I’ve been reading a lot of predictions for market research—the typical pontification we see at this time of the year. Some of it has been very inspiring, but too many just rehash the obvious.
Personally, I think there are a lot of interesting theories, a lot of long-term shifts taking place. But as for something we will truly experience in 2015? Something that will really change what we do, how we do it? It’s simple: video-based reports.
data, different statistical methods and models can give different readings. Gray states, “Causation requires correlation of some kind but correlation and causation are not the same.”
When looking at probabilities and categories, Gray cautions the researcher to, “Avoid confusing the possible with the plausible and the plausible with fact. It’s also not difficult, though, to miss something of genuine practical significance that lies hidden beneath…
Market research studies often capture and measure attitudes and behaviors, as if they could all be sorted into neat packages. We carefully structure our questions, and in the case of survey research, even our answers. We use quotas, we use weighting. But are we creating the functional equivalent of genetically modified food?
Wasting time on a bad interview just frustrates the interviewer and wastes time that could be better used elsewhere, so why bother? Unfortunately, in the quest to meet sample size goals and “not waste” sunk costs, too many researchers end up completing bad interviews.
Do you cringe when you hear the word “policies”? Most people do. After all, policies often mean bureaucracy. But in the case of market research, clear policies will minimize the risk of data quality headaches, customer over-surveying, ethical breaches and more.
I’ve come up with a few scenarios that could result if online surveys with non-customer populations became impossible tomorrow. Imagine: you can still reach your customers for research, but what about the rest of the world? What if you could no longer reach qualified, non-customer groups in a quantitative way? If the lists and panels were no longer available or the response rates dropped to .0005 percent, what would the impact be on your market research needs and investments?
They used an “a priori” segmentation model. Yup, that’s right. They went into the study with a hypothesized set of segments in mind. The segments were based on behavioral data from their existing customer database. During the presentation, this confused me. We were, after all, in a session on conducting segmentation. The process was defined as qual, leading to quant. But the speaker occasionally referred to the segments they started with…
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:
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, though the one from whom I learned the most was Dharmesh Shah, Chief Technology Officer and Founder of HubSpot (on Twitter as @Darmesh).
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.
