Zebra Bites has a new home

From now on, Zebra Bites can be found at:

http://zebrabites.com/

Please change your bookmarks and/or RSS feed

Satisfaction guaranteed? Hardly.

Customer satisfaction. You want it. You need it. Your KPIs demand it.

But how do you get it? And how do you measure it?

“Already onto it!” you say. “Covered that in our customer satisfaction survey, with some questions asking our customers how satisfied they are.”

BBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZ.

Wrong answer.

Perhaps surprisingly, it’s not very helpful to ask your customers how satisfied they are. If they rate you highly, the most you’ll get out of it is a warm fuzzy feeling. If they rate you poorly, you’ll be scratching your head, wondering why.

Either way, it’s a waste of both time and money to ask them how satisfied they are without understanding what ‘satisfaction’ actually means to them.

An important step in the market research process – but one that’s all too often overlooked – is to identify the dimensions of satisfaction from your customers’ perspective.

How do they describe it? What does it feel like? What does it depend on? And so on…

Good qualitative research can answer these questions: it can give you important and relevant detail that you’d otherwise miss.

And this kind of information has legs that go beyond KPIs (which always seem to get in the way of organisations becoming truly customer focussed, but that’s another discussion in itself). Good qualitative research can tell you exactly what action you need to take. It can tell you what you’re doing right, what you could be doing better, and where the opportunities lie.  

Pretty good eh?  

Pioneering Porcupines: the lot of them!

See here for a brief explanation of the Porcupine principle.

Julian Cole, of Adspace Pioneers fame (and Social Media Strategist extraordinaire over at The Population), has compiled a list of the top marketing blogs in Australia.

So it’s actually more like 100+ porcupine reads: each with its own clever blend of fine thinking and discourse. Value.

And Zebra Bites made the list! Currently sitting, stripey and pretty, at #96. Interestingly, Zebra Bites is one of only 3 market research blogs on the list. Even more interestingly, it looks like it's the only qualitative market research blog listed…

: o

83% of people agree

This is a qualitative make-over post. 

I’m going to do a 'before and after' on a sentence I pulled from a qualitative research report I was asked to read recently.

Here’s the before sentence: Of the 4 groups, 83% of people said they liked the design.

Now some of you reading will, at this point, know exactly what I’m talking about: You can go and play. For those who don’t please keep reading.

There are many things wrong with the above sentence being part of a qualitative research report. Here are 3 points to start:

1. It’s not robust

Percentages, in a qualitative context, are pretty much meaningless. While at first blush, a grand 83% looks pretty good, what does it really mean? It means that, assuming 4 groups of 8 participants, 26.6 research participants, screened to fit a particular profile, and willing to attend a particular research group, said they liked the design. That’s a very small, skewed sample: hardly robust and hardly worth reporting. But that’s only the beginning…

2. It’s not controlled

To get a good, clean read on any particular issue in a quantitative survey, the way the questions are ordered and the way they are asked is key. For all intents and purposes, and as much as possible, the survey should be administered in a controlled environment. Even rotating the order of questions is controlled. This ensures reliability (being able to replicate the findings) and therefore, some confidence in the results.

In contrast, to get a good read in a qualitative study (we don’t necessarily go for clean in qual), we need to dance around a bit. Cover the floor. A good qualitative facilitator will bounce around, jump ahead, reverse, turn corners, step to the side…you might even see a grand jeté.

The point here is that the context within which the question is asked, ie the discussion group, will vary wildly for each group. In effect, it will be confounded by all sorts of, well, confounding variables; not least, the discussion itself. The fact that 83% of people said they liked the design means absolutely zip without understanding the discussion that came before.

3. It's open to misinterpretation

The third and most worrying point is the potential for misinterpretation. The most obvious here is making the assumption that 83% of people, per se, liked the design. And then using this ‘finding’ to make Big, Important and Expensive decisions, like changing the design.

Here’s the after sentence: Positive feedback for the design was based on factors X, Y and Z.

Note the glaring (and appropriate) lack of percentages?

Corporates on Twitter: a culture clash?

I’ve been watching the BigPond/Twitter proceedings with great interest.

In true Web 2.0 fashion, the discussion has taken on a life of its own.

Well, for the most part.

Ironically, BigPond’s own contribution to the conversation has been somewhat stilted. A bit reserved. A bit corporate. 

No surprises there. It’s what they do and what they are. And being corporate is fine in a prospectus. And it’s fine on TV. It’s part of their groove and, no doubt, part of what gives the big in BIGpond some credibility.

But being corporate on Twitter just doesn’t work. And trying to be not corporate, when, by all intents and systems you are corporate, just isn’t very credible.

Can Twitter ever be the right medium for corporates? As corporates?

I don’t know, but I don’t think so.

P.S Then again...

Are you STILL following me?

So, what to make of Bigpond's frolic in Twittersville? 

I can’t think of anything good about it.

On a personal level, it’s really annoyed me. First, I had to write an extra email that, had the @Bigpondteam not teased me with their tweet, I could have avoided. Second, after our brief tweet-a-tweet, I still had to send my request to them by snail mail. And last, but certainly not least, it hasn’t really helped me solve my Bigpond problem.

Tip #1: Understand your customers

Why didn’t they do any basic research before following and tweeting at me? Why didn’t they look at who I follow, and who’s following me?

I’m wondering how they just plain didn’t notice that the Tweetosphere is rife with savvy, and very articulate, social media observers just looking for a case study such as this…

It’s being played out to that effect. Analysis of Bigpond’s tweet effort has been tweeted and re-tweeted around the traps and has, of course, spread to the (echoing) boulevards of blogsville. The recurring theme seems to be about how brands should not conduct themselves on Twitter.

My question for Bigpond is simple: Why Twitter? What customer needs are you fulfilling? Think about it and get back to me. On Twitter please.

(More about this in an excellent post by Lid here) 

Follow The Zebra

Bigpond are following me on Twitter.

