I Have a Challenge for the Research Community
Even though my beloved Boston Red Sox had a sub par year, it was a very successful year in the eyes of Major League baseball. The reason is simply…actually I can give you many reasons…like over 76 million reasons. In fact, 76,043,902 reasons. That is the exact number of fans who went to baseball games this year.
Why is that number important you ask?
Because this set the all time attendance mark for baseball—a record that has now been broken three years in a row.
On page 12c of the October 4, 2006 issue of USA Today, Major League Baseball took out a full page ad thanking their fans—all 76,043,902 of them. It started me thinking about how many respondents the market research community might have on an annual basis—perhaps 100 million?
Clearly that can be debated…but today isn’t the day for that.
But wouldn’t it be cool to have the research community thank our lifeblood of the industry—OUR RESPONDENTS! Perhaps the research industry should start an ad campaign to thank respondents. And think of how great would it be if the research community worked together to make this happen.
Everyone in our great industry acknowledges that response rate is the biggest problem that the industry is currently facing. This is such a hot topic that an entire conference was chaired by Bob Lederer last month. Isn’t it time to stand up and really do something about this?
So here is my challenge. I am looking for 100 companies to work together and commit $10,000 each. (The math is simple. That’s one…million…dollars).
- Is this an opportunity for data collectors, full service companies and clients to really work together?
- Would this make a difference?
- Would this be enough to increase awareness?
- Would this increase response rates?
We are actually looking for 99 companies because as President and CEO of M/A/R/C Research, I will put our money where our mouth is and commit to the $10,000 price tag.
I look forward to reading your comments and potential next steps.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:21 am
This is great Merrill. I have long been saying that the industry (organizations) need to do a better job of educating the public. In a previous post, I mentioned that my family and friends still get confused by what I do. “Are you still in marketing?” They don’t understand research and don’t understand the value, even though I have discussed this many times over the 17 years I’ve been in this industry. Perhaps this type of campaign could be used to educate the public on the value of their participation. I look forward to seeing the list of the other 99 since I’m confident you’ll get a following for this great cause.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:27 am
This wouldn’t be the first time that M/A/R/C was involved in a campaign targeted at respondents. I remember several years ago the industry launched the Your Opinion Counts! campaign. M/A/R/C got heavily involved. We even concluded our interviews (phone) by thanking the respondent and then saying “and remember, YOUR OPINION COUNTS!”
October 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Merrill knows my views on this and yet was still brave enough to ask me to comment!
On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea….except that it isn’t. $1 million would not move the needle of respondent cooperation one iota. The Census Bureau spent $180 million to improve response on its decennial and managed to move the needle by 3 percentage points - that’s $60 million per percentage point! Add to that, the failure of CMOR to move the needle in the past 15 years. I was there at the original meeting where CMOR was set up amidst great fanfare - it was predicted that funds would flow in from all sides and that we would be able to attack this issue head on once and for all. I was among the most enthusiastic and, indeed, contributed $50,000 a year up until 2004. But we were one of the few - funds dwindled and CMOR’s total budget never exceeded $750,000 a year at its peak. They managed to do many good things with that money and have produced some really sensible guidelines and best practices over those years - but have not moved the needle.
No, I believe that this is an issue that should be tackled where we have the most leverage: at the local level. Many years ago, the MRA conducted an experiment through its Minneapolis-St. Paul chapter whereby everyone came together (local agencies, manufacturers, media and research firms) and begged, borrowed and stole major local media coverage that, over a four week period, educated the population on the benefits of research. Response rates in the area rose by 20%!
I have since constantly challenged the MRA - why did they not roll that out nationally? It could become an annual event in markets all over the country. At Bob Lederer’s conference, I challenged Larry Brownell of MRA once again - publicly - to take up the gauntlet, which he promised to consider.
If MRA did this, all the other associations could get behind them by throwing in their talents and assets - CASRO with its education programs, ISO work and Internet standards; AAPOR with methodological research and education; AMA with education of client-side users on best practices etc.
Each association has at least one major initiative that it pursues on behalf of the industry gratis, because it believes in it. This could be MRA’s finest hour.
That’s my two- (or maybe five-) cents worth, Merrill! Would be interested in your thoughts.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Merrill thank you for bringing up this topic. Like you I dream of one day seeing a full page ad in the LA Times and Wall Street Journal thanking respondents for their participation in marketing research studies.
