|
Archive for the ‘Sampling’ CategoryAppreciating The Value Of Traditional ResearchThursday, June 7th, 2012  The market research industry has change immensely in the past decade or so with the arrival of the internet and its subsequent advances – and few would argue that the industry has not benefited tremendously from this digital revolution. Yet does this mean ‘traditional’ market research no longer has a place? In an article featuring in the latest issue of Quirk’s, Stephen Turner argues that a hybrid approach is always the best when it comes to a well-rounded market research project. It’s hard to disagree with his reasoning: Of course, all research methodologies have their respective pros and cons; nor is this the first time that advancements in the industry have caused people to sit back and reassess things. Back in the day, face-to-face, house-to-house opinion polling went into decline as postal and telephone surveys gained in popularity. Both of these ‘new’ methodologies had distinct advantages but also a number of drawbacks – it’s difficult, for example, to provide visual stimuli during a telephone interview. It’s probably fair to say that every approach has advantages but leaves something out in the process. There is no doubting that the internet is an extraordinary tool which has redefined our ability to reach diverse segments of people. However, like all of the new techniques before it, there is still an important body of information left on the table, even as technology brings us ever closer to the experience of face-to-face communications. Non-verbal communication (body-language, posturing, etc.) forms an important part of our understanding, and simply goes undetected when interviewing does not take place face to face. The problem is, of course, that face-to-face work is expensive and time-consuming. It is especially difficult when you need to talk to people who are geographically dispersed. Yet, Turner argues that, in spite of the huge amount of reliable and valid information garnered elsewhere, face-to-face interviews are essential in order to truly understand peoples’ thoughts, feelings and dispositions toward the products, services and communications that we research. Turner concludes by advocating the development of hybrid approaches to research which include various components. In essence, this is what we at B2B International do each time a client comes to us with a market research ‘problem’ they need help in solving. We look at all the different ways we could go about gathering the required intelligence, weigh up the pros and cons of each methodology and (taking into account any additional budgetary and time constraints) propose the most suitable combination of methodologies to best fit the bill. Find out more about the techniques and tools we use here. You can read the article in full here. Lord Sugar Highlights How Simple It Can Be To Conduct Market ResearchTuesday, August 2nd, 2011  A few days ago, fresh from choosing his latest Apprentice (in the UK BBC show), Lord Sugar conducted some rather cutting-edge social media market research. The task that Lord Sugar was looking to complete was not the most business critical decision by any stretch of the imagination – however, it was still an important decision, and one that most publishers and designers will surely agree, can take much deliberation and an abundance of time. The task – to decide upon the cover for Lord Sugar’s latest book. In The Apprentice, Lord Sugar is often talking of the importance of market research, and a few days ago he highlighted to all his twitter followers the apparent ease with which it can be undertaken. Lord Sugar posted a short message via his twitter account (http://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar) asking his followers to cast their eyes over three variations of a new cover for his up-coming book, and to then respond with their preference (cover 1, 2 or 3 – (view the images here)).  Sure enough, Lord Sugar’s followers duly obliged, and 24 hours later a twitter post appeared proclaiming cover number two to be the chosen winner.  So what had Lord Sugar achieved? Well, in the space of a day he had come up with a research problem, put the question to his market, and received the feedback he was looking for. And ofcourse, this was an act of measurement – the covers were already designed, so there was no need for qualitativefeedback as to what people liked about the covers, or how they could be improved. Lord Sugar got to the core of his problem rapidly, and got the measurement he needed. Although this medium of social media research is fairly new (though certainly gathering pace rapidly), the principal of ‘dipstick’ research has been around for many years in various forms, through tools such as omnibus surveys and panels. With an omnibus survey, a specific question (or number of questions) can be submitted to a target market or a particular sample pool, on a syndicated survey that may run weekly/bi-weekly/monthly. Results are usually turned around in a number of days. Surveys of this nature are indeed very useful in terms of gauging a quick response from the market and gathering attitudes towards a particular topic; however, they are unable to answer more in-depth research objectives, where a wide range of questioning is required. Research