: o

It all started with this Tweet:

Me: Composing letter to Bigpond to protest charges for additional usage. ROFLMAO. Just typed Pigpond inadvertently. Might leave it as is. 09:42 PM September 24, 2008 from web

Me: And now Bigpong! It honestly just fell out as I was typing. 09:47 PM September 24, 2008 from web

And then, the next day:

Bigpond: @zebrabites BigPond® would like 2 chat about the concerns U have. Click http://tinyurl.com/5ufhvf & a BigPond consultant will email U back. 12:03 PM September 25, 2008 from web in reply to ZebraBites

Me: Hello Bigpond and thanks for the follow! I think. : S 12:06 PM September 25, 2008 from web

Me: @BigPondTeam I have already emailed you and without much success. Will this time be different? 12:09 PM September 25, 2008 from web in reply to BigPondTeam

Me: @BigPondTeam Yoohooo! Are you still there?? 12:26 PM September 25, 2008 from web in reply to BigPondTeam

Bigpond: @zebrabites yes we will certainly assist in any enquiry you have 12:39 PM September 25, 2008 from web in reply to ZebraBites

Me: @BigPondTeam Great! I will email you my woes and await your reply. 12:42 PM September 25, 2008 from web in reply to BigPondTeam

Me: off for a walk to post a letter. To Bigpond. Cause they need a (hard copy) signature to process my request. *mind boggling* 05:01 PM September 25, 2008 from web

You can find further interesting twittering on this here:

And by the way Bigpond, my invitation still stands!

Me: @BigPondTeam Come and *listen* to responses to your tweets: a lot to learn here if you're interested! about 6 hours ago from web in reply to BigPondTeam.

The Age of Conversation: A Great Porcupine Read

Today’s porcupine book is a shaping and defining must read for anyone interested in, well, the age of conversation! 

Get inspired.

Title: The Age of conversation: 100 voices. 1 conversation

Editors: Gavin Heaton and Drew McLellan

And the next edition will be out soon!

How was it for you?

I’ve been reflecting on the AMSRS conference I attended in Melbourne last week; wondering why I was so underwhelmed.

Three things that bugged me and then I’ll shut up and move on in my life.

1. Eeew…mould!

I wasn’t the only one to notice the irony. The conference was titled Breaking The Mould, yet conference presenters were made to conform to a prescribed, very dull and downright ugly, PowerPoint presentation theme. A bit control-freak and yesterday I think: were the organisers afraid we’d forget which conference we were at?

2. Presentations

I really felt short changed here. On the whole, there were far too many squirm-in-your-seat, bum-numbingly dull presentations. In effect, not much to say about the content: perhaps it was brilliant, but I switched off.

There were some exceptions; the Pecha Kucha session was great. Laurent Flores, David Tunnicliffe and Dianne Gardener all gave wonderful, engaging presentations too.*

3. Brand flogging

I won’t name names, but in some of the sessions there was a disproportionate level of sell in relation to useful or interesting content. I reckon that if you’ve got something interesting to say, people will seek and/or forgive the branding. If you don’t, it just sounds hollow.

Ok. Moving on now. But I’d be very interested to hear what other attendees thought…

* Because the presentations were streamed, I didn’t get a chance to see them all, so apologies if you presented a cracking presentation but don’t get a mention here. 

Back in five minutes

Had an interesting (!?) few days at the AMSRS conference here in Melbourne. Not all good and not all bad. In the least, it gave me a lot to think about and a lot to play with. More on this when I get back to Sydney in a few days. 

Get jiggy with it

So, following on again from the last post: what to do?!

You can’t just read up on this stuff (although it’s useful to do so, and I’ll be compiling a list of good porcupine reads of relevance over time).

Reading is not enough because successful Web 2.0 case studies have a very limited shelf-life. By the time you read about it, it’s probably going to be just that little bit yesterday.

But more importantly, it’s outrageously limiting to develop strategies a la text-book case study, because it’s virtually (hahaha) impossible to know what's possible in this space. The exciting thing about Web 2.0 is the potential to stretch, and even create, new boundaries.

I think the very best, and possibly the only, way to really understand the world of Web 2.0 is to get involved. Become a participant. Wander the web. Weave your way through a community of blog rolls. Leave a comment. Twitter. Get a feel for the fussy, yet forgiving nature of Web 2.0 etiquette. In essence, in case you haven’t already heard the phrase; join the conversation. 

What I’m suggesting isn’t new. It’s still all about understanding your customers. It’s just that to do so in a Web 2.0 savvy way, companies, brands, marketers, researchers, you, we need to get more involved than perhaps we're used to.

Burning questions

Following on from my last post, consider, also, that any given community’s needs and expectations are evolving: the Web 2.0 environment is constantly refreshing and reloading itself. What people Digg (figuratively or literally) one minute is buried the next. By the time we try to distill the elements that drove the Digging, ‘they’ (Web 2.0 citizens – or, umm…people by any other name) have moved on to something else.

But, in the midst of this exciting uncertainty – or perhaps because of it – there are some urgent Web 2.0 (let’s not even mention Web 3.0) questions burning ulcers into the guts of the marketing world. No one wants to be left behind or possibly worse, get it wrong.

How can the potential of this untamed, unbridled world nonpareil be harnessed?

You get that it’s not going away and that you need to be a part of it: how can, and should, your brand ride this digital/social media wave?

You get that it’s not about monologues anymore, but conversations: what’s the best way for your brand to start a conversation?

You know that if you don’t join the conversation, it’ll happen without you: web-whispers behind your back. But is blogging, vlogging, Twittering, Facebooking or MySpacing for your brand?

What to do?!

Ch-Ch-Changes (look out you rock 'n rollers)

So, what should we be measuring here? What will Web 2.0 research gems look like?

On the surface, it’s an easy enough question to answer. Once the marketing objectives have been defined, then we’ll just go measure how well the brand tracks on those measures. Of course. You nut.

But wait a minute. That assumes you know what you’re trying to achieve in this space. More fundamentally, it assumes you know what brand equity in the Web 2.0 environment even looks like.

And this is the crux of the matter.

With Web 2.0, brand equity is, for the most part, defined by the community. Heavens – it’s even generated by the community.

That’s quite a shift for the way we think about marketing.