I do differ in who should be delivering this message. As Paul Kirch mentioned above, most people have no clue what marketing research companies do and more than often confuse us with tele-marketers. In my mind, this message would not be successful if that full page ad has a coalition of marketing research companies and like professional organizations listed as sponsors.
Instead, the full page ad I envision would be something like this “We at McDonald’s would like to take the time to thank all of those who participated in the focus groups, the taste tests and the various advertising tests that enable our new McReuben Sandwich to be the most successful new sandwich launch McDonald’s has had in the last 8 years. Marketing research helps us serve you better” (My apologies to McDonald’s).
For the last 7 years, I have been sharing this idea with various folks on the client side. Unfortunately, the response has been “That is a great idea, but my company would never fund that and besides, this is the marketing research community’s concern, not ours”. And there is the other half of the problem. Not only do we have to educate the public (respondents) about the importance of what we do, we also need to educate upper management. It amazes me that in 2006 we are still talking about “Getting our seat in the C suite” and “Making your research relevant within your company” (actual popular topics from recent marketing research conferences). It seems to me that for every P&G, Dunkin’ Donuts, and FedEx who “get marketing research” there are an equal amount of major corporations whose idea of marketing research is to have their “ad agency run a couple of focus groups”.
If we are going to band together and roll out such a campaign, we must be realistic and acknowledge that this has to be a two front effort; one message aimed at educating and enlightening respondents and another targeted at end users.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Merrill,
Thanks for your post on this issue. Clearly, declining response rates is an issue that needs to be addressed for the credibility of the industry. The issue hit me hard when I saw Simon Chadwick’s statistic in Advertising Age that 50% of all survey responses come from 5% of the population. To say I was “stunned” is an understatement - - that statistic made me briefly ill.
The idea of a community fund to further delve into this issue is a great idea and I applaud you for taking the first step. While critical, the debate over how to use the money raised (see other posts) seems less important to me than determining the impact that low response has on the findings we report to clients. Perhaps there is existing info available on this that I haven’t seen – so please point me to it if I am missing something.
For my two cents, I would like to see our industry commit some dollars to determine if we are dealing with a mountain or a molehill. Let’s learn more about the differences between responders and typical non-responders and how it impacts the story for our clients. (I know – it would be difficult to do but that never should be an excuse). As an industry, we need to take a position on this issue and we can only do that with more credible information. Once we are armed with this information, we can use it to either calm client fears (as well as ours), justify increased costs, or determine other step to rectify the problem (i.e., awareness and education programs etc.).
Regards,
Adam
October 31st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Merrill,
Another great idea around a serious issue. Thank you.
Some major clients may contribute but others might not have the flexibility to donate outright. One solution might be to offer an opt in donation check box associated with each project. That way the amount would appear as a project expense i.e. a legitimate ongoing cost of doing business which is a reasonable way to think of it given current trends.
We should do the research required to learn what message [s] would inspire the public to be more likely to respond. Consumers might want to know “what’s in it for me” and have a way of distinguishing legitimate from illegimate surveys [MRA seal of approval?]
We should also learn what sort of survey “lead in” works best and what consumer barriers exist e.g. have too many heard that a survey will take 10 minutes when 15 was the reality? Was the survey “sugging?” Given today’s time crowded lives, it may require more than a message to encourage a response.
Not only do the public and “top management” need an education but marketers and researchers may also need to better understand the issue.
That said, this is an initiative we should follow up on. Thanks, Merrill.
Bill
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Yes, we all have heard and are aware of Simon’s views on this issue. I commend your challenge and ask others to think outside of the box when responding to it.
We all know that Simon and CASRO were in favor of a similar initiative years ago and that is why they approached others in the profession at RILF, which lead to the creation of CMOR. I would agree with Simon in three areas, that their plan would not have worked, that MRA’s grassroots program had some limited success and that as he stated at the Respondent Cooperation Summit, that MRA is the best organization to address “quality” in the profession.
What needs to happen is a comprehensive multi-pronged approach, not a “lets throw money at a media buy”, as was previously posed. A strategic media buy is definitely a component. If the profession could come together, as most organizations are for this purpose, then much like Simon has heard me say in the past and he suggested in his posting, we could move the needle. But, the process would be slow, as the problem has been generating for at least 25 years.
The fact is that we do not know how bad the problem would be today without CMOR and the three leading associations in the profession (ARF, AMA & MRA) are all still at the table with CMOR working on these issues. The only reason that the needle hasn’t slipped further is because of CMOR.
