Well…I’d love to raise my nose in the air and snootily say, “That is ridiculous. That sort of thing does not happen!” But I’m pretty sure many of us have witnessed times in which it indeed has been the case. It’s interesting really, because the fact is that nobody wants it to end up that way. Not the people who paid for it, not the people who conducted it…and you know, even participants like to feel that they’ve made a valuable contribution via their role.

This man has made a living by riding his bike around and dusting unused research reports.

If that’s the case, then why does this happen? I suggest several scenarios:

1. The information isn’t all that great. This could be because the firm doing the research didn’t do a good job conducting it, or maybe they stopped too soon – that is, maybe they did do good work conducting it, but didn’t take it to the next level – they didn’t look for insights and actions tucked away in all of that data and conversation.
2. The organization isn’t prepared to use it. Sometimes this can be fed by the fact that the research firm they’re working with didn’t take it to the next level, which makes it less actionable, I’ll admit. But other times, the organization paying for it wasn’t quite ready to listen or make changes in the first place…so it just sits there on a shelf. And let’s face it, even the best data typically has an expiration date on its usefulness.
3. The organization doesn’t like what they hear, so they disregard it. We’ve seen it happen. It can be very hard to hear negative things about your organization, so there’s a tendency to want to defend current products or processes if you’re receiving information that isn’t entirely complimentary.

I’m sure there are other reasons, and if you’d like to add to the list, feel free.

Much of this list seems to suggest that lazy, shelf-occupying research is the fault of the organization buying it, and not the firm conducting it. But that isn’t really the takeaway, here. What I want to emphasize most is that research isn’t meant to sit on a shelf collecting dust, and an engaged and insightful firm will help you make sure that it doesn’t. They’ll have a more intimate understanding of your organization and the landscape in which you function. This is the kind of research – and relationship – that helps you effectively use that research to your advantage.

I’m calling this one PLAUSIBLE, realizing that the fate of any research, no matter how good it is, still depends on the ability of the firm doing the research to provide actionable insights, and the willingness of the organization to heed what the research is telling them.

Has your research fallen victim to a weekly visit with a feather duster, or did you find ways to fold what you learned from it into your organization?

As a gal who holds qual research so near and dear to my heart, my initial reaction to the first half of this myth is to lean back in my desk chair and yell dramatically, “Noooooooo!”

But in an effort to remain professional, I shall take a deep breath and propose that, as any good researcher would tell you, there is a time, a place, and a purpose for each of these approaches to understanding your various constituents. Google “qualitative research” and the first search result will send you to the Wikipedia page on the topic. It’s tough to talk qual without contrasting it with quantitative research, as the Wiki page does, but it boils down to the type of information you’re trying to get. The widely accepted rule is that quant research helps you learn what, where, when, how many, and qual research helps hone in on the how, and why – mostly related to decision-making behaviors.

So you can see why one might be preferable in one situation but not another.

I think I’ve noted the ‘quant is better’ school of thought (perhaps because I’m sensitive to the assumption) in situations when we are working with a client who must take the results of the research and present them to decision-makers – and really, most of our clients must do just that. And I understand.  It’s different going to your manager with numbers and statistics with margins of error than it is going with quotes from a focus group. You don’t have a way to prove the accuracy of your qualitative results. Even when you’re working with a smart, reputable firm, qual research is tricky…but it’s the only way to dig deeper than those survey responses allow.

The fact is that there are certain situations in which there’s very little substitute for qual research, nor is there for quant. They’re a good team to help you answer all sorts of questions. So next time, before you scoff at the suggestion of a focus group, or poo-poo the recommendation for in-depth interviews, just consider what you’re trying to learn. And for goodness sake, find someone bright to guide you to the right research methods, and conduct it well.

I’m thinking we can declare this Myth TROUNCED. What do you think?

The premise is simple enough – people don’t always reveal what’s driving their decision making, and more importantly, people don’t always even know what is driving their decisions.  Since people either don’t want to or simply can’t communicate what’s driving their actions, we need to look and see what their brain is saying.

Recently, several us read Buyology as part of our firm’s book club.  After reading this book, it is easy to get excited about the technology and benefits it could provide (especially when presented in an oversimplified manner).

The technology does hold promise; however, it isn’t yet the magic bullet in market research.  The ARF’s NeuroStandards Collaboration Project is working to shed light on what is and what isn’t working in the field.  As the article reports, these technologies are raising as many questions as they’re answering.  The biggest challenge?  Figuring out what it is actually measuring and being able to pinpoint what is causing the reaction.

Neuroscience is quickly earning a place in the researcher’s toolbox, but no research tool is without its faults.  We must understand the limitations of our methods for us to get the most out of them.

T. Magnum Photo

Our research work at Corona, more often than not, involves primary research, or gathering original data for the question(s) at hand.  However, this is often only the case because there wasn’t already data gathered previously (i.e., secondary data) that could answer the question.