Well, blog me over the head

Crikey. Just when we researchers thought we had a pretty good grip on this whole measurement thing, along comes Web 2.0 to blog us on the head and throw us sideways.

Budgets are (or will be) moving into this space faster than you can tweet about it.

But what on earth should we be measuring here? What should we track and how will it help us?

What do we need to consider, from a research point of view, when we’re looking to understand this (relatively) shiny new world of Web 2.0?

Statistics without tears: another porcupine read

I love this book.

I think of it as a dear old friend: gentle, kind hearted and dependable.

For those of us who aren’t statistically inclined, it provides easy access to the world of distributions, significance, correlation co-efficients, and the rest.

Just the ticket for a qualitative researcher! Porcupine worthy.

Title: Statistics without tears: a primer for non-mathematicians

Author: Derek Rowntree

ISBN: 0024040908

So, should we be worried?

The paradigm has truly shifted (when has it ever stayed still?!).

With so much information available, it’s pretty clear that information, per se, doesn’t hold much currency anymore*.

But the more things change, the more they stay the same (which always sounds better in French: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose).

It’s one thing to have information. It’s quite another to make sense of it. And beyond making sense of it, it’s still another thing to help someone else make sense of it.

So while Aaron Sorkin may well read through each and every post generated on his facebook page, and sort and filter it into useful form, chances are, marketers won’t have the time to. Nor, possibly, will they have the inclination…

I can only guess there’ll be a greater need for our skills and expertise in doing just that. Sorting through and making sense of it all: turning these magnificent, but daunting yottabytes (don’t worry, we’re not quite there yet) of information into something useful.

From my point of view, the researchers’ realm isn’t just getting bigger, it’s getting a lot more interesting too!

----------

* Michael Wesch explains this all beautifully on YouTube.

Aaron Sorkin's getting it for free!

There’s been some talk of a facebook movie with Aaron Sorkin (the West Wing screenwriter) being involved.

One way he’s doing his research is through a group on facebook.

Fantastic. Just look at all the data he’s collecting!

At last count there were:

-  6115 members (including me!)

-  56 discussion topics (mostly user generated)

-  648 wall posts

All of this will provide him with rich, detailed and focused feedback.

My mind is spinning. Not only is he collecting a wealth of data, but it’s probably pretty good stuff too. While there may be a possible ‘facebook’ effect, there’s minimal research effect: I’m guessing people are just telling it like it is.

What price would you put on this kind of data? Whether you’re a research buyer or supplier: think about that for a moment.

Well, guess what? It’s FREE! Gratis.

*Stops dead in tracks*

All this information, and for free? Isn’t this OUR manor? The researchers’ realm? Are we being ousted? Should we be worried?

I have my own point of view on this, but I’d be fascinated to hear what others think before I post…so any researchers reading this, please feel free to comment!

The times they are a-changin' (again)

My bookmark bar keeps changing. I now have a totally different bookmark bar to the one I had even a month ago.

BBC, SMH, ABC, etc – gone to the sidelines. Even the weather’s been bumped from prime position.

New diggs on the block; Google Reader, facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed, Diigo, Addict-o-matic (heard about this via the amazing Gavin Heaton).

What’s changed?

I can now get micro-relevant content. Me-centric information. Katie-focussed bites.

I can subscribe to feeds and sites that tell me what’s happening in my world, in words, sounds and images that have personal meaning. And for the first time, today I checked facebook before I checked the weather.

Yep. The world’s changing (again).

But the changes we’re seeing with Web 2.0 (and beyond) are different: subtle at times, penny dropping at others, but without shadow of a doubt, different.

Why?

For sure, Web 2.0 is sparking change at a mass social/community level. But – and this is what’s different – it’s sparking change in a personally noticeable and shout-worthy way at the individual level too.

Exciting stuff. This, indeed, is a new age of conversation.

Porcupine books (ouch!)

I call them Porcupine books because they have lots of pages I’ve tagged with little post-its and they kind of remind me of a porcupine’s quills.

It’s a simple and effective rating system: the more quills (tags), the more useful or interesting the read.

Anyway, I thought I’d start sharing my Porcupine book list. Today’s pick is one of my all time top-rating Porcupines.

Title: The Brand Innovation Manifesto

Author: John Grant

ISBN: 0470027517

Source: My very clever friend David, from The Red Brick Road, told me about it.

Nutshell: Best brand read for a long, long time: it fundamentally changed the way I think about brands and branding. 

Does it have to be so freaking boring?

I went to two presentations this week: one was about the Consumer of The Future and the other was about Greenwashing. I find both to be fascinating topics.

A number of speakers presented at each session, but two really stood out.

The first was Mel Silva, from Google Financial Services, at the Consumer of The Future session.  Mel gave a cracking presentation: very engaging, perfectly paced, and (thus) ultimately useful.

Different story for the presentations at the Greenwashing session. To my disappointment, the presentations were excruciatingly boring in a collapse on the floor, very dramatic, “I can’t bear another minute of this” kind of way a bit dull. While I desperately wanted to listen, and desperately tried to listen, I just couldn’t get my brain to engage. Instead, I spent the hour (one of the longest I can remember) thinking about other things entirely.  I don’t even know what the speakers said. Aaarrggghhh.

I wonder how much this happens in research debriefs? Slide after slide of insight and stats that clients want to know about, need to know about, but can’t get interested about. Because of the way it’s presented (Zebra presentations excluded of course!).

Come on research land. We have interesting (fascinating!) stories to tell. Let’s not let ourselves down with boring presentations. Think of ways to spiff them up (and I don’t mean Powerpoint clipart).

Band-aid Qualitative Research

A quick read. Fast turnaround. Need a topline by Wednesday.

I haven’t quantified this trend, but based on our sample of one (Zebra!), there seem to be a lot more of these types of projects around.

I put it down to two key reasons:

1. The nature of our clients’ subject matter (Web 4.0 anyone?). On this front, it’s all about faster, more efficient, leaner…

2. The seeming trend to forgo strategy research upfront. Invariably, this means a lot more last minute jitters and what is, essentially, band-aid research.

Well, you shouldn’t have been running on the asphalt. Research could have told you where the grass was greener in the first place.