I have seen the components that CMOR has laid out for their plan of action beginning in January and have great confidence in the possibilities. Simon must have been eavesdropping on the CMOR Board meeting, because the group talked about what components each association could address. I strongly believe that AAPOR, AMA, ARF, QRCA and MRA as collaborative associations can work on the various components and address this crucial issue.
At the recent RC Summit, Simon rightfully said that MRA, as the only association that represents the full spectrum of the profession, should be responsible for addressing quality. I agree, but I also believe collaborating with CMOR, the vehicle created by industry leaders 14 years ago, is a must. I challenge Simon to be part of the solution and not lead this into a divided turf scenario.
Simon’s characterization of MRA’s “Your Opinion Counts” program in the early 90’s is a bit simple in its nature. The fact is through our chapters, who put on great Herculean efforts, we launched this program. It had the most impact in the Twin Cities market. Why? This success was due to the nature of the market and societal factors of the time. The news media was not as partisan and could be counted on for stories in a market of this size. The emphasis on privacy was not as significant as it is currently. Opinions had not become a commodity to be bought, but rather people were still open to the exchange. The community had stronger ties to the concept of overall public good. These are things that need to be compensated for today. These are things that need grassroots efforts that can be addressed through the AMA, AAPOR and MRA chapters. We also need to work on the other components and yes work with the media. We need to get what we can for free like posed by one of the networks at the summit and also find strategic purchases.
The major difference between now and the 1990’s when Simon and his colleagues threw up their hands, is that we don’t have to and cannot think in that same small box. MRA can and will do everything in its power to move the needle on this, but with collaboration, as we have always sought.
Finally, there is as we heard at the summit more to this issue. We need to focus on quality research to better use and respect our key asset, respondents. There is no program out there that currently addresses the tough stance of what is quality research. Yes, ISO says you are a good paper pusher and do some marginal activities that mean that you document your processes, but even with my limited knowledge, I know, that does not guarantee quality research. MRA will take up this mantle of quality as posed by Simon and one other panelist at the forum and we will bring it back to a collaborative group of associations that truly want to address it.
Our IMRO division the only group in the US totally focused on online research has already opened the door a crack with their new Guidelines released a week ago. I encourage every one to review this start. (http://www.imro.org/pdf/IMRO%20Professional_Standards_for_Online_Research9_06.pdf)
But, I do not dismiss Merrill’s challenge and commend him on bellying up to the bar. Let’s breakout of the box and try something more multi-dimensional!
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
This is an excellent idea. Every customer likes to be acknowledged for their service and we have learnt about it in marketing decades ago. In marketing research, we tend to consider our clients as either the corporate firms (for market research firms) or our senior executives (client side research). We have one more customer - our respondents - who are worth more if we calculate the number of hours they spend to answer our questions every year. We will never survive without our respondents. I agree with Mr. Chadwick that we might have to implement this idea very carefully. I think it would be nice if we implement CRM processes in recognizing our respondents.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:11 am
On the surface this sounds like an idea that may work. But it simply will not. And it will not address the fundamental issue of how researchers and marketers “treat” those who participate in surveys.
If you ask any consumer a question regarding a topic of which they have a modicum of interest, you will get an answer. If you ask them ten questions, you’ll get less participation as fewer people will spend the time to respond to all ten. And if you ask them the number of questions typically found in most online surveys today (closer to 50), should you be surprised that consumers do not want to spend the time to participate?
Even with a communication/education “program” clearly articulating the benefits of survey/research participation, consumers will not engage and complete surveys that are long and of little or no interest to them. No matter how much money is thrown at the “program,” it will not be effective. It’s just the wrong approach-full stop.
The benefits of regularly going to the doctor are well known by consumers. But, they don’t do it despite the heroic efforts of organization such as the Ad Council and the companies contributing media to influence consumers. And the “payoff” of going to the doctor is infinitely greater than participating in a survey.
The solution to the industry’s falling online cooperation and completion rates is to develop better surveys. While I feel strongly about this solution, I recognize it’s only my opinion-or so I thought.
I found this link: http://www.marketresearchcareers.com/mrcpressrelease050707.aspx
It seems that people who work in the industry believe the same. Shorter and more targeted surveys are the answer. Education as a means to resolve the response rate issue came in dead-last.
When are we, as an industry, going to step up and address the core issue-treating respondents with respect and appreciation for their opinions, and most importantly, their time?