The Future Place Blog

All discourse is social

The Survey Geek (AKA Reg Baker) has an interesting post about the way that people’s Facebook and Tweets are taking on the nature of a performance. Towards the end of the post Reg comments “if people we listen to in social media are not true selfs but selfs constructed for our consumption, it raises some pretty significant challenges for working with social media information”.

Much I respect Reg, I think he has a slightly odd view of ‘real’ life if he thinks that the selves we present are not equally created for consumption by others.

Below is the comment I added to his post.

Whilst not everybody is going to rush over to a post-modern, post-structualist position, surely there are a few things that most of us will agree with:

1) All discourse is social

2) Meaning is not that which was intended, but that which is constructed by the parties involved

3) Social events have more than one meaning, either we accept there are multiple truths or that there are no truths

4) Most people are highly skilled at discourse, which results in much of the meaning that is created not being specifically spelled out in the text

One great example of the way all discourse is social is the group of sounds we make when we are on our own, in public. For example you are walking down the street and you stub your toe and utter "ouch" or you nearly drop something and say "oops" - these utterances are produced with amazing speed, at a time of stress, and are a message to the other people on the street that a minor something is happening, you have noticed it, you have it under control, and there is no need for them to be involved, but a bit of sympathy might not go amiss.

The point for research is that all social personas are constructed, as are all other aspects of our life. Some of the issues in social media may be different from other aspects of life, but I doubt that the issues are bigger in social media than in more traditional arenas.

 

Interview with John Kearon

Below is a YouTube interview between John Kearon and myself, talking about the changes that are coming up in market research.

 

Would you like to be the Apple of market research?

Kathryn Korostoff (of Research Rockstar fame) has posted an interesting question on LinkedIn about what it would mean to be the Apple of market research in the NewMR discussion group and I thought I’d like to share and extend my response here.

I think Apple in an interesting example of how survivor bias can make some risky decisions look good. Apple has made some big bets and recently several have paid off very well, as did the decision Jobs and Wozniak made in the 1970s to move from the homebrew Apple 1 to the production line, ready to run Apple II. However, many other companies who have made these 'bet the company' decisions have failed (as Apple nearly did when it made the Mac too proprietary and lost ground to the PC and when it produced lemons such as the Lisa and the Newton).

I think a research company that could be called the Apple of market research would be one that took a big bet on a single style or approach, a big bet that could not be fully justified on research because they are assuming the marketplace and people will change. Examples of market research companies that have done this include: Gordon Black and Harris when it went so strongly into online polling, or Diane Hessan who has developed a really strong community offer based on one approach, or perhaps even more John Kearon and BrainJuicer who have combined chutzpah, style, smarts, and a very, very strong branding message to what they are doing. But surely the strongest claim to have been an ‘Apple’ in its time would have to be the company formed by Maurice Millward and Gordon Brown when with very little research experience these two advertising guys created a business in a tiny office in the West Midlands to research advertising, creating ad tracking and one of the most clearly branded of the research companies, Millward Brown.

My feeling is that these innovative companies tend to either become traditional when they start to be successful (Sony and Nokia perhaps), or they keep making big bets and consequently go the way of Lehman Brothers, Arthur Anderson, IBM as a PC company, Lotus (cars and software), AOL, Myspace, etc.

As an additional thought on this topic, I wonder if any market researcher would ever recommend a 'bet the company' approach to a client? For example, if we felt the odds on some new strategy or product were something like going bust 20%, doing OK (i.e. the ROI on the effort would equate the norm, say 5% to 10%) 60%, and making a major impact with great rewards and returns 20%, would we recommend it? Or, is one of our core benefits that we tend to be risk averse?

(BTW, my feeling is that Apple has probably peaked, at least for the moment, I think the iPhone will continue to lose ground to Android phones and I suspect that the tablet computer will not really take of outside of the home for a while yet, which will hold the iPad back, almost nobody with a Mac changes to PC these days, but not many go the other way, which to me means they need to get even more students using them).

 

‘Should’ webinars be free?

Today we held a really successful online event looking at gaming and MR, the recordings and slides will be available next week at NewMR.org. We had eight presentations, about 100 attendees, lots of discussion and a real buzz on Twitter (check #newmr).

At the end of the webinar there was a brief (six question) survey asking for feedback. 70% of the attendees seemed reasonably satisfied with the event, and 88% thought it very or quite likely they would attend a similar future event. I wanted to assess people’s views as I would like to develop a model where I can provide a growing number of these events, but as a sole trader I need to do them without going bust!