The social media marketing front(ier)

I went to a fantastic session this morning put on by AIMIA, all about social media marketing (SMM): great speakers, great content and a lot of food for thought.

I thought Julian raised a very interesting point in his presentation: there’s a lot more to SMM than just starting a conversation. You have to hang in there to develop the relationship. Be there for the long run. Listen and respond. Give a little of yourself. Add value.

Of course, this isn’t a SMM issue per se. Regardless of the technology they use, some brands seem to be more genuinely interested and concerned and open to what their customers say – ready to respond and adapt accordingly – than others. All things being equal, I’d bet the former would have a much more successful SMM experience than the latter.

But what’s a ‘more successful’ SMM experience? What should we be measuring here? 

As always, it depends on the marketing objectives. But here’s the exciting bit: in this dynamic, unbridled space, the marketing objectives themselves need to shift, considerably, from how we’ve defined them in the past. 

The more you know

The more you know about something, the more you realise that you don't really know very much about it at all. Relatively speaking.

This is a gem that’s held true for my whole learning life. It’s a concept I love, albeit somewhat reluctantly.

It means there’s always more to learn: a lovely thing for a qualitative researcher. On the other hand, it’s not quite so lovely for arriving at conclusions. 

Further research is (always) warranted...

So, what do qualitative researchers do?

Let’s start with some context and an example.

Some context

People buy things. People sell things. How can people who sell things get more people to buy (more of) the things they’re selling?

An example

Just say we want to sell cupcakes. A good first step is to try to understand a few things about cupcake buyers, or potential cupcake buyers:

• Why do people buy cupcakes? What need or desire do cupcakes fulfill?
  
• When and where (and why then and there) do they buy cupcakes?
  
• What is/who is involved in the cupcake decision making process?
  
• What’s the best way to communicate with cupcake buyers/potential buyers?
  

These are the kind of questions that a qualitative researcher would ask. Our objective is to understand attitudes and behaviours around cupcake buying (and eating!).

This information will help us develop appealing cupcakes, based on buyers' needs and desires. It will help us develop relevant and appealing messages about our cupcakes. In effect, it will help us to sell more cupcakes.

Clever, clever, clever (because of Omega 3, of course)

The title of this post alludes to the veritable plethora of products in the baby/toddler food category promoting fortified vitamins, nutrients, etc. If you were to believe the hype, no baby should do without them. Which parent, in their right mind, would risk it?

Actually, the baby/toddler food market intrigues me altogether. Absolutely fascinates me.

Think about it.

What did babies and toddlers ever do before there was ‘proper’ baby food?

It takes some clever marketing to make products that are totally unnecessary (ie baby food, toddler milks) seem like no brainer basic requirements.

Tagging the moment

I've been playing with Shazam this weekend.

This kind of idea/technology can only mean wonderful and exiting things for market research. It's so incredibly engaging (and fun). It's precise documentation of the mood, in the moment. 

First, some (basic) definitions

Before I start talking about what qualitative researchers do, I thought it might be useful to cover some basic definitions. Specifically, what is qualitative research? How is it different to other kinds of research?

Very broadly speaking, there are two kinds of market research: quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative market research is generally used to measure or quantify a given variable of interest, eg how big is a market, how many people hold a certain attitude or behave in a certain way, like a particular brand, bought product X, etc.

Qualitative market research, in comparison, is used to provide understanding. Here, the inquiry is focussed on why people hold certain attitudes, behave in a certain way, or like a particular brand or product over another, etc.

The mystery of qualitative research

I recently got in touch with a long lost, very dear friend of mine. We met at uni many years ago and he now works in IT. He’s extra-clever: one of those people that ‘gets’ things. And he’s just a really, really nice guy. Top that!

But I digress.

What’s extraordinary – why I’m blogging about this – is that when I told him that I was a market researcher, mostly undertaking qualitative market research projects, I saw not just a hint, but a great wave of confusion cross his face.

So I paused.

“And what exactly is it that you do?” he asked.

“You know, find out what people think about things: products, services, brands…you know. And try to work out how to talk to and with them in a meaningful way…”

Didn’t cut it. He didn’t know. And if someone that smart and quick to get stuff didn’t get it, it’s got to be my fumbling explanation.

So over the next week or so, I’m going to try to explain just what it is I (ie as a qualitative market researcher) do. I’m going to try to make it easy to understand for someone new to, or not in, our industry.

: o

The (Australian) qualitative blog space

Is very, very quiet.

There seem to be quite a few marketing blogs around. There are a few (albeit not many) mostly quantitative market research blogs too, eg the lovely Kate from Tribe, and the Hitwise blog (thank you to JC for the link). But there aren’t any other Australian qualitative market research blogs that I’m aware of.

How come? Not on the radar maybe? 

Off to ponder the above.

Is qualitative research science or art?

Both really. I came across this the other day, which made me think.

What I find most interesting is not the idea that qualitative research is ‘science’ too, but the idea of science itself, as (just) a set of epistemological principles. A theory of knowledge. An approach.

Distortion

The issue here isn’t the frameworks per se. Most are probably grounded in sound theory and I’ve no doubt that some high quality thinking goes into developing them. All good. In theory.

But real life just doesn’t work to a framework. When we’re actually in the field, or doing analysis, how can these products be anything but a hindrance?

This is what happens when you squeeze an unpredictable output into a pre-defined framework:

-       You’re likely to change its potential shape and direction, according to the framework.

-       You’re likely to miss an opportunity because you weren’t looking for it within the framework.

-       You’re likely give undue weighting to a particular finding, because you were looking for it within the framework.

Blinkered thinking.

Buyers beware. No matter how erudite and/or elegant the framework appears to be, unless it’s been built from scratch, around your unique and specific research issues, save yourself time and money: you might as well ask for the debrief before you do the research.

Blinkered thinking - not good

And so back to qualitative research: What's good? What's not? 

I recently had a letter published in B&T magazine about qualitative frameworks.  In case you missed it, here’s the gist of it:

I’m not a fan of proprietary qualitative products. You know, those neatly packaged, pre-defined frameworks with the little TM (trademark) symbol tipping its hat, top right. New product development, brand development, needs based segmentations, etc. You name it – seems that there’s a framework for sale.

