QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION
Contents
Table of

03	 Introduction
04	 Executive Summary (Infographic)
06	 Methodology and Sample
07	 	 In-depth Intervie...
At Communispace, we believe there is a better way
of doing business. As the leading consumer collaboration
agency, for mor...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Introduction
Welcome to the 14th edition of the GreenBook Researc...
OF SUPPLIER SELECTION
SUPPLIER SELECTION

tionship
/supplier

y with
ds

85%
92%

Executive Summary

Good relationship
wit...
BrainJuicer

Mentions (400)

(142)

Ipsos

TNS

le

Mentions (142)

Mentions (400)

Ipsos
Google

Mentions (202)

Mentions...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Methodology and Sample

GRIT respondents are recruited by email fr...
What is the range of your company’s annual market research billings/
budget for primary market research (in USD)?

$15
,00...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Basics: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Usage

Call it the “Reven...
GRIT Commentary

Quality and Innovation for Long Term Success

For many years research suppliers have been adapting and
mo...
Qualitative Research
While many Focus Group facilities are expanding their
support for other activities, including mock tr...
GRIT Commentary

Research Is Now a Global Village

In 1858, Queen Victoria sent a telegram via the Atlantic
Cable to Unite...
Quantitative Research
Mobile Surveys
increased by 4%,
reaching 27% usage
in 2013

Online Surveys continued their growth, r...
“Intelligence: Not because you think
you know everything, but rather because you
question everything you think you know.”
...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Drivers Of Supplier Selection
Supplier selection importance to...
“High quality analysis” rose from 76% top-box to 88%,
reflecting a renewed focus on analytic quality

Supplier selection i...
Two disparities are particularly noteworthy. First, we see
that suppliers felt clients would give higher ratings than
the ...
GRIT Commentary

Supplier: Time, Cost and Quality…Pick any Two
Client: I need all three.
Matt Warta
CEO, GutCheck
Email:	
...
Understanding Client Views on Supplier Selection
Ron Sellers of Grey Matter Research conducted a series of five
in-depth i...
•	 “If on the rare occasion I am able to answer a call or get
on the phone with someone, and then I learn that they
are on...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How Do Research Pros Get Information?

Staying abreast of developm...
Is Better Done

Online

I s B etter D o ne

In Person

Than k fully, Schles in ge r A s s o c iate s D o e s B oth
Actuall...
Considering the consistent importance GRIT respondents
give to events, we asked a new question in this year’s edition
of G...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Drivers of Change in the Industry
What steps is your organizat...
Issue prompting major changes in data collection:
Client vs. Supplier

Issue prompting major changes in data collection

C...
In more established regions, clients and suppliers alike
realize that shifts toward more customer centric marketing
and de...
GRIT Commentary

To where and how fast?

For me, it’s always refreshing to begin the start of each
calendar year with a st...
Adaptation To Change

Locked into current
approach

Research provider's
lack of imagination

Too hard to organize

Old fas...
Lack of knowledge

Ignorance

Unproven

Fear of trying
something new

Lack of proof it
works

No suppliers have an
adequat...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Adoption of New Research Methods

This section looks at the adopti...
GRIT Commentary

The Drivers of change aren’t going away – it’s
time to go mobile
Looking through the results from the GRI...
NA

The world of consumer
insights is changing fast.

» 11 forward-looking tracks
» Over 100 speakers
» 80+ presentations
...
Regional Differences

More Qual or More Quant?

The data show relatively modest differences by region, but
once again ther...
Inside many client organizations, the insights team does not
conduct the purchasing of Social Media Analytics and Big
Data...
GRIT Commentary

MR’s Hopeful But Cautious Approach to Mobile,
Online Communities and Social Analytics
Robert Clancy
Vice ...
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT

2,405

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,405
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tendencias de Investigación de Mercado para el 2014 - GRIT