using social media channels is certainly more prevalent in consumer research than in business research – though its usage in a b2b capacity is certainly growing. Indeed, b2b research inherently leans more towards multi-modal methodologies, as many projects seek to address a number of sub-objectives. Projects may combine exploratory focus groups with a programme of desk research, followed by a quantitative telephone survey, in order to meet a project objective. And of course, all research tools have their strengths and weaknesses, their applications where they yield the best results, and Lord Sugar highlights the strengths of social media research here. There is, of course, much more to social media research – attitudes to brands can be tracked through syndication tools, key trends and problems can also be identified and addressed – and much more. Indeed, it too is a methodological approach that could complement an array of other methodologies being used in a multi-method piece of research. The uses and possibilities are quite vast – those mentioned in these few paragraphs are very much the tip of the iceberg. Lord Sugar’s dipstick twitter research certainly delivered quick results, and certainly met his research objective of gathering market opinion on which book cover is preferred. So, perhaps this could be a methodology that would be best used for answering questions whereby a response is either time critical, or where a rough quantitative gauge is required. The pool of followers that each twitter user has (whether a person or company) could be considered to be its own miniature panel – or twitterpanel, if you will. Though this pool of followers may not be representative of a company’s customer base, or a person’s typical readership (as in Lord Sugar’s case), they certainly have a vested interest in the said account, otherwise they wouldn’t be following it. This is a panel that is instantly accessible, and as Lord Sugar shows, can answer a simple research problem in an extremely short space of time. Though it is unlikely that this type of dipstick research through twitter can ever replace typical surveys (not least because twitter followers will no doubt be averse to being over-researched, let alone its limitations) it can certainly provide an excellent gauge on a market’s attitudes. Ever the entrepreneur, Lord Sugar has taken a problem and found a simple, effective, and free solution. Does Research Tell You Anything New?Monday, April 12th, 2010
 We like Luke Johnson’s column in the Financial Times and regularly feature it on our blog. He is something of a hero of ours, having built up Pizza Express, become exceedingly rich as a private equity investor, and proved to be an astute commentator on entrepreneurial issues. It was with a sinking heart that we read the article he wrote about focus groups in the Financial Times last week. Luke Johnson singled out focus groups for criticism but in truth his points could be applied to any type of market research. He claims that market research he commissioned told him very little that he did not already know. This will not be an unknown observation to many market research practitioners reading this blog. They will have often times presented a detailed and thorough piece of research with many incisive findings and sharp recommendations, only to hear some member of the audience claim that there was nothing new in it for them. One way round this would be to ask everyone who attends a market research presentation to bring with them a sealed envelope in which they summarise their pre-understanding of the market so that it can be compared with the findings of the research survey. When market research findings are laid out in a clear structure it is quite likely (and quite right) that much of what is said will concur with existing knowledge. However, without the market research, the knowledge may be uncoordinated and there could be many internal disputes about where the marketing priorities lie. A good piece of research that confirms knowledge and places it in a framework that everyone understands, can be worth its weight in gold. However, there is another issue that is worth considering. There is an old saying that “a problem defined is a problem half solved”. In other words, a good brief, which clearly lays out the problem to be researched, is critical in delivering findings that resonate. In the case outlined by Luke Johnson, an obvious question we would ask is “what were the focus groups seeking to achieve?”. Focus groups work best as an exploratory tool, possibly forming the first stage of a larger program. Were the focus groups used as a single research solution to something that should have had a qualitative stage followed by a quantitative stage? We don’t know, but we do know that there is a dangerous tendency to commission focus groups as a stand-alone research solution when they should be just one component part. We shall carry on reading and promoting Luke Johnson’s articles because he challenges all and everything around him and we like that. However, on this occasion Luke, we think you may have been a tad hard on the market researchers and maybe you should also challenge yourself — did the research really tell you nothing worth knowing, and did you really give the researchers the right brief? Read on.