This is clever marketing. Research buyers, who might not be comfortable with qualitative research, who may find the approach a bit gossamer or nebulous, would probably be reassured by the cut-and-dried impression of control this gives.

But using a pre-defined framework in qualitative research is inappropriate.

Why?

Well, I don’t think I’m going to start any great debates by suggesting that good qualitative research output, by its very nature, is unpredictable. It’s exploratory: you’re (hopefully) learning something that you didn’t know. There are curls and swirls and surprises each and every way you look. That’s the magic of it.

Meanwhile, a pre-defined framework sets parameters that preclude the user from discovering much of the unexpected.

The point is that one should expect the unexpected from any decent qualitative inquiry (or why bother?).

How to sell it

Getting people to 'do' green is not just about selling environmentally-friendly products. It’s also, fundamentally, about selling (buying into) a state of mind. 

So I think the best use of market research in the green space will be around communications. Here we can help with the biggest question of all: how to sell green (vs what to sell).

The great green marketing tidal wave (you ain’t seen nothing yet)

More on brilliant qualitative research later in the week.

But right now, some sustainable food for thought.

There’s an event called The Green Awards For Creativity in Sustainability in the UK. High time we had the same in Australia (think I might get onto the case).

Anyway, I’m looking forward to the 2008 UK awards. It’ll be very interesting to see if/how the key messages have changed since last year: leading/tapping into the fast-moving green collective consciousness.

The green marketing (tidal) wave presents a fascinating conundrum for market research. There's a gap between green intentions and green behaviours. So, for example, when presented with a new green product idea, and research participants say ‘I’d buy it’ or ‘Never in a million years!’, to what extent should we base decisions on their responses? Are attitudes to green changing just a bit too unpredictably and just a bit too fast for market research to be of much help here?

Yes and no.

Hang onto that cliff until next time…

But, ahem...

Following on from my last post, what are the implications here for research buyers and research suppliers?

For research buyers

Beware the travelling junior. If, for example, you commission an 8 group project and 4 of those groups are run by JRs, you’ve just paid half of your research budget in training.

Unless you’re happy to subsidise these training sessions, and are confident that the output is sound enough to guide your business strategies, then insist that SRs moderate all your groups. You’ll be getting far better value for your investment.

For research agencies

It’s definitely a challenge. How will your JRs get experience if, as I’m suggesting, they shouldn’t be let loose on client work?

Well it’s a matter of rethinking the status quo. Maybe co-moderation – where JRs sit in on focus groups run by SRs to learn the qualitative ropes and practice their techniques in situ –  should be standard until the JRs get some business world experience under their belts. A few years experience at least.

There are two key benefits here: the client gets the goods and your JRs get the experience. Yes, it’s true, the cost of the training shifts back to you. But really, ahem, it should never have been otherwise.

Not really best practice

So why shouldn’t junior researchers (JRs) be allowed to moderate client-paid focus groups?

Two main reasons:

1.     They’re often still learning the mechanics of facilitating a group. The cognitive effort they need to master this art will be at the expense of the greater commercial purpose of the research.

2.     JRs are relatively new to the actual marketing business (vs the theory). In effect, and relatively speaking, they don’t have much business world experience.

This is not, by any stretch, a criticism of JRs. Most of the JRs I’ve worked with have been bright young things with verve, insight and a great passion for their work. But these wonderful qualities are no substitute for business world experience.

Consider this scenario:

A research agency gets a brief and a team, usually comprising senior researchers (SRs) and JRs, is put together. There’s a proposal to write and the JR will often be asked to ‘have a go’ at writing it. Of course, before it actually goes out to the client, it’s checked by the SR. More specifically, it’s checked, edited and/or rewritten. 

Ditto the discussion guide. The JR ‘has a go’ at writing it, and then, invariably, it’s pulled and pushed into shape; re-ordered and re-worked by the SR. Out in the field, the SR moderates the focus groups that the client wants to watch, while the JR does the regional/interstate focus groups that are unlikely to be viewed.

A couple of things to note here:

1.     That JRs are being involved in the whole research process and thus, getting experience in the field. Hooray, until you read the next point.

2.     That JRs, who aren’t quite across developing a proposal or a discussion guide, often end up moderating focus groups despite the fact that they don’t fully get it.

This cannot be best practice. Not by a long shot.

What are the implications here? And is there a solution? Stay tuned…

Good moderation: what does it take?

I’ve poked a few sticks at quantitative market research practices recently. And why not? Sitting pretty from the observation deck, it’s always easy, and so much fun, to see what someone else could be doing better.

But fair is fair and now it’s time to look at qualitative research. And let’s pick on focus group moderation.

Before I go on, a little story:

When I was just starting out in qualitative research, I was based in London. Fine city, but I seemed to spend an awful lot of time out of London, on the road, conducting focus groups anywhere but London. I must have covered every corner of regional England, and a fair chunk of country-side Scotland too.

Not surprisingly, these were groups that the client didn’t see: couldn’t make it to, or didn’t want to travel for. Those who sent me off to such remote parts were clever enough to know not to put a junior moderator in front of a client. They obviously knew what any experienced moderator knows. Good moderation comes down to experience, and lots of it.

Junior researchers (JRs), perhaps straight out of university or a year or so into their careers, really shouldn’t be allowed to run client-paid groups.

There are two main reasons for this. Stay tuned...

A good sample

So if you're reading this, I'm assuming you didn't go for the Sony Bravia.

Following on from the last post, good, useful qualitative research output is sample dependent.

If you aren’t talking to the right people, then even the cleverest, most innovative techniques in the world won’t help.

So how do you make sure your sample is a good one? There are 3 things to keep in mind:

-  Sample definition

-  Recruitment

-  The research dynamic

Sample definition is a job for brand and product managers/marketers. Why? They typically know their business best, and it’s absolutely paramount that the sample is aligned with their business and marketing objectives. Anything short of a sample defined according to these objectives will be sub-optimal.

Recruitment is another important factor in getting the right sample. In this case, it’s down to a sharp screener and a fine recruiter (albeit, to get the well-screened and well-recruited participants to actually show up, you really just need luck).

