I get a lot of emails some of which are very interesting and thought-provoking. One of the ones I received last week falls into this category. As we all know, the airline industry has been in the news a lot lately for a number of reasons–none of which are good. From fare increases to airlines charging for everything. Below is an email I received that talks about some of the issues in the airline industry and calls for a stop of oil speculation. The interesting thing for me wasn’t all about the message but rather who sent it. Or actually what group sent it. You will see that 12 airline CEOs all joined together and signed the letter.
Amazing that competitors most of the day and night can and will join forces to fight for a common cause.
Is this the first time you are seeing this email?
What do you think about this group having a unified front?
Now stop and think about how and what they did as it relates to the research industry. Most researchers would say that the research industry has an issue with respondent cooperation and panel quality–not sure many people would disagree with that.
How powerful and meaningful would it be if Larry Brownell and Jon Last (MRA), Diane Bowers (CASRO), Bob Lederer (RFL Communications) , Roger Green (PMRG), Bob Borocci (ARF), Richard A. (Dick) Kulka, PhD (AAPOR), Tom Kinnear (AMA), Véronique Jeannin (Esomor) and Linda Lawrie (PBIRG) and others collectively develop a letter and send it out to ALL the researchers across the world! How much would this group accomplish by working TOGETHER rather than each association trying to solve industry problems on their own?
I for one strongly believe that everyone should check their egos at the door and try to make this happen in 2009!
- Do you think this is a good idea?
- Do you think this great industry needs for this to happen?
- Who will be the first to step up?
I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY THIS, BUT MY HOPE IS WHY CAN’T THE RESEARCH INDUSTRY BE LIKE THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY!
I look forward to reading your comments.
 |
|
Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by pulling together, we can all do something to help now.
For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our customers. Since high oil prices are partly a response to normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and conservation. However, there is another side to this story because normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation. Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs. Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper. The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing problem. We need your help. Get more information and contact Congress by visiting www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com.
|
Steve Runfeldt says:
What? Do you want the research industry to get into the lost luggage, long lines business?
Seriously, I see positive and negative aspects to this analogy. The airlines cited above are competing companies not airline associations. I would not want to see the top 10 MR companies getting together and leaving the 90% of smaller companies out.
There is a great deal of overlap among memberships of the MR organizations you list. I think that it could be a very good thing for them to come together on certain basic industry-wide principles as well as for the purpose of brainstorming new solutions.
At the same time, our solutions are as likely to come from out of left field, and that is likely to mean the small entrepreneurial companies.
Harry Heller says:
As tempting as it is to think of the research industry as a single entity, it just ain’t so. All airlines go from point A to point B in an airplane. They may go in different planes and and treat their passengers differently, but they all share the same purposes.
Research industry trade groups, while sharing the same industry, really have different segments they serve. MRA — data collection, networking and training, CASRO — managing and dealing with the full service aspects of research from client satisfaction, regulation, privacy to data collection and management, Bob Lederer — from the point of view of journalism and issues, ARF — media measurement, research validity, and syndicated research, AAPOR — from reliability of the research data and standards, AMA — for the role of research in marketing, ESOMAR — the research process internationally, etc.
Some of their members are required to be companies, others individuals, some are strongly academic, others commercial.
Now there are initiatives that all of the trade groups have cooperated on. I know that I was involved with CMOR — a joint effort (initially) of AMA, ARF, CASRO and MRA with board members from all of the functions of research.
That didn’t work when budgets got tight and interests diverged.
So while your idea would be great, it doesn’t work well when all industry groups go to different point A’s to point B’s using different vehicles with different functions.
But when there is a real crisis (as has happened several times in the past) there is tremendous cooperation, and these organizations do share minutes, board members (in some cases) and have joint programs and initiatives.
So thankfully, we’re not like the airlines.
Paul M. Banas says:
I think an industry wide ideation around solutions for respondent cooperation and panel quality would be great, since these are issues that could certainly become a big drag on the continued legitimacy of market research data in the future. You could also add some clients while you’re at it, since they have a big stake in this as well.
As for an open letter, I think it’s an interesting idea, but I’m left wondering about what’s next. How do we capture all the innovative solutions, especially from the smaller firms, and then try to adopt changes industry wide?
Lastly, as someone who has had to travel through the Seventh Ring of Hell known as O’Hare, even beginning to compare the market research industry with the airlines gives me the shudders.
