• The division between “DIY” and “Insight Consultancy” market research
• Incorporating real value into insight deliverables
• Social Media’s role in market research
• Recent initiatives to strengthen creative outputs from communities and panels

Click Here to Read the Full Interview

At the very end of the article, though, we see something different regarding how consumers view feedback. The author points out that a new generation of consumers want – and need – to share their opinion on your products and services. In many cases, they’re doing it even when not asked. If the outlet for that feedback is organic and something they connect with, they will happily tell you more than you ever thought to ask.

So we start by reading about the “beleaguered” and “fatigued” respondents, yet close with this altruistic generation of consumers eager to share their opinion on anything and everything they experience. That’s where it really hit home for me: part of our job as researchers becomes repairing that disconnect.

Here are a few tips for reestablishing that connection:

1. Watch more romantic comedies: I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps we can actually learn something from this tired genre after all. Almost without fail, we are given a protagonist who is so busy looking for love that he or she never sees that it’s been right there along. So researchers have become the Hugh Grant of business (something else I never thought I’d say). We’re so busy asking questions and looking for answers that we forget to stop and listen to what consumers are already saying. Use the social media space to help guide research design. Then we can use research to focus on key drivers behind the behaviors we’ve already observed. As Leonard Murphy, who writes for the GreenBook blog, puts it, “from social media you can gauge sentiment and to a lesser extent underlying emotional content, but you won’t be able to determine why the customer feels that way. A survey gives you the opportunity to dig deeper.”

2. Heed the advice of Aretha Franklin: R-E-S-P-E-C-T! Find out what it means to gather insight! Ok, I’ll leave the songwriting to the experts, but it is true for researchers. Going back to Grimes’ article, he gives many examples of how research has shown very little respect to consumers’ time or true opinion. We have the opportunity to engage consumers in a more respectful way, however. Insight communities today are more closely emulating social media platforms, which makes sharing feedback a more organic and natural process for consumers. Mobile capability and gamification make the survey experience less onerous and more interesting for respondents. Use collaborative techniques that allow consumers to actually co-create new products and services with your brand. Embracing these methods will elevate the role of “respondent” to one of “respected advisor.”

3. Evolution, not Revolution: Tracy Chapman isn’t the only one “Talkin’ ‘bout a Revolution” anymore. The Mobile Revolution is here! There’s a Social Media Revolution coming, as we’ve pointed out in this space. However, I think it’s important that we think of all of these new techniques and opportunities as an evolution, not revolution. This is simply the next step in the always-changing relationship between brands and consumers. A revolution suggests burning everything to the ground and starting over. That’s a daunting challenge and, understandably, makes us reluctant to embrace it. Evolution, though, is a smaller change. It’s not burning down what we’ve done, but using all of it as a foundation to build on. Think about making small changes and allow your approach to insights to evolve. Use mobile surveying as a small add-on to a current study and allow it to grow from there. Shift just a couple of traditional focus groups into an online platform. We can use these options to enhance our accumulated experience. This isn’t starting over, it’s just getting better.

Ashkenas highlights a keen observation by Tom Brokaw – that the massive amount of information available actually makes it harder to consume. He says the key is “putting everything in context.” That’s why it’s so important to critically evaluate your information sources and identify your most trusted sources.

As researchers, we have access to consumer opinion, feedback, and brand metrics from what feels like infinite sources. Trying to absorb all of this data puts us on the defensive. People use terms like “drowning” or “buried” in data – these are not pleasant analogies. Instead, put your data sources on the defensive. Challenge their validity, their predictability, and their value to your organization. Once you identify your trusted sources, consider them as one, holistic resource for insight.

Ashkenas lists five steps to help this process and I find the final step most important: “Use information as a basis for dialogue.” This is critical to me because it underscores the fact that there are no silver bullets. Even among your trusted resources, no single data stream or point is definitive on its own. By engaging in open discussion with your team and your customers, you are able to put everything in context.

Gathering data is no longer a challenge, but understanding it is a greater challenge than ever before. It can be a more manageable challenge, though, by identifying your trusted data sources and using that information as a basis for true collaboration with your customers and colleagues.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, there are no silver bullets, so let’s put all this in context. What are you doing to help process and understand the information avalanche?

