I really don’t see as that we have much of a choice. We have to adapt to the realities of the 21st century and social network/community marketing is all the rage (for good reason too I think).

Omly offering 20th century research tools will leave MR on the outside looking in while MR functions are increasing brought ‘in-house’ and handled by marketing people who do NOT understand the research context. THEN it will be mugging.

The point “There has allows been IMPLICIT marketing during a survey that speaks of brands, especially once it becomes clear what brand or ad or service the respondent is evaluating”–I agree, this is true. Same with focus groups. I know I have experienced it personally–moderating a focus group, and realizing in the moment that people are being “converted” to the brand just because the brand seems so interested in their opinions.

I am totally open to the possibility that mixing research and marketing could, indeed, be a good thing. It’s just not quite a comfortable idea for me yet

I’m going to have to side with Paul on this one. Traditionally Mugging was bad. If you did a “survey” and were DIRECTLY marketing RATHER than researching, you were deservingly considered an outcast/rogue/scoundrel.

There has allows been IMPLICIT marketing during a survey that speaks of brands, especially once it becomes clear what brand or ad or service the respondent is evaluating. The act of informing those unaware prior to the survey has always been indirectly marketing or lets call it ‘aiding & abetting the level of the awareness’ .

In the 2.0 interactive, bottom up sort of research in communities, things are even less clean cut.

If a company gathers a community to ‘engage’ with and get direct feedback from (sounds like market research) who do we slice off the marketing/branding aspect from the data collection?

Can we?

Should we?

It’s an interesting dilemma. It is my feeling that since the purpose of marketing research is to aid a company/brand in its marketing efforts (after all we don’t do pure theoretical science here) then we need to comes to terms with the co-mingling of research data collection & information dissemination to the “respondent base”.

Yes, we need to be aware of the context. We are researching among the converted, this is NOT genpop sampling. But, if the purpose if to improve the service for existing customers I can’t see this as a problem. What we can’t do is say what is true among the converts is also true among the brand heathens (the masses waiting to be converted

To tap into new markets or find out why people not longer buy a brand (the apostates in keeping with my historical religious theme), for them, we clearly need to do ‘old style’ research NOT among a brand community.

I think there is room for both.

I also agree with Paul Child doubt about “research” and “community”.

Really interesting points you raise about distinguishing between different types of community. I completely agree that spending time up front to agree what the community is looking to achieve is an essential part of the process.

However, one point I would add is that sometimes the marketing effect is a natural result of a well run community with an insight brief. Many Community members will join in order to help shape, influence & direct a brand because they have a stake in it (usually as a customer). Therefore these people want to share a conversation with the brand and learn more about them. Is this marketing? Perhaps not in the traditional sense but in the new era of transparency, telling your customers more about your brand surely doesn’t fall far form that particular tree.

I also think that we may be in danger of applying first principles around research in a way that’s not appropriate. I think we now more than ever have an audience who are naturally exposed to so many marketing, advertising, CRM etc messages that the idea of a sample that doesn’t have knowledge of these things is perhaps unrealistic. Far more important is to understand and embrace this context in all that we do.

I also personally have a question in my head about whether the term ‘research’ is ever right for the communities we (as an industry) run as it brings with it expectations & assumptions that often don’t apply to what we do. But I think that’s a whole other debate!!

Great post! This is SUCH an important topic. I wholeheartedly agree with all your points.