Finally, the research dynamic. The aim here is to manage the research dynamic so that you get the best out of your sample. For example, deciding whether or not it’s appropriate to mix men and women in any particular group, or the best way to split ages across the groups, etc. These considerations play an important role in determining the difference between useful and useless research.

The zebra bite? A well-defined, well-screened sample, set to ‘work’ in an appropriate forum is the starting point for good, useful qualitative research.

Next time – fieldwork!

Brilliant qualitative research (and how to get it)

Qualitative research. 

Love it? Hate it? Not quite sure?

Without doubt, qualitative research output is hugely variable.

On the one hand, it can deliver quite stunning output: pragmatic insight that inspires brilliant marketing strategies.

On the other hand, the output can be a waste of time and investment. Possibly colourful and possibly entertaining, but nevertheless, quite useless.

If you want colourful and entertaining, buy a Sony Bravia. If you want inspiring, pragmatic research output, then stay tuned. Over the next week or so, I’m going to tell you how to get it.

Green and lovely

You all know how in love I am with BBFGs. Well, here’s another reason to love them: they’re relatively green!

Doing qualitative research online is actually a green step in the right direction carbon-emission wise. No flying or driving around to do fieldwork.

Good one!

Strategic research

What is it exactly?

I can think of a few possible definitions:

-     Research that helps guide or develop a marketing or business strategy, eg sizing or scoping a market, etc

-     Research that’s part of a marketing strategy, eg refining an offer, communications research, etc

-     Research to confirm that a strategy is on strategy, eg customer feedback, etc

Now if you ask me (go on), that just about covers all research. So all research is, one way or another, strategic – is it not?

It bugs me when my industry colleagues flap on about doing ‘strategic’ research. 

Yes – I get that adding the word ‘strategic’ can make the research sound like a superior kind of research compared with just calling it market research. But scratch a little deeper and it really doesn’t tell you very much. Because get a grip and here’s some news: market research is strategic by default!

Hmmm…glad I got that off my chest.

More pie?

Look at this. Do you think they read my blog?

; )

When wouldn't you?

Before I wrap up on BBFGs, it's probably worth noting cases where you wouldn’t use them.

Where you need to observe how people behave, ‘live’ research is obviously going to be a better approach. Other instances where BBFGs aren’t going to work as well as traditional groups are when the segments of interest don’t have access to, or aren’t comfortable using the Internet.  

It’s really just stating the obvious, but deciding when to use, or not use, a BBFG approach is simply a matter of looking at the research objectives and thinking through the sample considerations.

Exciting times ahead

BBFGs open up a whole new world of possibilities. 

No compromise on location, sample or insights. You’re providing respondents with a relatively safe and anonymous environment, conducive to deep thought and honesty. You’re giving them thinking time. You’re giving them air time. It’s a level playing field where everyone looks the same, give or take a font point size.

BBFGs address so many of the compromises we face with ‘traditional’ research: compromises we’ve accepted because there just wasn’t a viable alternative.

Exciting times ahead.

Black and white

People who buy research are, for the most part, busy individuals. That’s why they commission us to do research (that and the expertise thing).

Despite best intentions, they don’t often attend focus group sessions. Their internal clients might also be pretty thin on the viewing ground.

This is not good for the research output. The methodology and reporting are first in the line of fire for anyone who may not like the findings. The big black research box (of course, it isn’t, but it must seem like it is) can’t be trusted.

In contrast, a fantastic level of client involvement is possible with BBFGs. Every stakeholder can observe the groups. And they’re much more likely to, because they can observe them at their convenience. As they happen, on a Sunday, or at midnight. Whenever they feel like it. And there it will be, in black and white (!). The actual verbatim.

This increases the likelihood of buy in to the research process - and the findings - enormously.  

You can tell just by looking at him...

One of the issues people may have with the online forum is that because it all happens on screen, you’re missing the visual cues, the body language, etc that you get from a ‘live’ focus group.

I’m not going to argue with that.

But what about the problems with those visual cues and for that matter, the body language? Here’s an example:

Scenario One

Let’s invite Harry to a "traditional" focus group. And here he is:

Hello Harry! What’s he like? 

Already, just by looking at him, in that nanosecond, I’ve probably made at least 10 assumptions about him. And assumptions about what he’ll think and say about X, Y or Z…

Scenario Two

Rewind. Let’s pretend we’ve never met Harry in real life. And instead of asking him to our ‘live’ focus group, let’s ask him to participate in a bulletin board focus group (ie, run in a virtual room, online). 

We’ll give him a user name to log in with: R1 (Respondent One). As a moderator, that’s all I can see of Harry on my screen: 

R1

That’s all the other group participants can see too: he looks like 24 point Georgia font, just as you see it on your screen right now.

What’s he like? I’ve no idea. I can’t make many assumptions based on how he looks, how he talks, how he smells (!). Or about what he’ll think and say about X,Y and Z…

The point is that visual cues can get in the way of the information we want – maybe in more ways than they help our understanding. 

Worth thinking about.

P.S Many thanks to Simon (aka Harry) for letting us use a really bad picture of him (he’s actually very handsome).

It's tipped

In the past year or so, it’s tipped: I can’t think of more than a handful of segments of interest to market researchers that aren’t living at least some of their lives online.

And most of these segments not only have access to the web, but are (now) also very comfortable using this medium to communicate.

They write and forward emails to friends who share, or emphatically don’t share their views. They contribute to bulletin boards aligned with, or diametrically opposed to their interests and values. They have their own blogs or comment on others’. They’re likely to be even more comfortable communicating this way than they are in real life.

The point is that often, and increasingly, they’re using these media to voice their opinion: to make themselves heard.

Isn’t that exactly what we ask from respondents in our research focus groups?

BBFGs mirror the way people voice their opinions and communicate with others, including corporations, in the real world. 

Bulletin board focus groups

We’ve recently been experimenting with over time, online groups, aka bulletin board focus groups (BBFGs). BBFGs are conducted in a virtual group room, using browser based, and usually dedicated, software.