Secondary data can save you significant time and money when conducting research and should be an early step in the research process before taking on new research.  Is there publicly available or academic research?  Will the Census shed light on my market?  What do my sales data and customer databases tell me?  Are there additional insights to be gained from previous focus groups and in-depth interviews (qualitative research can often be overlooked as a source – if you have the original notes, transcripts, videos, etc. it can be reanalyzed for the topic at hand).  All of these are good places to start.  But when deciding if secondary data is appropriate for your particular research question, consider the following:

• What was the original goal in collecting the data?
• What structure is the data in for additional analysis?
• Who collected the data?
• How (methodologically) was it collected?
• When was it collected?

Answering these questions and understanding the implications will help you make an informed decision on whether to use the data you have or gather additional data.

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.)

One of the draws of phone app research is that it can be immediate.  Just saw a movie?  Review it while walking out of the theater.  Just left the store without buying that flat-screen TV – what kept you from buying?

While actively seeking feedback through phone surveys may be immediate, passively listening to the conversations already occurring can also be immediate, but without the interruption of a survey request.  While we often think of surveys and polls for gathering information, with the adoption of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (and many others), just listening to the conversations can yield real, unfiltered, and immediate feedback.  Anyone who spends time on Facebook or similar sites has seen their friends praise a great experience they had or denounce a company’s poor customer service.

While drawing statistical findings from sampling online conversations may be difficult, they can yield insights.

While there are services that specialize in monitoring social media, small companies can easily get started with services like Google Alerts that alert you when your keywords are mentioned.

The post’s author posted again in response asking for any examples of videos to illustrate, yet nothing has turned up.  Can any reader of this blog offer any examples?

Today I ran across this article written by another professional respondent.  While somewhat old, I believe it still rings true nearly five years later.

For reasons that are probably apparent from watching the video and reading the article, the current system that most firms employ for focus group recruiting is defective.  Sure, it’s quicker and cheaper upfront, but those valuable “insights” you’re gaining are costing you in the long term.

While Corona conducts and hosts many focus groups, we do not recruit from pre-screened respondents for our projects.  We recruit fresh sample for each project and our participants have often never participated in any group before.  Yes, it costs marginally more, but the quality of the respondent is worth it.

Want to find out more?  Please contact us to discuss your project.

First, my view of loyalty.  We are all familiar with customer loyalty programs.  You can find them nearly everywhere, from simple punch cards, to complex airline programs, for your morning latte, gas, and, of course, groceries.  Many of these programs, however, only foster a transactional loyalty.  Meaning, once you earned your free reward, are you any more loyal to the company?  If you get 10 punches on your punch card and get a free coffee, are you any more likely to return to start over?  (Maybe yes, but it probably isn’t because of the punch card.)  Why not defect to another coffee shop and start using their punch card program?

In my opinion, true loyalty is fostered through experience, special privileges, and incremental rewards.  The coffee shop you frequent may be more due to you having a regular barista that knows your name and usual drink (experience), giving you samples to try or an extra shot of espresso (special privileges), and a frequent customer program that doesn’t always reset to zero (incremental rewards).

Lately, while visiting grocery stores, I’ve been conducting my own observational research, of sorts.  Specifically, I’ve been noticing several ways that the typical loyalty card could be designed to be much more powerful. (For reference, I usually shop at King Soopers or Safeway here in Colorado.)

• At the self-checkout, why does it always ask what language you speak?  How you prefer to pay?  Shouldn’t your card remember this for you?
• More and more people are bringing their own totes to use for bags and most stores give you a slight credit for this – when they notice.  If this is your default behavior, why not prompt the cashier overseeing the self-checkouts that they need to confirm you have them?
• Looking up fruits and vegetables are time consuming if you don’t have the little PLU code.  Most people, I believe, buy many of the same fruits and vegetables regularly.  Why not have a shortcut menu with  fruits and vegetables commonly bought by that customer?
• Millions of Americans have food allergies and they constantly have to check that some little ingredient hasn’t snuck its way into their food.  Why not prompt someone when they are about to purchase a food containing whatever they are allergic to?  Same could be done for vegans, or other food preferences.
• What if it reminded you if you forgot to buy an item that you always buy (i.e. milk)?
• How about an option to have a shorter receipt, or no receipt at all?  I love it when people buy a gallon of milk and their receipt is a foot long.

This is only a start.  As RFID, smart in-store advertising, and smart shopping carts become more common, the possibilities for improving the shopping experience are endless.

As a footnote, as I was writing this, I received an email from my wife about a new service from Safeway that tracks your family’s nutrition based on what you bought.  Hopefully this is a sign of many services to come.

Photo from Wikipedia.

This video reminds me of why we only custom recruit for our focus groups.  We use no panel and do not accept opt-in participants.  Instead, we custom-recruit for each project ensuring few if any “regular” focus group participants are in the group and that the group of participants are actually the ones you want to hear from.