How big is online Qual?

This is a question I have been asked a few times this year and at the moment all I have got is a rough guess. The ESOMAR 2009 Global Report suggests that Qual was 14% of all research (by revenue) in 2008, with quant being 80% and ‘other’ being 6%. But it does not break the qual down by online versus face-to-face versus telephone (e.g. tele-depths). The total value of research in 2008 was estimated as US $32 billion, which would put qual at $4.5 billion.

My guess is that globally online qual is about 4%, and I would be surprised if it were actually less than 2% or more than 6%. I formed my estimate by looking at the total value of qual research (from the ESOMAR research), the number of groups run by some of the key suppliers, and then making two big guesses a) what proportion of the total these suppliers constituted and b) what the end charges to clients were.

About 30% of all research spend is in North America, but my feeling is that over 50% and perhaps over two-thirds of all online qual is in North America.

I would be really interested to hear other people’s estimates?

What about MROCs?

At the moment I do not think that most MROCs are counted as qualitative research, never mind as online qual. However, I would argue that the vast majority of MROC-based research is qual, it is after all based on ongoing conversations. From what I see, MROCs are already bigger in revenue terms than ‘conventional’ online qual. If MROCs and other new developments such as much of netnography were added to qual, then qual would be bigger than 14% and online would be a larger part of that larger pie.

The need for a change

Counting values and working out which technique go where matters because influence and innovation often follow the dollars. At the ESOMAR Online Conference in Chicago last year, Bill Blyth of TNS made the point that many of the NewMR techniques (such as MROC) were not currently scalable in a way that could support the industry as we know it (i.e. 50% of the industry is the largest 10 companies, and 80% of it quant). If the new techniques take-off in popularity but do not become more scalable the industry in total could be under pressure, even if some researchers find their companies doing better.

So?

Do people feel 4% is a reasonable estimate for online qual?

Do people think that MROCs should be counted as qual?

Do people think it matters as much as I seem to think it does?

Comments

[Ray Poynter]

Hi Diane, you raise an interesting point and one that is certainly worth a separate conversation/post. I think it is important that clients understand how much confidence they should have in the findings, but much less important that they know about our epistemological definitions.

[Diane Hessan]

Is there any way to stop classifying what we do as "quant" or "qual"? Our organizations don't think of what we do that way, and I experience the lines blurring most of the time. Perhap a separate post, Ray.

[Correlationist]

First - thanks Ray, for an incredibly topical post. Pleasantly surprised to have stumbled upon this thread :)

I agree 4% is a reasonable estimate, and without a doubt, MROCs will become the hub of MR, not just qual (as pointed out by Jeffrey), driven largely by the CPG giants. They may even start rivaling online panels, and will likely be limited only by the global internet penetration & adoption rates.

Having said that, are MR companies prepared for the impending mobile wave? Questionnaire, and sample design comes to mind. Also, how will MR companies be using the plethora of SM platforms to refine, and target their research better? Thoughts?

Cheers,
@correlationist

[Ilka Kuhagen]

I agree that is is probably over two thirds (and that is a qualitative pov) if not more that is being spent in the North American market for online qual - no surprise as this market in Europe is just evolving.
As for the MROCs: they are probably good for both (qual and quant - call it market research!), but can be used for really good and in-depth qualitative research if the right technics and methodologies as well as analysis is applied. I do not think it is taking away from us 'in the focus group industry' - actually it is adding and will increase the overall market!

[Bettina Wagner]

Also think that 4% might be reasonable figure here and I I agree with Jeffrey (like so often :) that there will be a shift from offline-focus-groups to MROCs.

But I don't agree that one should count MROCs automatically as "qualitative". In qualitative research there is a distinct separation between in-depth research which covers psychological aspects thoroughly and 'somehow qualitative' - as I call it - which means you ask open questions, ask people to deliver coloured content and (mostly) don't count noses.

In respect to in-depth qualitative I doubt that you can apply online methods solely. I guess you always have to have eye contact and nonverbal communication to evaluate certain points. Nevertheless I appreciate very much the support by usergenerated content and online goups rsp. online explorations.

In respect to the shifting to MROC's we face the same challenge as offline quantitative: Can we convince buyers of #mr that in-depth qualitative gives them access to actionable clues that have a positive ROI - rather than other methods in a specific field? As a fan of in-depth qualitative I am convinced that we always will have our market, because our insights are needed to truly understand market dynamics.

[Jeffrey Henning]

I think 4% is an utterly reasonable estimate. I think MROCs have to be counted as qual - even when they are coupled with panels for quantitative research, the MROCs themselves act as a hub for all types of *qualitative* research.

I think it's important because spending on qualitative research will shift dramatically in the next five years. With apologies to my friends in the focus group industry, but you are going to see your customers shift their spending to MROCs, as General Mills has already done. I would expect MROCs will represent 51% of qual by 2015.