I’m a big fan of qualitative market research. Done well it can be a great investment. It can be a guiding light for business, marketing and communication strategy; delivering brilliant insight- insight that can lead to a significant competitive advantage. Unfortunately though too much research fails to live up to its potential.
Too much market research does little more than tell us what we already know or parrots (mostly) well intentioned respondent verbatims. Sometimes it’s as if participants are the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom; as if they are the voice of the marketer rather than of the consumer. And let’s face it research should never be used to abdicate marketing decision making.
The good researcher knows intuitively which consumer comments are meaningful and which to rightly ignore. Intelligent market researchers know how to make sense and interpret consumer commentary rather than simply repeat it. To be a truly great qualitative researcher requires intuition, masterful interrogation skills & strategies, empathy as well as life and business experience. So when a ‘big brand’ market research company positions their 20 something researcher (with say an economics degree) as the person to work on your project, it’s reasonable to do some interrogation of your own- ask yourself this simple question ‘will this person add value?’. If not don’t give them the gig.
I remember a few years back being involved in research where a decision was taken not to pursue a particular repositioning strategy. The researcher was convinced it wouldn’t meet with market acceptance. They were wrong. A key competitor of the client undertook the same strategy 12 months or so later and had enormous ‘real world’ success. And herein lies the problem, too often great opportunities are missed because of poor misinterpreted research findings.
I’m wondering whether you submitted this article to bait me into blogging Kev – well done, it worked! Too many potentially effective campaigns die at the hands of second-rate research. And too many boring ads survive the process because they tick all the right research boxes, rather than the right advertising objectives.
So often, what we see in Brisbane is NOT reliable, professional or ’scientific’ social research, but rather a pretty useless record of what members of the public think advertising should be.
Might I suggest an important sign to keep on the look out for when researching a researcher? Beware of those who ask “Which of these ads would persuade you to buy Product X?” Until all consumers can be relied upon to ‘practise what they preach’, or to ‘do what they say, not what they do’, this question is not just a waste of time, it’s downright dangerous!
OK, I’ve started the ball rolling. Any one else like to continue the “How to spot a crook researcher” guide?