the next 6 months.” (Of course, just because 80% say they will, doesn’t mean 80% will in reality. Still, the fact they think they will is important).
• To generate inputs for executive bonus calculations.
• To identify opportunities for innovation (sometimes based on areas of customer dissatisfaction)
• To identify which customer touch points most directly predict loyalty behaviors (such as repeat purchasing and positive word of mouth); this creates a prioritized list of areas for improvement, optimized for the most impact.

What roadblocks will I likely encounter?

Short answer: a bunch. But the single most common issue is sample source. Do you really have a list of customers you can recruit to participate? Do you have other direct access to qualified customers? If you do, great. But a surprising number of companies do not.  I have worked with some really big clients, and some have had pitifully poor customer lists.  And since this is a customer sat project, you do need access to valid, qualified customers.

Here are 2 problems I have seen many times each:

• B2B companies that realize their lists a) are out of date (more than 10% of the names/phone numbers/email addresses are incorrect) b) have bad contact info (the customer sat survey needs to be of people who use the product, but the list is comprised of purchasing agents who buy, but do not use). Result? Significant delays and budget overruns.
• Consumer companies that overestimate the feasibility of using purchased lists to reach their customers. The result? Significant budget overruns.

Want More?

If you’d like a little more of an introduction to planning your first customer sat research project, please check out this 10 minute video on YouTube: Research Rockstar on YouTube.

Or, for a 53-minute, comprehensive introduction, check out this link to the Research Rockstar store: Store Link.

[Any questions or comments? Leave them here or call the blog requests line at 508.691.6004. Thanks!]

In the old days, it was easy, especially in consumer markets (versus B2B). Once upon a time, consumers generally became aware of and purchased products the same ways. Brand awareness came largely from in-store displays, TV and print advertising. Purchasing via traditional retail. Yeah there were some variations…radio advertising was more effective with some groups than others, and in some markets catalogs were king.  But still, compared to the present, pretty simple.

Today, the means of brand exposure and familiarization are amazingly diverse and increasingly out of the brand’s control. Both consumer and B2B marketers have complexities in this regard.

Here is an example from a client I work with in the B2B space—and this is just one client’s situation! We identified their known brand awareness sources as follows:

1.    Banner ads
2.    Billboards (yes, actual billboards)
3.    Expert blogs (not brand-sponsored)
4.    Company website
5.    Company-sponsored ezine
6.    Direct Mail
7.    Direct sales force
8.    Direct-to-consumer news releases
9.    Employee twitters (sanctioned)
10.    Online and traditional retail channels (several)
11.    PR campaigns
12.    Print catalog
13.    Product review sites
14.    Trade magazine print ads
15.    Trade magazine sites (mentions in articles)
16.    Trade shows
17.    Word of Mouth

Sure, this client has some pretty sound hypotheses about which of these are more or less influential. But ideally they would be able to precisely answer the question: What’s the most efficient combination of brand building activities for maximizing awareness among desirable customer groups?

Brand Awareness Research Options: Let’s Keep an Open Mind

So what’s a beleaguered Market Research Manager to do? What are the options?

1.    Conduct a traditional quantitative study. That’s the best way to get the most data for really comprehensive analysis.  But it may not work if…you don’t have access to great lists of qualified respondents….you have a hard-to-reach target market…your budget doesn’t permit it…you’re in a fast-moving market where the results can change just as the analysis is being done…your internal clients will balk if you can’t reliably quantify each source of brand awareness.
2.    Run experiments. A great option but takes time. And again, if you are in a rapidly changing market, results may be too slow.
3.    Focus on competitive benchmarking. If you have 2 or more pretty direct competitors, one option is to design your research on a smaller scale and focus on competitive comparisons. You likely have Competitive Intelligence on your top competitors’ brand-building tactics (if not, you should!). So you can conduct some pretty straightforward research to deduce what works. “Brand C’s brand awareness is up 30% since last quarter and their only new efforts are around driving traffic to their website and a highly-focused print ad campaign!” (OK, that example is overly simplistic, but you get the point).
4.    Conduct qualitative research with newly acquired customers. I can see the quant researchers rolling their eyes, but this is an option that helps capture the complexities of influence while being very affordable compared to a quant effort.  Can people reliably self-report how they became aware or increasingly aware of a brand? Nope, and this is a challenge in quant as well. But they can share stories about specific brand-related exposures that can be very rich. For example, I once conducted a small set of such interviews for a client, and we heard a fascinating theme about new customers gaining brand awareness through one sales person’s rather unconventional methods. Very actionable stuff!

In any of these cases, we just have to remember that people cannot accurately self-report how they became aware of, or familiar with, a brand.  They can report what they do recall, but that is likely to be incomplete (they may remember a flashy TV ad, and simply not recall a series of banner ads). Some methods deal with this challenge better than others, and a market research agency with a track record in Brand Awareness will be able to advise you based on your market’s particular nuances.

Making A Plan

Hopefully the examples above illustrate that there are several ways of researching brand awareness drivers given different budget and time-line parameters. But the reality is, for many companies, no perfect solution exists that can absolutely quantify brand awareness drivers. The variables are just too complex, and changing too rapidly.

Still, even for Research Managers in complex markets, research can get us in the neighborhood, even if it won’t be perfect. For example, in working with a client in this situation, we were unable to create an absolute, quantified rank order of brand awareness drivers. But we were able to identify 4 tiers of drivers: A “Top” tier (the top 4 drivers), a “Strong” tier (the next 3), a “Low” tier (the next 4) and a “Wildcard” tier (items that appeared to be low but were difficult to measure).  Ideal? No. Actionable? Yes.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for Market Research Managers with Brand Awareness projects is simply managing executive expectations.  Brand awareness measurement is a complex and moving target. And non-researchers often have unrealistic assumptions about how precise we can be—perhaps based on their previous experiences during simpler times. We need to re-set expectations with these folks, and inform them about more realistic outcomes. Heck, send them this article if it helps!