Steve Gentile says:
I think the associations most likely agree on many basic elements of the industry and tehri differences lie in specialty and focus, as they should. I think we can all speak on the subject of smaller companies being absorbed by larger ones in the name of partnership or consolidation, and have seen the resultant outcome. I am all for differences with an industry – all alike makes for very boring cocktail parties and awards dinners
Like the others, the thought of comparison is disturbing – having spent years as Director of Operations at 2 NY facilities prior to my current work, my mind went to poor service, bad food, heavily marked up services, bad reading materials, uncomfortable seats, malfunctioning air conditioning, cramped seating, but a cute host staff! For all but the last amenity, pass the barf bag – I worked very hard at my facilities to make them anything but cookie cutter.
Larry Brownell says:
I think we can be better than the airline industry.
There are many misconceptions in the profession, some of which have been voiced here. MRA was categorized as a data collection organization, which simply isn’t so. It’s membership mix is almost an exact ratio of how the industry breaks down in company participation, with 49% being full service (heavily influenced by on-line and phone), 37% Data Collectors and 13% Clients.
But, it is the not letting go of the previous misconceptions and beliefs that prevents the associations from doing what they should, which is become one. This is a relatively small industry compared to others I have worked with and yet we are sub-divided more than any I know of. Maybe it is a reflection of the profession’s need to segment. But other professions have learned that they can collaborate under one umbrella and still create pockets for their individual collaboration.
Competition between the associations will exists as long as the industry believes they can not co-exist under one association. As soon as this myth is shattered, companies will save money, improve networking will occur and the image of the profession will be enhanced by a unified voice.
Good and properly used research is not something that is debated between leaders or associations, so why the need to increase the expense to the profession by sub-dividing its activities.
Merrill Dubrow says:
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR THE RESEARCH INDUSTRY
For Immediate Release: September 9, 2008
JOINT PRESS RELEASE
US Research Associations Join Together to Focus on Quality
US research associations have come together to establish “association-powered” guidelines and metrics that will promote high quality online panel research. Looking further ahead, this association collaborative effort will expand its focus to online data quality; to research quality in general, including guidance on “fitness for use” methodology selection; and to other industry issues that require association cooperation and leadership.
“ACE” (Association Collaborative Effort) currently includes five associations whose combined membership reaches over 40,000 individuals and 1,000 corporations, representing all segments of the research industry and profession. Their collective “voice” in ACE will speed industry-wide implementation of these guidelines and metrics, providing assurance of panel research quality.
The AMA (American Marketing Association), ARF (Advertising Research Foundation), CASRO (Council of American Survey Research Organizations), CMOR (Council for Marketing and Opinion Research), and MRA (Marketing Research Association) are coordinating their separate quality-related initiatives and using their special competencies, membership representation, and assets to develop, implement, and support panel research guidelines and metrics.
The ACE leadership team noted, “The objective of ACE is to ensure that all online panel researchers and users, no matter the industry segment or the association affiliation, share a set of understood and accepted process and performance guidelines.”
ACE is communicating with additional associations and will welcome their involvement in ACE. Further, ACE will also coordinate with international quality initiatives to ensure that the global research community has a uniform view of online panel research processes and procedures and a consistent application of standards. ACE’s international collaboration will focus especially on the ESOMAR quality initiative, the WIN (World Industry Network) effort, and EFAMRO’s work on the ISO quality standard for access panels.
The immediate task for ACE is to develop, carefully and expeditiously, a set of guidelines and metrics that will address key components and processes of online panel research. These association-supported guidelines will emphasize transparency, as well as describe “best practices” for high-quality online panel research procedures. Association “research-on-research” studies to benchmark best practices are already underway through ARF’s “Foundations of Quality” initiative, which will establish a comprehensive, fact-based resource of knowledge on online data quality.
Additional ACE tasks are:
(1) to establish a uniform, industry-wide glossary of online panel research definitions and terms;
(2) to share with each other and the industry a comprehensive bibliography of articles and studies on panel and online research quality;
(3) to promote association educational and training programs to ensure implementation of these guidelines.
Given the rampant and prolific growth of online research in the U.S., it is important for the U.S. associations to advance the professional practice of online panel research both here and abroad. It is hoped that the ACE guidelines will exceed, in many instances, the quality threshold of the ISO access panel guidelines, which, necessarily, reflect the varying levels of technological development around the world. It is critical, however, that ACE coordinate its work with the quality initiatives in ESOMAR, EFAMRO, and other associations internationally.
A Progress Report to association members and the industry at large is being planned for 2008, and the introduction of the ACE Panel Guidelines and Metrics is scheduled for 2009.