In my opinion, the most interesting question related to asking whether what the charge for a future Webinar might reasonably be. The question asked was “This event was paid for by The Future Place, what would be a reasonable charge for future, similar events?”. The options and results were:

    32%    $10

     5%    $15

    11%    $20

    14%    $25

    39%    Nothing, they should be free

My interest was piqued by the fact that about four-in-ten thought that the webinars ‘should’ be free. One of the disappointments with quant data is not understanding why people score things the way they do. It seems to me there are a number of different possible reasons why people thing they ‘should’ be free, including:

1. They should be free because they do not cost anything.
2. They should be free because they are not worth money.
3. They should be free because they are done as a business promotion.
4. They should be free because they should be paid for by sponsors.
5. They should be free because they should be paid for by advertising.

However, all of the above seem, to some extent, to be flawed to me.

1)      They do cost money. I would estimate my out-of-pocket expenses at somewhere in the range $1000-$2000 for this event, including costs for admin), cost of webinar system, cost of online storage for the recordings, etc. As an example of the admin costs, there were eight speakers, each one required about one hour of rehearsal/recording time and the final recordings will take about six hours of work to produce versions to store on the internet.

2)      Whether they are worth the money (e.g. $10) is a matter of opinion, but if they are worth attending for three hours it would seem odd if they were not worth $10.

3)      Many webinars are done as a sales promotion and the case for these being free is strong. However, this webinar, and the ones I’d like to run are only tangently of benefit to my business. I am pretty much booked for the rest of the year so they take time but are unlikely to increase my revenue and they will cost money and take time.

4)      It might well be possible to find sponsors to pay for the costs of the webinars (in fact I suspect it would be straightforward). However, the protestant in me rebels at this idea, surely it is wrong for people to get something for nothing, just because somebody else would be willing to pay, isn’t that almost the definition of a freeloader?

5)      I suspect we could easily pay for the costs of running webinars by allowing advertisers to have short slots, perhaps between each speaker. This does not offend my sensibilities since people are paying for it in the sense of having to put up with the advertising – but I am not drawn to the idea.

So, I will have a think about a range of financial models to see if I can think of a way where more events can be organised. At the moment the options I have thought of include:

• Find a sponsor for the events and ignore my views about freeloaders (particularly since I might equally be a freeloader in such a model).
• Run the events for free but charge for the recordings and slides.
• Charge for the events and ignore the half of the industry who does not want to pay (if my poll is vaguely indicative).
• Ask for voluntary payments, perhaps listing those people who have paid.
• Only running events where I have a reasonable chance of advancing my business interests and limiting the number of events to my budget.

However, it is worth noting that charging introduces its own problems, including accounting, differential taxes (for example accounting for VAT), liability if things go wrong etc. There is also a negative link between charging and sponsorship money. Sponsors would like as many people as possible to attend and this is best achieved by making the event free.

What are your thoughts and suggestions?

 

Gaming and NewMR – Online Event, 20 January 2011 – the programme

The Gaming Event is a NewMR exploration of the context and opportunities created for market research by gaming. The Event has eight great speakers, each of whom will be adding a different perspective to the discussion. In order to make the Event as broad as possible and to maximise questions from the attendees we are limiting the presenters to just ten minutes each, allowing plenty of time for people to ask their questions.

Attending

If you want to attend, register at https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/926924726.

The programme

The times below are in terms of GMT/London time, the times in brackets are in terms of EST/NewYork, the event runs from 2pm GMT (9am EST) to 5pm GST (midday EST).

Schedule

2pm GMT (9am EST), Ray Poynter, Introduction

• Erica Ruyle, “Play for a high score”, understanding gaming and gamers
• Stefania Gogna, “Game On!”, a semiotician’s view of gaming and MR
• Betty Adamou, “Research Through Gaming”, opportunities for change
• Jon Puleston, “Game Theory”, using gaming to improve online surveys

3:30 GMT (10:30 EST) Comfort break

3:50 GMT (10:50 EST), Ray Poynter, Resume session

• Arthur Fletcher, “Let’s all play the game”, applying game playing to qualitative research
• Nigel Legg, “Trust, Identity, Reach and Reward”, the implications of social media
• Leonard Murphy, “Mobile social games for market research”, challenging boundaries
• Jeffrey Henning, “Prediction markets for fun and prophet”, putting gaming to work

5:25 GMT (12:25pm EST), Ray Poynter, Closing comments

5:30 GMT (12:30pm EST), End of Event

Accessing the slides and recordings

We will be making copies of the presentation and of the recordings available from the NewMR.org website, they should be there by about 28^th January.

The Twitter back-channel

As well as asking question using the built in question facility in the event we invite everybody to follow the broader discussion by using the #NewMR hashtag.

 

Could we be using QR-Codes in Market Research?

