There’s plenty of blame to go around, though, and it should not be borne solely by market research professionals and the providers that serve them. As a function, market research rarely gets the respect it deserves from senior management. This lack of respect translates into shrinking budgets that may garner sub-par research findings. This vicious cycle then confirms senior management’s viewpoint that market research doesn’t deserve much respect (or budget) because its findings are inconclusive or weak.

Of course this is not always the case — and it doesn’t have to be. There are plenty of market research pros that have “earned a seat” at the executive table by demonstrating the link between market research and ROI. It isn’t easy, but if the market research industry wants more respect it needs to talk in a language that CEOs can hear — dollars and cents.

It appears that at the beginning of the on-line phenomena, everyone tried to put everything on-line - literally exercising the “square peg in a round hole” philosophy. I think that this has corrected itself to an extent, as on-line certainly has it’s place, and can be a very cost-effective solution, depending on the target audience you are looking to reach and the nature of the research being conducted. I always tell my clients - if you can work off a list (as opposed to random), then let’s explore on-line.

However, there has been a lot of discussions recently as to the validity of some on-line research being conducted, questioning the quality - to speak directly to Harry’s comment. Not being one to make a decision in a vacuum, at The Research Industry Summit: Improving Respondent Cooperation conference held last year, Kim Dedecker from Proctor & Gamble bought up some disturbing points about some research they had conducted, actually checking the validity (quality) of two on-line studies they had performed. One was checked against an identical study that was repeated using the same panel, and both studies yielded different results, and the other checked an on-line study against an identical study fielded through mail, also resulting in differing results. After additional validation methods were undertaken, it appears the data collected via mail was correct and that collected via Internet was not. An excerpt from an industry newsletter about the event gives you a general idea.
“Among the most compelling speakers was Kim Dedeker, Vice President,
Consumer & Market Knowledge, Procter & Gamble, who shared feedback from some research on research conducted by the global giant. P&G fielded a survey with identical methodology twice with a gap of about a week in between, and found results were substantially different from the two waves, to the extent that the primary action step for one survey would have been the opposite of the other.”

I still believe that on-line has it’s place, but buyers (and sellers) can no longer turn a blind eye to the possible limitations of such research, and that if it’s priced like a Honda, and runs like a Honda, chances are it’s not a Mercedes - but a Honda is a good car too! I also think that there may be an upcoming shift in the future to infuse random recruits to many of the panels, and while this will prove to be more expensive as compared to most of the current panel recruitment methods, in the long term it may still be a less expensive option than strict telephone research, and potentially yield more valid results from a more representative sample, but again, at a higher cost from the panel companies and on-line providers.

But this isn’t a new issue, nor is it confined to the niche of on-line research. We opened our offshore telephone facility in direct response to the issue that people wanted cheaper prices (although no one ever wants to admit that this is the motivator). We have experienced (as other companies with offshore facilities have) terrific quality, along with comparable (if not better) production rates, and high quality. The only way we can do this, however, is to go where the costs are less. That is the only way to not sacrifice the other two things that we know the client wants - high quality and quick turn around time, although for now, we can still give someone quicker turnaround at higher prices because we simply have more capacity in the US at this point.

However, even with the off shore facility, we still face the same issues regarding faster, better, cheaper. I think it comes down to the salesperson or consultant doing the best job they can to convince the client that these things are proven with my company, even if it is perception. You can be the low cost provider, and do very well as a company, but a true mastery of the sales and consultative process will be to prove the value added someone gets with doing business with you, which may consititute higher costs than those of some competitors. That’s the job of a sales person. Anyone can respond to a client by selling on price (low price, that is). Establishing the value-added (and delivering on it), is what continues to grow the business the right way.

I know of one online panel provider in particular, who is actually expensive compared to it’s competitors, but the value-added they have been able to brand to their panel, which justifies the higher costs, has caused the company to grow from something no one ever even heard of 5 years ago to one of the most well respected names in the industry.

It’s like we have developed cheap tires and our customers now expect us to sell them a Lexus for ten grand.

As Harry said above, “better” is a perception. Lucky for us. we’re in the magical world of marketing where perception is reality. Unfortunately, claims like “better” without any proof behind them are “puffery.” That is where many MR suppliers went wrong.

Rather than take the time to explain how and why they were “better” in a believable way, many simply defaulted to what I’ve called the “We’ll do it a day faster, a dollar cheaper, and make one less mistake than our competitors” position.

Of course buyers are now fixated on getting the lowest possible cost - because we’ve failed to give them anything else to consider.

“Better” is a judgemental call and so much goes into a research study that the definition of “better” cannot be absolutely measured (except in the extremes.) So “better” is only a claim — what we call in advertising, “puffery.”

So using this promise is only saying — I can deliver on two. You have to take my word about the third.

But companies that are measurably better usually charge more and take more time.

So what kind of research would you trust your next $1 million decision to?