Posts Tagged ‘methodology’

Research 2011: An Educational Experience For All

Published on Mar 31st, 2011 by Jack

Several members of NSUK attended last week’s Research 2011 Conference. As well as bringing back a bevy of complimentary biro’s and USB sticks etc, we also returned with a plethora of knowledge about the industry we work in. However, after all the key notes, end notes, papers, debates, tweets and questions were said and done, 11 key learning points were brought back to Ebury Street:

Research agencies can be under estimated

Advertising agencies and planners are not aware of the extent of research agencies’ capabilities – particularly in the field of innovation. In a wider context, does this mean that research agencies are under selling themselves to the advertising industry? Or maybe we are just not communicating our skill set(s) in the most effective manner?

Creative and research agencies need to co-operate

Tension exists between creative agencies and research agencies, aggravated by the fact that getting to the heart of what people feel and think is a very complex task. This can be countered when everyone works closely together as one team and towards the same objectives and strategy.

The true acronym for behavioural economics should be GMR…

…‘Good Market Research’. If behavioural economics is using the study of social, cultural and emotional behaviour to understand the economic decisions of consumers, what has the research industry been up to recently? Good market research should provide this as standard.

Insight: A tool to promote fear or a tool to use in decision making?

Insight departments often struggle to ‘sell’ research to their wider teams and in reality insight is often used to scare people into action!  Every brand uses their insight team in a completely different way – it’s important for research agencies to know who will be using the insight and how, so we can design and communicate it with the right audience in mind. The more visual, tangible and confident the insight, the more applicable it is to commercial decision making.

The methodological cross roads

Traditional methods are not always enough – sometimes a new, unique approach is needed. If you can’t find such an approach within your own company, don’t rest on your laurels, buy it in! Furthermore, the future of traditional quantitative methods is undecided – will surveys survive until 2020? The answer to this is in our hands. We can improve the life expectancy of surveys if we improve their design and functionality for clients and respondents alike.

Brand Research: What’s your poison?

From semiotics to quantitative metrics, all methodological fields have an approach to brand research. Our task as researchers is to remove methodological biases and decide which the most appropriate approach is in relation to our objectives.

Online opportunities still exist

The internet age is bringing new opportunities to gather high volume, good quality data. More researchers need to take advantage of new data sources, such as social media, to gain access to (sometimes free) extremely large volumes of information.

Ethnography: Is it all in the mind?

Our thinking and frame of mind is key to approaching ethnography correctly. Before entering into someone else’s world, our minds should be open to absorbing everything yet in-tune with what matters – it’s not just about eyes and ears – it’s about minds too! Using semiotics, quality visuals, unusual spaces and social media can all play a part in contributing to great ethnography.

New ideas are a tricky business

Great ideas do not always ‘make the cut’ due to two key reasons:

  • The best ideas have the most resistance
  • The best ideas are normally a result of an intense trial and error process. People do not like failure – therefore limiting human affinity towards the often error ridden process of trial and error

Co- Creation: So we are all together, now where are we going?

Co-creation is best not as an equal process, but when researchers lead respondents. Perhaps here researchers need to utilise the marketing adage ‘never completely trust the public’.

Neuroscience is a methodology ‘in the ascent’

Techniques that identify patterns of thinking (meta-programs) and unconscious engagement (facial coding) are becoming increasingly valuable methods in helping researchers understand data and decode what drives consumer decisions.

Research Resolutions

Published on Jan 7th, 2011 by Jack

The findings of the RSM “State of the Industry” survey reported out at the end of 2010 may have left some researchers feeling anxious about what 2011 may hold for the industry – a continuation of market researcher’s track record of being “consistently wrong”, prolonging our over optimistic outlook and the forward momentum of the much feared  DIY researcher. Conversely, RSM’s findings could be an excellent source for some 2011 research resolutions.

Method Matters

It is a mis-conception outside of the research community that anyone can put a questionnaire together, acquire some respondents and generate some data. As researchers will know, asking the appropriate questions to the correct people is not as easy as this. In years previous to 2011, the complexity of these fundamental research skills may have been under sold to research buyers. These buyers now take such methodological fundamentals for granted. Now in 2011, this should be the year where researchers start to communicate how integral (and complex) these underpinning research principals really are to the success of a study. By doing so, the mis-conception regarding these skills can be turned into an appreciation of their value.

Research IS Sexy

Hans Rosling recently stated that statistics is the sexiest subject in the world. I admit, statistics are sexy. However, even a quantitative researcher has to admit that the creative, artistic world of qualitative research, with its projective techniques and colourful schematics, is far superior in this domain compared to quantitative work. What does this give market researchers overall? A titillating industry. Maybe 2011 should be the year we position market research in this way. Presenting quantitative data in colourful, interactive ways combined with fully utilising the creative freedom allowed in how qualitative findings are shown whilst telling a story to fuel business decisions can turn the personification of research from that of an old man drawing a black and white bar chart into an artistic, original thinking twenty something.

Criticism Where Criticism Is Due

DIY research is one of MR’s biggest threats. This was highlighted by numerous articles in industry publications in 2010. 2011 needs to be the year where these criticisms are backed up by evidence and the anti-DIY perspective laid out to research buyers and clients. By doing this through parallel surveys and such the like we can show that the research agency products available today are of a higher quality and can add greater value vs. DIY offerings.

In Defence of Market Research

Published on Sep 20th, 2010 by Jack

Phillip Graves recently gave the discipline of market research a fierce critique on www.research-live.com (see http://bit.ly/aesjd2 for full article). His criticisms are so extensive he has also authored a book on the matter. However, based on Graves’ comments on the internet, there appears to be some underlying flaws in his (in my view) misperception of what market research is today and where it should go in the future.

Graves refers to market research as a “pseudo-science” insinuating that whilst it wishes to be viewed as a science, it isn’t quite there yet. I disagree based on two key points. Firstly, market research can be seen as being strongly rooted in disciplines such as psychology, sociology and statistics – all of which have a strong scientific base. Science, let us remember, is about method not content. Secondly, research projects frequently seek to solve business problems. It is hard to fathom how Graves cannot see the process of being given a complex problem, devising a solution and providing an answer as anything but a scientific and methodical process.

Methodologically, Graves believes that market research needs to step away from investigating attitudinal issues. Granted, a great difference exists between thinking and doing, but is that to say, for example, a consumer’s perception of a brand they do not buy is not important? These consumers’ attitudes, and changing thereof are, after all, imperative to potentially increasing said brand’s customer base.

Whilst refuting the use of surveys and focus groups, Graves advocates social media research. This is interesting as social media often documents attitudes and thoughts, not just behaviour (one element of research Graves appears to support). This rather contradicts Graves’ initial methodological argument. Furthermore, the content of social media truly is haphazard – a term Graves uses to cast doubt on the functional use of market research – there is little order to a lot of the content of Twitter, Facebook et al. Their content changes day by day and I am sure the users of these mediums do not plan the content they are going to emit far in advance.

Despite these flaws within the argument put forward by Phillip Graves on-line, I fully intend to read his full publication and try to find further holes in his arguments and no doubt, further problematic issues with market research as a discipline.