All in all, the 84^th Academy Awards were largely forgettable.  Billy Crystal, we love you, but it’s time to give that gig to someone born after 1950.

In the midst of this blandness, they set up a skit based on the idea of a 1939 Focus Group for “The Wizard of Oz.” The piece was done by Christopher Guest and his troupe of actors.  I have to say I’m a big fan of Christopher Guest, his acting troupe and cult films.  “Best in Show” remains one of my all time favorites.

But as I watched the piece, which had some funny moments (especially Fred Willard’s love of Flying Monkeys), I was thinking to myself “What was the writer/director’s intent?”  And basically, it was to slam the idea of common folk aiding the creative process.  Personally, I felt that MR had been dissed.

And it goes back to what I would call “creative elitism.”  The idea that creative integrity belongs to the artists and certainly not the common folks.  Besides, what does the public know about creativity?

Gosh, why would we want to ask people what they thought of the movie?  Could it be the fact they’re the ones who pay to see them?  It’s nice to set yourself above the fray and strike out on behalf of creative vision, but no one in Hollywood actually believes that crap.  That industry is ruled by the dollar as much as any CPG or service company.   You ask for the public’s input because you want to put out a product that people will actually want to see.

Well, I thought to myself, Kevin you’re being too parochial.  Most folks probably didn’t take it that way, but looking at the Twitter feed told me that I was not alone:

jokes about focus groups. way to connect to rest of America, Hollywood.

Focus group skit horrible – basically saying average viewers are idiots

I think the thesis is imagine if they focus grouped The Wizard of Oz, it would be terrible. That is a pretty hacky observation.

And I’m not even a fan of focus groups.  I think their time has come and gone with the digital age, but the condescending tone of this skit is what annoyed me.

But to put everyone into context, I believe constructive criticism is an art.  It’s not a matter of turning over artistic direction but you can certainly explore whether the product speaks to you.   Musicians have always tested new material in their acts, gauging what songs are resonating with their fans.

And with movies, one of the more famous uses of market research was for the Michael Douglass-Glen Close Movie “Fatal Attraction.”   Joseph Farrell (who was honored during the awards as one of the greats who passed away) was a pioneer in using MR to help fine-tune a movie.  The original ending of “Fatal Attraction” left audiences feeling empty.  They wanted Glenn Close’s character to ultimately pay for her acts.  So the ending was redone (Ms. Close’s character gets shot by the besieged wife) and the film debuted to critical and commercial success.

My point is that no one is above public opinion.  An artist who is shunned by the public is a legend only in his/her own mind.

That doesn’t take MR off the hook. We have to be every bit as creative in extracting viewer insights so we don’t run roughshod over the artist’s intent but rather discover areas that are not working.  Heck, this is why theatrical plays premiere in Peoria and not on Broadway.  It gives the writers’ an opportunity to work out the kinks.

A century ago Henry Ford famously said this about the public’s ability to guide him: “If I asked the public what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”  And Steve Jobs was a modern day Henry Ford on the value he placed on MR (basically zero).  Mr. Jobs felt the public couldn’t articulate their need for something they haven’t seen.

Is it possible for MR to help create the next big thing?  Can they actually help ensure the success of the next blockbuster?

I think the new interactive tools of MR are a game changer.  Instead of looking at consumers as passive respondents, they become participants.  And a participant can certainly be part of the creative process.

Besides it’s simply bad karma to put yourself above the paying public.

I’ve always admired this quote by the great comedian Jack Benny.  When Mr. Benny was asked late in his career how he had managed to be relevant with the public for over 50 years, he replied.  “When I started out in vaudeville, the other comics talked about playing down to the audience, so I thought I would play up to mine.”

Christopher Guest Focus Group Skit (Hey we got dissed, but this troupe is always funny!)

http://gawker.com/5888465/its-the-christopher-guest-group-doing-a-focus-group-sketch

Crowdsourcing, at its core, is a natural extension of research. Jeff Howe coined the term back in 2006, calling crowdsourcing, “an open call to people who are most fit to perform tasks, solve complex problems and contribute with the most relevant and fresh ideas.” Our job as researchers has always been to help organizations solve complex problems and to provide relevant and fresh insights, yet crowdsourcing hasn’t really been embraced by the research community…yet.