In contrast to real time online groups, the BBFG ‘session’ typically runs for a few days (but could run over several months). The moderator posts questions over time, and respondents have the flexibility of logging on, at their convenience, to answer questions and interact with other respondents.

I think that BBFGs are the most exciting thing to happen in qualitative research in a very long time. 

Qualitative research online

If you had asked me about online focus groups only 12 months ago (interestingly, no one did), I would have said that I didn’t think they were a very good idea.

Online focus group research seemed to be a relatively technology driven practice, rather than there being any real synergy with the way people communicate (which is ironic, given that this business is about understanding people).

And I’d always thought of online focus groups within the real time context. Apart from researching real time focus groups themselves, I can’t see the benefits of conducting a group online in real time.

The stress of getting participants to ‘turn up’ and log in at the same time, the fight for text time (what if there are slower typists?), the moderator’s unenviable task of trying to keep track of it all, on the hop, maybe missing a beat and missing the whole point...I really don’t get it.

My opinion of real time online groups hasn’t changed.

But look out. Here’s the silver and very magic bullet: over time online groups. 

Next time I blog, I'll explain why.

What if...

Compromise is inherent to most qualitative focus group research. It’s part and parcel of the deal. Experienced researchers acknowledge the compromises and the good ones work to try to minimise their impact.

Importantly though, despite these compromises, we still get good information. We still get good insights. And we still deliver very useful output for our clients.

But imagine the kind of data we could get if we didn’t have to make those compromises…

Biased? Who me?

I’m blogging about the compromises we make when we conduct focus groups (no, I haven't forgotten the magic silver bullet. Just a few more blogs to go...).

Today, it’s all about biases.

How someone looks, the way they speak, the number of mini-pizzas they eat during the group…all these factors influence the way we ‘hear’ them.

At a superficial level, most researchers are trained to acknowledge and try to minimise these biases. But it’s a tall order, and quite unrealistic, to expect that we can put these biases aside completely.

Without shadow of a doubt, personal biases impact on how we perceive, and deal with respondents within the group environment. Not to mention how biases impact on the way respondents perceive, and deal with each other and the group dynamic. 

Air time and thinking time

A fluorescently lit group room, resplendent with a two way mirror, a video camera and a microphone hanging from the ceiling.

This is hardly an environment that readily inspires great banter, deeply considered thinking or for that matter, honesty. 

And consider a standard 1.5-2 hour group, with 6-7 respondents. Each respondent only gets an average of 10-15 minutes air time (after introductions, warm ups, etc). Throw in a few relatively vocal participants and notwithstanding a switched on moderator, that air time shrinks again.

Even if respondents are thinking deeply about the topic at hand, within this context they may not get a chance to, and nor may they want to, share it with the group.

Again, it’s a compromise.

What about Tilba Tilba?

In addition to the approach to, and the insight we might get from focus groups, sometimes we compromise on location and in effect, our sample.

While we may feel it would be prudent to include various state, regional or even international perspectives, we settle for a Sydney/Melbourne split. 

Budget, time and/or logistics prevent us from going to Perth, Tilba Tilba, Auckland, Hobart or Blackheath. 

Getting in the way

Today's post is about insight - or specifically, how insight can be compromised when we conduct focus groups.

As savvy moderators, we (politely, and with great skill) cut off the rambling respondent in an effort to optimise and preserve the group dynamic. I’ve no doubt that we miss several gems each time we do.

But we have 6 other respondents all rearing to speak (or needing encouragement to do so), and we need to make sure everyone feels included and listened to lest we sabotage the group dynamic.

By doing our job (great facilitation), we’re actually getting in the way of insight.

Compromise |ˈkämprəˌmīz|

This week I’m blogging about the compromises we make when we conduct focus groups.

Sometimes the decision to conduct focus groups is, in itself, a compromise.

Finding busy respondents who have the time and are willing to participate in market research focus groups is difficult. It can also be a challenge to find respondents willing to participate in studies of a sensitive nature.

In many instances such as these, we wouldn’t even entertain the thought of running focus groups.

It’s not because we don’t think there’d be some fascinating discussions if we could convene a focus group. More often than not, we compromise with one on one interviews because we have much more chance of getting these respondents to participate at all.

The silver bullet

In over 12 years of doing qualitative research, I’ve conducted more focus groups than I can count. It’s an approach that, with thoughtful and appropriate application, can deliver fantastically useful information.

But as all seasoned researchers/buyers are aware, using a ‘traditional’ focus group methodology involves compromise. And quite a lot of it.

Over the next week or so I’m going to blog about these compromises. And then I’m going to blog about a magic silver bullet of sorts.

“Oooooohhhh how mysterious and interesting” I hear you say. 

Too right it is!

Good ideas

I don’t think good ideas actually come from research per se. That is, respondents don’t (typically) hand it up on a plate.

Research can definitely inform, inspire and/or spark good ideas.

Further down the track, research is key in shaping and sharpening good ideas to make them resonate with consumers.

But the good ideas themselves? That’s the hard bit and the clever bit. 

Hey Mike, what's a good question?

Mike Hall once said ‘The best stimulus is a good question’ (Other people might have said it too, but I heard it from him first).

At the time (back in the days…), this was a great revelation to me. I couldn’t get rid of those convoluted mood boards, the word cards, etc fast enough! But in my haste to jettison that big and heavy qual kit, I forgot to ask him the obvious: what is a good question?

Here’s my take on it: A good question is, essentially, a good (informed) idea with a question mark at the end of it. 

Parity

When there are several big players in a market, it’s just that much harder to get an edge.

I’ll generalise from a sample of one (me!) to say that there isn’t much between most of the big brand FMCGs, telcos (pick any other category that's cluttered) as far as their brand communications go. None of them really stand out.

That’s probably because, (ironically?), most of these big players do market research.

To understand their respective target markets, it's likely that they're asking the same sorts of people the same sorts of questions. And so they should. This kind of research is fundamental. 

But while I’ve no doubt that the majority of these companies’ communications are based on sound consumer insights, the problem is that they’re all based on the same (or very similar) sound consumer insights. So you end up with parity of sorts.