  1. 1. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION
  2. 2. Contents Table of 03 Introduction 04 Executive Summary (Infographic) 06 Methodology and Sample 07 In-depth Interviews with Client-Side Researchers 08 The Basics: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Usage 10 Qualitative Research 12 Quantitative Research 14 The Drivers of Supplier Selection 18 Understanding Client Views on Supplier Selection 20 How Do Research Pros Get Information? 24 The Drivers of Change in the Industry 28 Adaptation to Change Contacts Leonard F. Murphy Chief Editor & Principal Consultant (770) 985-4904 lmurphy@greenbook.org Lukas Pospichal Managing Director (212) 849-2753 lpospichal@greenbook.org Kevin Mulhare Sales Director, GreenBook (602) 319-2778 kmulhare@greenbook.org GreenBook New York AMA Communication Services Inc. 116 East 27th Street, Floor 6 New York, NY 10016 GRITReport.org 30 30 33 34 36 36 42 42 46 47 50 52 54 60 Adoption of New Research Methods Communities, Mobile Surveys, Analytics Adoption by Clients vs. Suppliers Barriers to Adopting New Methods Reasons for Not Using Techniques Understanding Client Views on New Research Tools The Future Research Agency Top Choices for Specialization The Perfect Research Agency The 50 Most Innovative Companies in Market Research What Makes a Company Innovative? Expectations of Change How Do Researchers REALLY Feel About Change? Acknowledgments Commentary 09 Quality and Innovation for Long Term Success by Beth Surowiec, Clear Seas Research 11 Research Is Now a Global Village by Rebecca West, Civicom, Inc. 17 Supplier: Time, Cost and Quality… Pick any Two. Client: I need all three. by Matt Warta, GutCheck 27 To where and how fast? by David Brudenell, pureprofile 31 The Drivers of change aren’t going away – it’s time to go mobile by Wale Omiyale, Confirmit 35 MR’s Hopeful But Cautious Approach to Mobile, Online Communities and Social Analytics by Robert Clancy, uSamp 37 The Pendulum is Returning by Brett Watkins, L&E Research 39 The Customer Contribution Continuum: Should customers be part of your team? by Kevin Lonnie, KL Communications 45 Adopting Innovation by Andrew Leary, Ipsos SMX 53 2014: Smart Automation. Technology Without Compromising Quality by George Terhanian, Toluna 59 What does it all mean? by Lynnette Cooke, CASRO 68 Final Thoughts by the Editor by Leonard Murphy, GreenBook Go to www.GreenBook.org/GRIT to read the GRIT Report online or to access all GRIT data and charts via an interactive dashboard which you can use for your own analysis. Winter 2014 1
  3. 3. At Communispace, we believe there is a better way of doing business. As the leading consumer collaboration agency, for more than 12 years we have been committed to helping brands collaborate with — and get inspiration from — their consumers to drive business growth. Using a variety of innovative methods, from online communities to a range of face-to-face workshops and executive events, we’ve partnered with some of the world’s most admired brands to help them innovate faster and enjoy breakthrough results. ARE YOU READY TO COLLABORATE? communispace.com | #collaborate
  4. 4. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduction Welcome to the 14th edition of the GreenBook Research Industry Trends Report, using data collected in Q4 of 2013. 2013 was a pivotal year for our industry as the long-predicted wave of change finally began to hit and we are cautiously adapting to the pressures of our environment. We use the GRIT Report to quantify these trends and share the findings with the global research community. GRIT explores the beliefs held by those who know the industry best, the sentiment around those beliefs, and the impact of change. GRIT continues to track trends that it has historically focused on, including the adoption of emerging technologies and methods. We showcase the GRIT Top 50 companies perceived to be most innovative and dive deeper into what makes a company innovative. For the first time we use cognitive neuroscience to understand the views of GRIT respondents. Also new in this edition is a series of thought-provoking commentaries, providing a deeper context for the report’s findings. Rather than expand advertising to make publication of the GRIT Report possible, leading research organizations sponsored these commentaries and we believe that you will find them both insightful and intriguing. GreenBook is working with a variety of international entities to make GRIT ever more representative of the industry on a worldwide level. We believe that this latest edition offers the most comprehensive global view of the research industry from the practitioner perspective ever achieved. Our sample partners include ACEI, AIM, ANDA, AVAI, BAQMaR, CEIM, ESTIME, Insight Innovation Forum, International Market Research Society, Michigan State University, MRIA-ARIM, NewMR, NGMR, NMSBA, NYAMA, Principles of Mobile Market Research & MRII, QRCA, Research & Results, SAIMO, The Nielsen School at Wisconsin School of Business, The Research Club, and The University of Texas Arlington. Our research partners include Averbach Transcriptions, Bottom Line Analytics, Dapresy, Decooda, Forbes Consulting, Gen2 Advisors, GMI Interactive, Grey Matter Research, Q Research Software, Researchscape and Vision Critical University. All partners have contributed significant time, energy, and resources to the GRIT effort and deserve a big THANK YOU for their support. We’d like to dedicate this Winter 2014 edition of GRIT in loving memory to William (Bill) Weylock. For seven years, Bill played an essential part in producing the GRIT report. Bill passed away in August of 2013 and is sorely missed. As always I think you’ll find the report informative, provocative, and useful. Enjoy! Leonard F. Murphy Chief Editor & Principal Consultant | GreenBook Go to www.GreenBook.org/GRIT to read the GRIT Report online or to access all GRIT data and charts via an interactive dashboard which you can use for your own analysis. GRITReport.org Winter 2014 3
