Enter Pivot.

As the Economist recently described in a special report, the amount of data we are creating is immense.  So much so that we can’t even store it all, let alone make sense of it.  Tools like Pivot, and many others, are designed to help us create true connections and insight.

In case you need a reminder, perhaps grab some Chinese food this week – and read the fortune cookie.

Well, this past week they closed their door to market research suppliers.  While we offered some initial concern with the long term viability of this source, it appears that too much demand wasn’t the problem, as we initially speculated, but rather not enough to make it profitable enough for LinkedIn to continue.  Perhaps the costs of research and incentives were too high for too many researchers (though you get what you pay for, in our opinion).

For another view on this, read the story on the Next Gen Market Research blog.

So, we were very happy to see this article on ABCnews.com discussing the results of a recent study by Stanford University scientists (full report here), showing that, in fact, opt-in panels produce results that are significantly less accurate than results from randomly- (i.e., probabilistically-) selected panels.  And perhaps even more important, weighting the results from the opt-in panel to match population demographics did not increase accuracy in the opt-in panel results.

In a sense, these results vindicate our commitment to using only proven, high-quality research methodologies, to ensure that our clients receive results they can trust – results they can rely on to make decisions.

Baseball and statistics are inseparable.  There seems to be a stat for every aspect of the game from the classic batting average, ERA, and strikeouts, to the more complex “sabermetrics” BABIP, BsR, and EqA.  Compiling the voluminous data to create these statistics is a monumental task, but making use of the numbers is a greater challenge.

Bloomberg, known for their financial analysis, is hoping to use their expertise to help major league baseball teams.  Bloomberg is focusing on determining trends in order to predict future performance.  Major league teams already compile much of the same information, but the advantage of the Bloomberg system is the speed at which teams can access the data and having one repository for all stats.  The data is not limited for distribution to major league teams; Bloomberg also has a similar product available to fantasy baseball players.

One more way analytics can provide a competitive advantage.  In this case, literally.  The three of us just hope our team, the St. Louis  Cardinals, are making full use of it.

With organizations needing to justify every dollar spent – and needing to make the most out of the resulting findings – not integrating market research is a costly error.

While Corona is not a department within a larger organization, we have seen similar issues from our outsider’s viewpoint.

How can market research be more fully integrated into the strategic infrastructure? Some thoughts…

• Include market research from the beginning. When large strategic questions start to arise market research should already be at the table.
• Have market research assess your in-house data to see what questions you might be able to answer with your existing data that could guide future directions.
• Promote market research to be an equal partner, not just a support function.
• Market research should be an integrated member of teams, not an outsider.
• Finally, to build trust, the first steps of integrating the market research component should be to focus on “small wins” – starting small with little projects creating little successes and slowly increase the scope and participation of market research that will lead to greater successes on larger projects down the road.

What other issues do you see? What else can be done?

As we work to use social media for greater insights, from data mining to online communities, new ethical considerations come to light.

The above post raised concerns about quoting social network posts verbatim because of the potential to track down who said what through searches, thus revealing the poster’s identity.

This is just one more ethical consideration in addition to overall online privacy concerns, misuse of data/findings (e.g., allowing research participants to be targeted/contacted by marketers? … Reminds me of the Domino’s’ ads), and using online research as a guise for selling (i.e., Sugging).

What other concerns do you see cropping up that researchers need to be aware of?

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.)

Microsoft is running a print ad for Microsoft Office 2007, which proclaims, “Things have a way of piling up.  Here’s some tools to keep it all sorted.”

Every time I see this ad (primarily in my subscription to Newsweek), I cringe.  Seriously?!  “Here IS some TOOLS”?  As Microsoft’s grammar checker (hopefully), or your elementary school teacher, will tell you, if your noun is plural (e.g., tools) your verb form must be plural to match (i.e., are, not is).

Ok, so I may be a little more grammar-obsessed than the average person.  (Yes, I am a big fan of Lynne Truss’s book, Eats, Shoots & Leaves.)  But still, some percentage of people out there have been turned off by this ad (I ran across another mention on Twitter.)

Looking closer, I see that this ad is targeting moms.  It includes a snapshot of a woman sitting on a bed with one small child climbing on her shoulder while she buttons the shirt of a second child, and the dialog beneath the photo says “Office 2007 helps with lots of household tasks.  Sadly, changing diapers isn’t one of them.”  It goes on to describe the things Office 2007 will help you with: finances, school projects, greeting cards and resumes.

Do you want resume help from a company with this kind of grammatical difficulty?

Here’s what I think Microsoft is trying to communicate: we’re non-threatening; we’re helpful; we get how hard it is to be a mom.

But did they hit the mark?  Or did they sail a bit past and inadvertently insult the intelligence of moms everywhere?

My guess is that Microsoft skipped the ad testing before running this.  Sometimes, all it takes to avoid potentially offending your target audience is a little marketing research.

It’s like an Olympics for marketers only it happens once every 10 years.  And its effects are far reaching — from government needs (distribution of congressional seats, federal funding, etc.) to consumer goods (where to open new stores, product mixes, etc.).

The Census will provide the data to confirm or refute large societal shifts and greater diversity among neighborhoods and communities.  Better business decisions, better marketing, all with greater confidence, should follow.

So it should be no surprise given what rests on the outcomes that the Census is spending significant time and money getting the word out.  In fact, more than twice the money (more than $300 million on getting the word out) and in 11 more languages (28 total) than the 2000 Census.  New media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube), traditional media (i.e., TV, radio, print), and even a traveling road show will play a part.

Given the importance of the outcomes for our clients, we’ll certainly be keeping tabs on how things progress.

Above ad is part of the campaign to get the word out about the Census.  What do you think of it?  More at AdFreak.