Take for example a tracking study we did measuring recreation activities.  We saw a large drop in certain outdoor recreation between two studies – but the first one was conducted in spring and the other in winter.  If you measured the concern over the flu among the general public, the research during the time of the flu season would likely result in higher concern.

A recent example?  Toyota took a hard fall in J.D. Power and Associates’ Initial Quality Study this year.  While Toyota obviously has had a rough year, their ratings were likely hurt further by the timing of the survey which took place from February through May (The below graph shows Google Trends data on “Toyota Recall“, point C,  which peaked immediately before the survey).

While the goal is often to measure the impact of these events, other times it is not ideal to measure the impact of a short-lived event and you at least should be aware of the possible impact.  What to keep an eye out for?  Three big ones are:

• Seasonal and weather (e.g blizzards, heat waves, etc.)
• Political events
• News stories (yes, a catch-all, but even a brief news story on a topic can change the opinions of respondents)*

* You can use news monitoring services like Google Alerts to keep an eye on developing stories.

Of course, it’s easy to say in hindsight that this campaign wouldn’t work as well as planned (and, to be fair, other factors play in to declining sales – not just the new strategy), but it’s possible the company strayed from its core business too much by encouraging its customers to “Unthink KFC.”  This story reminds me of Oldsmobile’s “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile” campaign, where the company attempted to reinvent itself in the late 1980s.  Oldsmobile decided to rebrand itself as a new generation of car but in the process neglected its historic brand and its most loyal customers, which some say played a large part in the regression of the company.  KFC is now at a similar crossroad with the decision to either promote newer, healthier options to reach a new market or promote its tried-and-true fried products to maintain its core group of consumers.

Several franchisees have already expressed concern about how the marketing strategy may confuse customers and hurt the brand (KGC, anyone?).  A recent Businessweek article states how the company now faces lawsuits from these disgruntled franchisees who state that KFC unwisely turned its back on its Southern fried heritage, resulting in lower sales and therefore less income for store owners.

The KFC and Oldsmobile case studies not only serve as good examples of how important branding can be, but also how important research can be.  I’m curious as to what types of market research KFC conducted before its “Unthink” campaign was launched, and I’m definitely looking forward to seeing how the company moves forward with its marketing strategy from here on.

What do you think?  Is KFC going down the right path by offering healthier options to attract new customers over time, or should it stick more to its brand and focus on its traditional consumer base?

The Economist summed it up nicely in an article from last week’s edition.

When asked whether they supported a variety of issues, most people showed strong support.  However, when the downsides of those propositions were pointed out, support decreased significantly.  The strongest example was support for outfitting soldiers with the best equipment – 83% strongly supported.  When reminded that it would mean less spent on public services that they’d receive, support dropped to 46%.

Interestingly, alcohol bucked the trend.  When asked if the government should try to limit people’s boozing by taxing alcohol more 32% strongly agreed.  When reminded that it would mean they’d personally pay more for alcohol, there was no statistical change.  Presumably, people understood this issue well enough from the start and knew it meant they’d pay more, and therefore that was already calculated into their first response.

Many, if not all, issues can be framed in terms of gains or losses for those concerned.  Asking a question that only addresses one side of the coin is considered a research bias.  Pundits and politicians may rely on biased questioning to sway support for their beliefs, but researchers shouldn’t.

In the end, be careful what you’re asking.  People don’t make decisions in  a vacuum and your research shouldn’t be conducted in one either.

You can watch the video below – and remember these people were indicating the need before Twitter took off – I think the Mashable article summed it up best:

“Sometimes you just need to ask people what they want, and they’ll give you great answers on how to evolve your service.”

We couldn’t agree more.

Twitter Feasibilty Study Excerpt (2006) from 747 Media on Vimeo.

Of course it really doesn’t matter what I think anyway. I’m sitting on my couch eating popcorn while the experts are the ones judging the competition. They watch, and based on their expertise and experience, label the performances with their best opinion as to what it was “worth.” Then the Olympian sits down in front of a camera, and with an anxiety level that I will probably never truly be able to understand, receives their score minutes later.