Part of the reason is that the most cited examples of crowdsourcing focus only on the “fresh ideas” part of the definition and not as much on problem solving. My Starbucks Idea and iStockphoto are among the most cited crowdsourcing success stories. However, the end game of these programs is generating many new ideas. The ultimate development and success of those ideas lies in someone else’s hands.

Imagine if, after conducting a study on naming a new product, you presented senior management with 20 possible names. You’d be thrown out of the room, not given the clichéd “seat at the table.” So how do we adapt this concept to our goals as researchers?

One solution vs. Many ideas

In order to make crowdsourcing a successful research tool, we need to take advantage of the creative, collaborative, and iterative nature of crowdsourcing, but need to go beyond an ideation session. We need to arrive at a well-developed solution. This means empowering participants to not only share new ideas, but to fine tune those ideas, vote on others’ ideas, and work together to arrive at one solution.

Less is more

This begins by framing the challenge. Just as we do in all of our other research, we need a clearly defined objective before launching a crowdsourcing study. If you present a detailed and structured challenge, you will get fewer unique ideas, but you will get a lot more depth and refinement to those ideas. If you present a broad, loose structure, you will get far more unique ideas, but not the same amount of depth and detail. Both approaches can be useful, depending on your needs, but be sure to keep this in mind as you match your challenge to your primary goal.

Healthy competition

Crowdsourcing is a team effort and adding a competitive element to any team venture is worthwhile. Remember, we aren’t just looking for a lot of ideas, but for one great idea. So there have to be winners and losers along the way. Don’t shy away from that; embrace it. Competition is extremely motivating to your participants and drives them to develop a general idea further. The premise is that not all ideas are created equal – some are better than others and we want the best. So reward the best. Include a leaderboard or a bonus incentive to a small set of “winners.” Make sure you announce your winners to the entire group. Rewarding and recognizing good ideas will lead to great solutions.

These are just a few tips for adapting crowdsourcing into your research world. You can learn more about the process on our CrowdWeaving page at www.klcommunications.com.

From a marketing perspective, there is a big opportunity for brands to act as “architects,” in which they make the information discovery process more effective and efficient for their target market. The key here is to provide quality and relevant information that speeds up the learning process, as opposed to simply providing sales copy that leads people directly to your website. Social consumers are more savvy than traditional consumers, and can spot a salesy approach from a mile away, so a major focus in social media for businesses needs to be on education.

With that said, how do you become effective architects of the human network? It starts with a top-down commitment to social media at your organization. However, once the resources are put in place to support a social media initiative, developing a strategy from that point becomes a little less straight forward. What content is most relevant to information-seeking prospects? Where do prospects typically start when searching for information? Where do they end up? What is the typical “click path” that they follow before they are even ready to interact with a brand? The list of questions goes on.

How do you derive data-driven answers to these questions? Through using social media analysis tools such as Collective Intellect, Radian 6 or Netbase, in conjunction with tools like Klout or Twitalyzer, you can begin to uncover insights that can help you reverse engineer the information discovery click path. This type of research is based on “grounded” or “empirical” approaches, which takes the opposite approach of traditional research. It involves finding clues and opportunities, and letting that data guide the development of insights, instead of starting with a hypothesis that guides the direction.

It’s sometimes apt to think of a social media analyst as a detective. Just think of a classic detective movie where they pin up the various pieces surrounding a case on a cork board, and use strings to show how the different pieces are connected. This is essentially how social media analysts can go about trying to figure out the click path of their target market.

If the social media detectives are able to provide this type of information to the rest of the marketing department, they will essentially be providing the key background for architects to design effective blue prints in the human network. As social media becomes more ingrained in our culture, this architecture is going to become even more critical for awareness and ultimately the conversion of new leads.

This presentation will be the first of the year for the IIR’s “Insights Series.” It will examine the opportunities presented by new types of Market Research (e.g. social media listening, mobile, text analytics, MROCs, Crowdsourcing, Neuromarketing, etc.) and will offer recommendations & best practices on how to bring them into your research arsenal.