Beyond a salient creative execution, it’s no wonder that no one’s really standing out.

Insight

What is it?

My definition: consumer understanding, that’s really, really useful.

Clumpy! Insight is a much prettier word.

So the question for Friday (aaakk, already?!?) is:

How can we get better insights?

This is a BIG and reasonably consuming question for researchers and research buyers.

The answer is simple in one sense: you can get better insights by asking better questions.

But there’s also a not so simple follow on: what's a 'better question'?

I think there’s a fairly narrow ambit between ‘getting it’/and ‘seeking it’. You have to get it, at least around the edges, before you can even start to formulate the kinds of questions that will get you the most relevant/powerful insight(s). 

You almost, nearly, need to know the answer first.

Take it for a whirl

We're still on Terrible Questionnaires...

Tip # 3: Pilot the thing! 

I thought everyone knew about this one too. But they can’t be piloting the questionnaires in my Terrible Questionnaire folder. They really, really can’t.

Fill it in yourself. Does it flow? Does it make sense? Is it easy to answer? Are you bored with it?

Then, and this is really important, get other people to fill it in (before you send it out). Which bits are boring? Which bits are difficult to understand? Listen to their feedback. Then fix the questionnaire and pilot it again (and again) until it’s user friendly.

The more user friendly it is, the better the quality of the data you’ll collect.

Anyway, that's the last of my ramblings on Terrible Questionnaires (for now). I'm moving on in my life. 

See you next time for some thoughts on insights.

Grid lock

The topic today is grids. Specifically, the grids you get in some online questionnaires, with the brands listed along the top of the page, and a string of brand attributes down the side.

I’ve seen grids with 70 odd cells (or more!) to complete. You even have to scroll and scroll down the page to see the whole grid. And then there's another 70+ cell grid on the next page.

Do you really think respondents will go through each brand and each attribute and rate them thoughtfully?

Chances are you’ll get random answers so they can just get to the next page. And then it’ll be a race to get past all the other grids just to get the incentive. 

Reliable, quality data? No!

Less is more

If you haven’t been following this thread, it’s all about Terrible Questionnaires. The focus is on online surveys and I’m making suggestions on how to avoid writing or commissioning them.

Here’s the first tip: keep them short.

I thought everyone knew about this. But I keep getting 20 minute long (sometimes longer!) questionnaires. Even if I’m interested in the topic, 20 minutes is too long. I get tired and bored.

“But I can’t make it shorter. I need to know about X, Y and Z!” you say emphatically. Well, you also need to know that if your questionnaire is too long, the quality and usefulness of the data you collect will be compromised.

5 minutes. In most cases, I reckon that’s about how long you’ve got before respondents tune out. Flick the “nice to know” and focus on the “need to know” information.

If it must be longer, schedule several sessions (and incentives) over time. Believe me, if the questionnaire is too long, and your respondents get bored and tired, you’ll get rubbish.

Why are they Terrible?

There are two ways a questionnaire might be Terrible:

•    It’s uninteresting and difficult to answer, which is Terrible from a respondent’s point of view

•    It fails to collect useful data, which is Terrible from a marketer’s point of view

I’m going to focus on the uninteresting and difficult to answer problem. Because notwithstanding poorly defined research objectives, I can’t think of any other variable that could have as much impact on the usefulness of the data as an uninteresting and difficult to answer questionnaire.

Most of the Terrible Questionnaires in my folder are similarly Terrible: 

•    They’re too long,

•    They have impossible grids to cope with (sometimes several pages of them) and, 

•    Most of them, quite patently, haven’t been test driven.

Over the next few blogs, I’m going to work on some guidelines to avoid the pitfalls of Terrible Questionnaires.

Stay tuned…

The Terrible Questionnaire Folder

I have a folder on my computer desktop called Terrible Questionnaires. 

It houses a vast collection of questionnaires I’ve been sent that I’ve either got stuck on, got tired of, or thought I could have written better.  

Every time I look at the Terrible Questionnaire folder, I get annoyed.

So I’m writing in the hope that those writing, or commissioning, the Terrible Questionnaires will stop doing it, and start writing interesting and easy to complete questionnaires. I’m hoping to do away with the Terrible Questionnaire folder altogether.

Next time, I’ll explain why I think they’re Terrible (capital T). Stay tuned…

Terrible Questionnaires

As a researcher, I’ve travelled down a (mostly) qualitative research path. It’s a good fit because I find the question of why people think and do what they do, etc to be always and forever fascinating.

Quantitative research, on the other hand, makes my neurons fizzle and for the most part, greatly fatigues them. While I can claim reasonable quantitative proficiency, it’s really not my cup of tea.

But I’m going to write a bit about quantitative questionnaires (to be specific, online surveys).

Tune in over the next few days for some thoughts on Terrible Questionnaires…

Ummm...what about the research?

It did occur to me that I haven’t even touched on research here yet. Ooops.

So next week I’m moving on from the customer experience to more research-y things.

But before I do, what, exactly, do I mean by the customer experience?

If you Google it, you get a load of convoluted brand bollocks over 2 million hits and even Google Scholar has over two thousand links.

But save your clicks - it’s actually very easy to define, and in a useful way no less:

The customer experience is what the customer experiences when they’re being a customer.

This definition, simple and lovely as it is, is also very useful. Use it to examine and define its dimensions. Use it to make it better.

A Timely Article

I always try to make time for Time. There's a very interesting piece about Customer Service in the age of self-serve technology in this issue. See what you think.

Listen to this

A fascinating discussion about social networking. 

And all that data too. 

BlackBerry and Apple Pie

My mobile died. Again. So I’m looking to upgrade to a smart phone.

What I really, really want – what I absolutely covet – is an iphone. But, sigh, we’re still waiting for them to arrive here in Australia.

So I’m on the hunt for a Raspberry BlackBerry. But do you think I can find one to buy? Nope. And worse, do you think anyone can tell me when the next batch is coming in? Not a chance.

Now if I were RIM (who make BlackBerry handhelds), I’d be a bit worried about the launch of the iphone. I’d be making sure that I captured as much of the market as possible before it happened.

So why can’t I buy BlackBerry anywhere?