The 48 percent of those aged 65 and over who’d prefer to watch performing arts “virtually” was a surprise to me too. However, it’s still less than half of that age group, and I would suspect that it has less to do with preference for the virtual media and more about other external factors like ticket prices, no one to go with (which was a driver of attendance across age and racial/ethnic groups), safety concerns, or mobility or sensory limitations.

As for your question about oversight of the results, it’s very rare that a client prepares their own report – less than 1 percent of the time, based on our past history. In this case, the client had a strong background in survey research, and significant portions of this report came from an informal report that we prepared. Nonetheless, we firmly believe that the data we collect, analyze, and report on belongs to the client who pays for our services (which is why you haven’t seen an avalanche of “Corona’s Greatest Analytic Hits” on here as of yet), so they can conduct further analysis without consulting us if they wish.

That said, however, if a client ever did misrepresent data or research findings, I believe that we would protest LOUDLY. Protest not only because they would be trading on our good name for deception (thereby tarnishing us in the process), but also because it’s just the right thing to do. And (strangely for an office disproportionately full of lefthanders) we like to do the right thing at Corona.

Good luck on your case study!

I’m curious, do you have any oversight on summary reports (such as the one you linked to) that your clients prepare using your findings? Are you able to review things like this to make sure they don’t misuse/misinterpret the information, or is it out of your control once you hand your findings over to the client?