Why focus groups tell you the obvious By Luke Johnson I recently commissioned some market research and, as is too often the case, it told me what I already knew or was obvious. I paid the bill of several tens of thousands of pounds, consoling myself with the fact that the work at least confirmed my prejudices – always a satisfying sensation. But I also sensed I had received very poor value; and in talking to other clients of research companies, I realise quite a few feel the same way. As Michael Skapinker wrote yesterday, the idea that the customer is always right has become an accepted truth in business. Unfortunately, customer desires are often wholly unrealistic – because of cost, technology or legislation. As Henry Ford said at the launch of the Model T: “If I’d asked the customer, he’d have asked for a faster horse.” I remember Peter Boizot, founder of PizzaExpress and my predecessor as chairman, telling me how, in 1965, customers in his Soho pizzeria felt uncomfortable with authentic Italian pizza – and demanded chips. But he stuck to his vision and guided their tastes to the genuine product. I have also experienced data blindness over research studies. Consultancies supply blizzards of material – far more than could ever be useful. Wordy, sprawling PowerPoint presentations compensate for a lack of incisive thinking. One can end up paralysed with indecision, buried in e-mails too large to even download. Great breakthroughs in fields such as new product development are frequently achieved by avoiding surveys and committees altogether. Constant testing can lead to blandness and safety-first choices. In creative affairs, corporate brainstorming sessions usually end up with groupthink dullness, all originality squeezed out because of the fear of failure or through the influence of office politics. As Steve Jobs said: “It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” At Channel 4, many of the most brilliant and distinctive programme ideas during my time as chairman were pioneered by eccentric independent producers who were championed by renegade commissioners. Meanwhile expensive, mainstream concepts often flopped. Over the decades since I worked in advertising, I have sat in many focus groups and wondered about the quality and effectiveness of such qualitative research. After all, who submits to a two-hour discussion about brands of washing-up liquid? All too often, the answer is the lonely, the old, the unemployed, students and, most worrying of all, serial participants in search of the small stipend and free tea and biscuits. It is very hard to persuade a normal working person to attend such panels, but they are usually the target subjects. I worry that researchers who appear to succeed are too often the snazzy firms who trade in sexy stereotyping. They use phrases like “Inner City Adversity” and “Twilight Subsistence” to categorise and supposedly understand various imagined socioeconomic and demographic groups. I am unconvinced that this terminology and philosophy is especially practical and relevant for many companies. In my restaurants, the people who know our customers are not researchers but branch managers, who serve the public all day, every week. Our staff may not have the slick patter, but they have the frontline, first-hand knowledge. Another unfortunate byproduct of the growth of research has been the increasing use of surveys by political and charitable organisations in their campaigns. Almost every day a pressure group gets publicity by publishing selective and scary conclusions about poverty, health, discrimination or other controversial issues. Journalists rarely question the study methods or validity of the results. Even if there were no errors in the sampling techniques, questionnaires or systems used, the media often over-simplify and exaggerate outcomes. Over-reliance on researchers means owners and managers are separated from the consumer. Successful entrepreneurs I know put more effort in talking to customers themselves, than they do working with costly experts who tell them what they should have learned long before. Why DIY isn’t always value for moneyFriday, December 7th, 2007 Continuing what’s become something of a small business-themed week, today we look at how conducting DIY market research can be fraught with difficulty for the unacquainted and why it’s something that’s sometimes best left to the professionals. In her article, Do-It-Yourself Market Research which recently appeared in Business Week, Karen E. Klein runs through some of the ways a start-up business can get to grips with their industry. Her suggestions include:
Klein points out, however, that such techniques may end up looking like selling exercises and could even be misconstrued as harassment. Added to this, any business carrying out their own ad-hoc research would also have to be wary of the legal implications of doing so, as well as the issues involved in appropriate questionnaire design and sampling. Given all this, and the fact that hiring staff or attending conferences could themselves be expensive ventures, the conclusion appears to be that there’s often no substitute for expertise where market research is concerned. As the article explains: If you have the funds, an easier and more effective way to gather business data is to work with an established research company… caution [is advised] when conducting do-it-yourself studies. If a study is not well designed and executed, it can lead to poor business decisions, which are far more costly in the end. Sound advice indeed – Especially because there are few worse things a business can do than not understand their market or their customers properly, as demonstrated by the picture below…
Helpful Market Research ToolsThursday, March 30th, 2006 Almost all valuable market research is conducted using samples, which makes the area of sampling and statistics key to the market research function. If business to business marketers experience twinges of inadequacy when compared to their counterparts in consumer fields, sampling is often the reason. Consumer marketing men trot out jargon about quotas, stratification, probabilities and the like which is mumbo jumbo to 99 per cent of industrial marketers. Companies commissioning market research very often feel insecure with industrial samples as it is difficult (except with large homogeneous universes) to know the accuracy of the findings. We have devised different sampling tools that you can request from our main website at http://www.b2binternational.com/tools3.html. However we have now placed these tools online that is specific to our b2b blog
This area of the website allows you to determine the sample required in your particular market, work out the accuracy of response rate once you have carried out a market research survey and determine the growth rate of your market or company. We now have some new content available to you via our blog. You may, or may not, have noticed the ‘useful interactive tools’ area that has appeared over the past few days. If you would like more information on sampling in b2b markets then read the following article or Sampling & Statistics by Paul Hague and Paul Harris http://www.b2binternational.com/pub05.html This area of the website offers you access to:
B2B Sample Size Calculator Growth Calculator Ready Reckoner |
|