Any questions or comments? Please post them here or email me at KKorostoff@ResearchRockstar.com. Thanks!

[Thanks to Robin Brown at Environics Research Group for his feedback!]

Look, traditional market research is flawed. We all know that. It has its issues—sample quality being a biggie these days. And Brendan sums up another one nicely,  “Traditional research only captures a moment in time.” True, true, and market researchers are well aware of this (and advise clients accordingly).

But let’s not pretend social media is the elixir…the magic potion to cure all market research ills. Yes, social media as a research tool has real benefits and the innovation is exciting for suppliers and clients alike (tip of the hat on a nice piece to Fresh Networks). I am particularly interested in techniques for monitoring online conversations (nice intro by Beth Harte here, plus do include Crimson Hexagon).  But if we set unrealistic expectations about how fantastic social media is as a market research tool, we will ultimately disappoint clients, or worse (deliver misleading or egregiously flawed research).

Yes, it sounds great to make sweeping statements about social media-based research  “…like creating online customer forums can help marketers take an active and continuous listening approach.  Their insights will be timelier and therefore more relevant.” Timely? Perhaps if people happen to be talking about something you care about when you care about it. But alas, these methods also have inherent limitations and biases.

Heresy, you say?! Yes, social media-based market research has real limitations. Two of the major issues:

1.    The Popcorn effect (well, that’s what I call it anyway). When someone is particularly frustrated or particularly thrilled they “pop” onto a blog or user forum or review site and share a comment online. Many online forums suffer from these extremes, so we have to be careful. (In contrast, surveys capture a fuller spectrum of response including neutrals—which are a legitimate response and critical context in many cases).
2.    Online personas. How people talk, behave and portray themselves online is very different than how they do these things in-person. Ask anyone who has been on an online dating site and then met the individual in-person; the gap between online and in-person can be shocking.  And usually not in a good way. As just one example, in some markets, monitoring online communities would suggest an extremely rational set of buying behaviors backed up by shared reviews and deep, objective product evaluations. But in (gasp!) a focus group, a little discussion leads to people confessing to each other that the tie-breaker between brand A and brand B was based on an entirely irrational input (“I wanted my new HDTV to be sleeker than my brother’s”, the knowing nods of the other group members allowing the moderator to use the group dynamic to probe further and peel the onion on customer behaviors).

Bottom-line

The market researcher who clings to conventional surveys and focus groups like a life raft on a turbulent sea is going to drown. Those who judiciously add various social media and ethnographic-based methods along with some of the other fabulous new qualitative research tools out there will be able to navigate through the storm—and best help clients choose the methods (or mix) for their unique needs. But let’s not pretend that social media-based research is a magic cure-all; too many snake oil salesmen will only ultimately turn off clients and lead to a backlash.  And that’s not going to do anyone and good.

You really should.

A.    It is feasible in many markets.
B.    They are the best source of real competitive insights.

Feasibility

Talking to competitors’ customers is a great form of market research and it is surprisingly feasible in many markets. So, how do you find these customers?

The most practical option is to buy a list. If you compete with large consumer brands, you can ask a panel or list company to estimate an incidence rate for you (for larger consumer brands they may know). Or you might estimate incidence for them given market share data you already have.

Are you in B2B? OK, that can be trickier. You can buy a list of people who are decision makers for your category (from a list broker or a panel company). And then, depending on your market, you might assume that 60% of them will buy from the top 3 competitors. If your market is not too fragmented, that can be a realistic strategy that doesn’t totally break the bank.

In some markets, you may have access to public, online user communities. They can also be a great source for reaching competitors’ customers, but always follow the community guidelines: if research requests are not permitted, don’t do it.

Competitive Insights

We have heard it a million times: perception is reality. You may disagree based on factual evidence, but that isn’t going to get you very far. If Competitor A is widely perceived as having attractive packaging but you think it’s as ugly as a moldy bread, you lose. It “is” attractive.

Whether you reach them through a quantitative and qualitative approach, remember:

• Competitors’ customers keep you honest about your strengths and weaknesses.
• Competitors’ customers know your competitors’ strengths and weaknesses.
• Competitors’ customers know what’s important (and before you decide what competitive edge you will promote, you really do want a reality check on which ones will resonate—you might be surprised).

Practical Considerations

• If you want the research to be blind (you do not want to reveal your organization as the sponsor), then you should hire a research agency or at minimum a market research freelancer.
• If you really only have one competitor you want to assess, and finding those customers is hard: look at your own customer base. Are there folks who recently switched from that brand? As switchers they won’t be totally representative of your competitors’ customer base, but they may still have valuable insights.
• Don’t forget to poll any employees that may have previously worked for your competitors. You don’t want to ask them to break any confidentiality agreements, but they may be able to point you in the right direction.

Bottom-line

Competitors’ customers will keep you honest as you update your competitive positioning. Even if you don’t have a traditional Competitive Intelligence program in place (which typically includes ongoing monitoring of competitors’ strategies and tactics), in my experience, talking to customers is a fast, efficient way of discovering real competitive opportunities.

[Have any questions or comments? Great! Please leave them here as a Comment or call our blog requests line 508.691.6004. Thanks!]