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.
Yes, online research communities have their place. I ardently believe that there are many organizations that can benefit from structured online communities (MROCs or ORCs, as many now call them), or even just well-run, online customer advisory boards (link). In fact, there are some markets for which I think online communities can be one of the best ways of getting honest, objective customer insights. But let’s not oversell it; if we do, we’ll only cause a lot of heartache (and wasted research dollars).
So, please, some reality checks: …
I’ve been attending the MRA’s First Outlook conference in San Diego this week. From conversations with other folks here and some of the sessions I have attended, I’ve learned some interesting things. Here are just a few highlights before I hop on the plane home.
CloudMaker is a word cloud tool that can draw input from web pages, Twitter feeds (though, alas, restricted to Twitter’s self-imposed 20 tweet limit), and CSV files. The CSV files part is the important one—since this is what allows you to import any text you want…like open-ended responses from a survey you were loathe to tally the hard way.
For example, a customer satisfaction research design meant to provide inputs to executive bonus calculations will be different than one designed primarily to inform organizational performance goals. In fact, any consultant or sales person who tells you their approach is the only legitimate one is only interested in sales—not insights.