How’s that for feedback? The athlete finishes a routine. He or she likely knows a few places where they could have done better and places where they excelled, but isn’t sure how other parts of the routine may have gone…they don’t know what the judges saw or felt, and furthermore, how that compares to the competition.  As an analyst who is always looking for connections and meaning, I can’t help but think how this compares to a company’s desire to understand their own performance, and to have that kind of feedback from customers.

What would your score be?  What would flash up on the screen after someone takes their first bite of your product, or visits your store? What do your fans think…and what do your biggest critics think? Why? You probably have some excellent hypotheses and reasons that you already know are true, but there are quite often others tucked away within both your current and potential customers. Enter, research.

Using research to learn more about your audiences is nothing to be ashamed of, especially when you want those gold nuggets of information in the form of feedback. Heck, even NBC is dropping some serious moola to learn more about media consumption among viewers of the Olympics. They’re combining classic research techniques such as interviews, with the monitoring of social media websites, among other methods. It’s interesting that a media behemoth like NBC still doesn’t pretend to have it all figured out. They use research to stay ahead of the game, and to know their audiences. It’s how they keep their “score,” so to speak, high. (Unless, perhaps, you speak with Conan O’Brien.)

Visa uses the slogan, “Go World” for their campaign. Me? As a huge fan of the Olympics as well as capitalism, all I can say is, “Go athletes! Go business!”

Want to understand your score?  Corona can help you discover how you stack up among your competition.

When it comes to ski vacations, Vail resorts, through their own research, discovered that the lead time for planning a vacation has greatly decreased.  No longer are people planning and researching in the summer and fall for their winter holiday – they’re doing it just weeks before.

As a result, Vail significantly altered how they plan and buy their advertisements.  From long lead time print ads to short lead time social media, online ads, Vail is trying to get in front of the traveler with the right message precisely when it matters.

To see the AdAge video, click here.

A great example of how good data can lead to smart decisions.

Through “research” done in focus groups it was revealed that people didn’t like Domino’s pizza. (I put research in quotations since I have heard CPB – the agency who did the ad – has a great disdain for focus groups.  Plus, I don’t think Domino’s would have taken the handful of opinions from focus groups alone to convince them to trash their recipe, but I digress.)

While “research” has been used in advertising in the past (remember Ford’s Swap Your Ride campaign?), I personally think this is on a different level.  Will respondents take focus groups less seriously, use stronger comments to get attention, or just not want to bother with participating if they think they’ll receive unwanted attention (granted, all the people in the commercial surely signed releases)?

More than likely, this one ad, or even ad campaign, will have little lasting effect on focus groups. And it does show companies acting on customers’ feedback.  But it’s important for researchers and end users to be aware of these pop culture uses and possible shifts in opinions towards research among participants, especially if we see more of this type of ad in the future.

What do you think?

(Reminds me of a previous commercial created for Windows Vista.)

Every result, process, and assumption of the study was scrutinized.  Each stakeholder group in the City reviewed the report with their own lens, using the data to test their own assumptions and often to bolster their own positions..  During this study – and every other study we do at Corona – maintaining a neutral position is extremely important.  Any bias, real or perceived, would ruin the integrity of the study and the integrity of Corona.  During the entire research process, we had to ensure we kept our neutral position, that our methodology was rock solid and, just as important, that we could explain it in a way that would understood by any inquiring group.

Overall, the results were well-received and all interested parties welcomed having the right answers and insights that could help move the review process forward.

A controversial issue puts pressure on decision makers and they need the best information to make decisions.  By staying neutral and maintaining rigorous methodologies, Corona provides this information.

In my recent travels I ran across…

• Using flags to safely cross streets at designated crossings in Madison, WI.  No need for expensive stop lights and signals here.
• Employees at the Frankfurt, Germany airport using bikes to get around the huge airport.  Smaller, cheaper, and more maneuverable than golf carts.

Simple answers to important problems.

While the purpose of these polls is often for entertainment the way they are executed is often too similar to that of real surveys – anyone can take it and can take it as many times as they want.  Take this example of a Time Magazine ‘Most Influential’ poll.  While it was obvious in this case that the poll was rigged, would be as obvious in your own survey if someone with  a strong opinion – or just a weird sense of humor – decided to skew the results?

Be careful how you execute your surveys and control who can take them (and how many times).  Unless, of course, you’re only conducting research for sheer entertainment.