I have been awaiting the arrival of QR-codes in Europe for several years after hearing about how popular they were in Japan in a presentation at ESOMAR (in Lisbon). Having noticed that they seem to be popping up in an increasingly wide number of places and that free readers are available for most smartphones, I posted a message in QR-Code format in a number of places, including Twitter, Facebook, my blog, and NewMR.

The code is shown below, followed by the message embodied within it.

“Email your suggestion for how to use QR-Codes for Market Research to [email protected]. The best idea will win a copy of my book.”

Would I be deluged with answers? Or, would nobody contact me?

Well, a few people contacted me, probably about ten in total, but the clear winner was from Claire Banbury, who suggestions included using them with visitors to locations (e.g. tourist locations or events) in order to link to online surveys (amongst the things that can be embedded in a QR-Code is a URL, which in turn could be a survey) and possibly using them in mystery shopping.

I will be contacting Claire to send her a copy of my book.

Having conducted this exercise my feeling is that QR-Codes will make an impact and my suspicion is that it will take an innovative brand to really get behind QR-Codes and create a 'reason' for people to want to read the codes, probably to either win something or to compete in some sort of game.

PFA Research – a microcosm of the research world

Last week I had the pleasure of meeting and having a chat with Robert Rush the MD of PFA Research at their offices in Bodmin, Cornwall. For those of you not familiar with the business and physical geography of the UK you might be interested to know that nearly the entire market research industry is based in London (there are a few exceptions) and Cornwall is one of the least accessible (but arguably the most beautiful) counties in England.

I have wanted to meet the PFA team ever since I noticed several of their people signing up for the NewMR.org website. They caught my eye because I was not aware there was a research agency in Bodmin (a location I visit fairly often because my daughter’s business, Mish Online, is based there). So I was delighted when I contacted Robert and he invited me to visit them.

PFA Research is a small agency and in many ways provides a microcosm of the whole MR industry and illustrates several really useful lessons. They have been in existence for 20 years and Robert has been with the from the start, although when he joined he was (in his own words) a fresh faced graduate (he still looks pretty well on it to me).

One of the key lessons that PFA illustrate is the need to change or die. When they were formed they were created as the research arm of a small management consultancy firm. The management consultancy firm has long since gone, but PFA Research persist and have been through several changes of focus during those 20 years.

In their early days PFA focused on the IT industry and on multi-client projects, the links for which came from their associated management consultancy. Over time the projects/clients matured and needed bespoke research, rather than syndicated, and the dot com bust changed the environment considerably. PFA responded by building a more general portfolio of clients, by becoming a full-service agency, and developing a particular strength in public sector research (an area which has been quite good in the UK over the last ten years but which is now in decline). Similarly, the techniques used by PFA have changed and adapted, for example their fieldwork is increasingly moving to online fieldwork for their quantitative research.

Perhaps the most interesting feature of the chat was when Robert talked about where the company was going next. They may be a small and established agency, but they know about the need to change and they are looking at social media (Robert can be found tweeting at http://twitter.com/#!/robertrush and on LinkedIn at http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rjrush), they are looking at online communities, and they are looking at some innovative R&D with respect to online evaluation of phenomena. The key opportunities lie in finding ways for the public sector to make better use of smaller budgets and of reaching out to new markets, particularly those in the South-West of England, an area where local matters. Another interesting aspect of Robert’s vision is the cyclical nature of things like insight. Twenty years ago PFA research were associated with a management consultancy and much of the end value was strategic. Over time tactical research projects become more important to PFA and their clients and this was the focus of the companies middle years. Looking forward Robert is looking to build on the strategic/advice side again, reflecting the current needs of many clients, whilst still being ready to offer tactical research to those who want it.

One of the comments that Robert made early on in our discussion highlighted a key aspect of what any research agency needs in order to be successful, his comment was simply a heartfelt “we’re good at what we do”. In these very competitive times there is no easy money to be made in market research. Companies need to pick the right fields and then it is essential that they are good at what they do, it is important that they communicate it to clients, and it is vital that they believe it themselves. Being good at what you do is not enough to guarantee success, but it is an essential prerequisite.

You can find out more about PFA Research on their website at http://www.pfa-research.com/.

 

 

 

The case against tax breaks for market research

Research-Live has an interesting story about a call by Paul Lindley (the founder of Ella’s Kitchen) for tax breaks for market research (effectively a subsidy from the taxpayer for companies commissioning market research). On the face of it this would seem like a good idea for market researchers, and perhaps beyond that for UK companies, consumers, and the wider economy.

However, I think market researchers should make it clear that we think it is a bad idea and I have contributed a couple of comments to the Research-Live debate. Below are my key concerns about tax breaks for companies conducting market research. (The proposed tax break is 175% of the cost of the research, we can already set 100% of the cost against revenue when assessing net profits.)