Click Here to Register

We recently teamed up with Crowdsourcing.org to answer the question, “what do the world’s social media users think about crowdsourcing?”

Together we tried to get a sense of how the world is feeling about the different forms of crowdsourcing through the analysis of social media buzz and sentiment. Using a tool called Netbase, which indexes and analyzes millions of conversations across the web, we analyzed data for the top 15 sites generating the most buzz for each of the five main crowdsourcing categories in Crowdsourcing.org’s Directory: cloud labor, crowd creativity,crowdfunding, distributed knowledge and open innovation (definitions available here). This report examines a year of data — timeframe: November 1, 2010 to October 31, 2011 — garnered from Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums, news sites and consumer reviews.

Click Here to View Report

This report is only a taste of what’s to come from this collaboration between KL Communications and Crowdsourcing.org. In the coming weeks, we’ll post in-depth data and analysis reviewing the top sites in each of the five categories. Stay tuned!

For Anne Mulcahy and Xerox, market research became important for them when they hit rock bottom. They went into a ‘quiet phase’ (no press releases, no advertising, and no new product launches) for a year and a half and really began doing research on the company, brand, and the products. Traditional market research really allowed them to see where they needed to make fixes to improve the company. Market research provided data and hard facts on what was going on with the business… a painful process that revealed past mistakes, but also areas for realistic improvement. Market research provided not only the facts on the ground, but insights as to where they were going wrong.  

For Anne Mulcahy, market research not only shows you the challenges, facts, and the lay of the land, but also insights on direction. This, she believes, is the challenge for our industry: it’s not simply enough to provide these hard facts, but what do you do with them? When asked about social media, again, while great data can be gathered, data isn’t really needed. She emphasized that value with social media is not just adding another layer of insight, but being ableto synthesize it with other data streams to create insights that are holistic and trulyactionable. In order for market research to remain relevant, they have to provide more than just mountains of data.

Data alonewill not save the day for a company who is struggling to be profitable, to regain lost market share, or to see how a new product will be received before launch. What will save a company is a combined effort of data with insights and actionable steps. Anne Mulcahy would not hire Steve Jobs (someone who once claimed to not use market research services). She agreed that he was a genius, but that was not how her company decided to operate.  Market research provided the tools she needed as part of a system to turn around the multi-billion company she was running. To the other CEOs that think like Anne Mulcahy, market researchers welcome you to TMRE. As we prepare to gather next year (again in Florida), I am confident many of us will take the message of providing actionable insights to the problems corporations face.

In Jonathon Fields recent book, “Uncertainty: Turning Fear and Doubt Into the Fuel for Brilliance,” he praises the use of creating your own co-creation community to help craft ideas and uncover insights about your products & services. He claims that they not only help add certainty to what you’re doing, but can also alert you to any threats or opportunities that you may have otherwise missed. However, Fields does warn against relying too heavily on the “co-creation crutch” when embarking on the quest to create something new:

“You must also be alert to the lure of leaning on the crowd as a crutch to protect yourself emotionally from the pain of being the sole owner of a creative failure…If you find yourself relying on the crowd not only to inform but to guide your direction, that’s a major sign that you’re yielding autonomy and vision to others…Bringing other people in does not lessen the burden…it simply provides a greater set of data points, constructive judgement, and a higher level of incremental certainty.”

This is certainly a valid point to keep in mind as you embark on any co-creation initiative, whether it be long-term insights communities or shorter crowdsourcing projects. While you most certainly want foster an environment that allows your collaborators to come up with new, out-of-the-box ideas, it’s not always prudent to hand them a blank slate and say, “do whatever you want.” At first glance it may seem easier to go into these initiatives with a “management by abdication” approach, but you greatly increase the risk of acquiring results that are off on a tangent, and ultimately don’t achieve your goals.

What insight professionals need to aim for is the balance between delegating creative tasks and establishing rules & parameters that guide these activities. Ultimately true vision still follows a top down approach, and without strong leadership clearly defining strategic direction, all of the co-creation activities in the world won’t create true forward progress. At a time when developing a close relationship with customers is more tantamount to success than ever, finding the balance between creative openness and clear direction is a worthy state to aim for.