My first issue is that tax systems generally work best when they are simple, the more politicians play around with incentives and breaks, the more the tax system distorts the economy, creating unexpected consequences and frequently creates perverse incentives.

In putting forward the case for tax breaks for market research Lindley makes the comparison with the UK’s tax subsidy for R&D. However, even if one accepts that the tax subsidy has created more and better R&D, the comparison does not seem strong. R&D is an exercise which often, perhaps usually, ends in failure. The return on R&D tends to be a largish number of failures, a number of modest returns, and few blockbusters. The 175% break means that a company focusing on R&D can obtain some cash whilst still in the R&D phase.

By contrast market research is a normal cost of business, companies conduct market research because there is a business case to do so and they expect to make a return on their research. If a tax subsidy were available some of it would be spent on projects that would have happened anyway (wasting taxpayer’s money) and some would bring into being projects that could not meet the cost/benefit analysis without a subsidy – i.e. the least good research ideas.

When looking at Government actions it is often useful to ‘follow the money’. The UK is currently in a financial hole, paying off record amounts of debt, some of it created by avoiding an even deeper recession, some of it through bad management of the previous Government. Additional money is scarce and can only be raised by a) cutting essential spending (at the moment the current Government are proposing massive cuts to a wide range of services and benefits and really hurting students) or by raising taxes (a variety of taxes, both direct and indirect have been increased by both the last Government and the current Government). So any extra money for a market researchers would come from cutting essential services further or by raising taxes further (both borrowing more money and printing more money are currently not available as options). Linldley argues the subsidy could be net neutral if it led to more growth in the economy, better products and services, and an enhanced business sector. However, not only do I doubt that this would be the result, but the timescale is such that the costs would be now, but the benefits would be in the ‘long run’ (and recall that Keynes pointed out that we are all dead in the long run). So, finding the money would cause pain.

Where would the money go? Well, I think there are two key possible outcomes:

1. Some client companies would keep their research spend at the same level and would pocket the subsidy (rules will be written, and accountants will find a way round them), which would result in the money being spent on other purposes, being given to parent companies, being remitted to shareholders, and/or paid as bonuses.

2. Some client companies would indeed do more research. This would transfer the money to research companies, which means about 60% of it would go to the large multinational research companies –probably not a major priority for the UK taxpayer?

So, whilst a tax subsidy for MR would be good for me and my clients, I do not think it would be good for UK taxpayers, consumers, or indeed the country.

Declarations of interest (plenty this time!):

As a shareholder in two companies in the MR field and as a consultant and supplier to market research companies I would be affected by any such change in the tax system.

I am a member of LibDems, I sit as a councillor, and I have been a parliamentary candidate, so my views of the last Government (Labour) and the current Government (coalition of Conservatives and LibDems) should be viewed in that context (BTW, for the record, I do not support those LibDem MPs who broke their pledge on student fees, I accept that fees would probably have gone up by more under Labour, but Labour did not sign a pledge, LibDems did and some of them broke it, it is as simple as that).

 

 

 

Suggestions?

What is marketing science?

For those of you on LinkedIn there is a great debate on this topic in the Marketing Science group.

Taking part in that discussion has certainly sharpened my thoughts about what marketing science is and what it could be (along with topics such as what do we mean by a ‘scientific approach’ and what is the role of different epistemologies in market research).For me the key things that have arisen out of the debate so far are:

1) Market research is not a science, just as medicine and engineering are not sciences. Market research can use science, just as medicine can be the application of science and engineering can be the application of science.

2) Some market researchers believe that all market research (quant and qual) can/should employ a scientific method, for example creating and testing hypothesis, seeking cause and effect, and trying to produce findings that can be replicated.

3) Some market researchers, particularly some of those who specialise in qualitative approaches, do not subscribe to an epistemology that embodies the scientific method, for example they may take a constructionist position.

4) Market research is part of marketing, but only a fairly modest part.

5) Marketing science could be a useful term for identifying that part of market research which uses non-trivial, mathematically or statically based techniques in ways consistent with what is generally understood as the scientific method to provide marketing-related insight.

6) Whist the boundaries of marketing science might always be hard to define the core of the domain should be relatively clear, for example discrete choice modelling, structural equation models, and regression.

7) The core of marketing science should, in my opinion, be expanded to include all mathematical/statistical techniques used by marketing, for example web analytics, churn data, network analysis, etc, not just those traditionally used by market researchers.

One issue that arose in the debate is the point that most clients are not well equipped to query the nature of the advanced techniques they might be presented with, due to time, interest, training, or aptitude. This situation, in my opinion, makes it all the more important that researchers work hard to define what they mean by marketing sciences and to define what they mean by good and best practice.

What are your thoughts?