  5. 5. OF SUPPLIER SELECTION SUPPLIER SELECTION tionship /supplier y with ds 85% 92% Executive Summary Good relationship with client/supplier Familiarity with client needs 85% 92% 85% 92% 85% 92% 81% 89% 81% DRIVERS OF SUPPLIER SELECTION 81% 89% DRIVERS OF SUPPLIER SELECTION 81% 83% 89% 89% SUPPLIER SELECTION 88% DRIVERS OF OF SUPPLIER SELECTION DRIVERS 83% Completes research on time s research 83% 88% Previous experience Good relationship 85% 83% 67% 88% with client/supplier with client/supplier Good relationship 92% 85% The experience recipe for earning 67% 88% 84% with client/supplier 92% /supplier business is straight out of 67% Good relationship 84% Familiarity with Good relationship 85% 81% 85% Business 101: It’s all about with client/supplier clientclient/supplier with 67%needs 92% Good reputation 73% Familiarity with 84% 92% 89% 81% relationships. Know the client, client needs in the industry 89% 84% Familiarity with utation deliver on their needs and do 73% 84% 81% Completes with 83% Familiarity research 81% ustry client needs it with the highest quality. on time 73% 89% 84% client needs Completes research 83% 88% 89% Clients on time 73% Provides highest 84% 84% 88% Completes research 83% Previous experience data quality Clients 88% Suppliers 67% Completes research 83% 84% on time highest 84% with client/supplier 74% on time Previous experience 84% 67%88% Clients ity with client/supplier 84% Suppliers Previous experience 67% 74% 84% with client/supplier Clients 84% Previous experience Good reputation 74% 73% Suppliers 84% 67% with client/supplier in the industry Good 73% 84% 73% Suppliers 74% reputation Good reputation in the industry 84% 84% 73% 84% 74% 84% 84% 84% 74% 74% 84% 74% in the industry Provides highest Good reputation data quality in the industry Provides highest Provides highest data quality data quality Clients Clients Clients Suppliers FUTURE OF RESEARCH UTURE RESEARCH OF RESEARCH URE OF EOFOFRESEARCH METHODS SPECIALIZATIONOFTHE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY NEW RESEARCH FUTURE OF RESEARCH FUTURE OF RESEARCH Provides highest data quality Suppliers Suppliers Clients Suppliers FUTURE OF RESEARCH FUTURE OF RESEARCH SEARCH METHODS SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY 39% METHODS SPECIALIZATION OF NEW RESEARCH METHODS OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY Online ADOPTION SPECIALIZATION OF ADOPTION OF NEW RESEARCH METHODS SPECIALIZATION OF THE39% FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY shifted. 32% 41% Online Communities 0% ODS The Paradigm has38% SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY Online ADOPTION SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY Adoption of Communities & OF NEW RESEARCH METHODS 39% 39% Online 41% nities 38% 32% 39% Mobile as insight gathering Online 41% Online Online Communities 27% Mobile 39% 41% 39% 44% 38% 32% 41% 32% tools and ADOPTION50% Online Communities OF SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY analyzing Text NEW RESEARCH METHODS Online Online 41% 33% 27% 50% 32% Surveys 41% 27% Mobile Mobile & Social Media in Big 44% Data 40% Online Communities 38% 27% Mobile Surveys 5% 46% Mobile 33% Surveys 39% Mobile 27% Surveys Mobile Surveys Surveys frameworks are the paths to Online 27% 33% Mobile33% 41% eys 40% 46% Online Communities 44% 50% 38% 32% 30% Mobile Surveys 28% 40% 45% 46% 30% Big Big Data growth. 27% Mobile 33% 33%Surveys Data Surveys Surveys 46% 40% 30% Analytics Mobile 28% 45% 40% 30% 30% 27% Analytics Big Data 30% Mobile Big Data Analytics 33% Surveys Social Media 30% 30% Big Social AnalyticsData Media 26% 33% Surveys 30% 30% 4% Social Media Analytics 35% 41% Analytics41% Mobile Surveys 28% 40% 45%Big Data 46% 30% 47% 34% Social Media Analytics 35% 25% Analytics Analytics 26% 26% Social Media 30% Media 30% Social Data nalytics 35% 41% Big Data 34% Social Media Analytics 35% 47% Analytics 41% 30% Big Text Analytics 26% Social Media Online 25% 25% 30% 24% Analytics 26% Analytics Analytics 30% Social Media 41% Analytics 25% Communities 25% Analytics Social Media Analytics 35% 47% Text Analytics 35% 30% 34% 26% 25% Social Media Analytics 41% 24% Text Analytics 35% 35% 4% Clients 26% 28% Social Online Media Big Data Analytics Focus 24% 25% 35% 35% 30% 26%Online 24% Clients Clients Social Media 34% Text Analytics 25% Analytics Online Communities Suppliers Analytics 25% 24% Groups cs 35% 35% 25% 25% 24% Significantly Suppliers Communities Communities Suppliers Up Analytics BigText Analytics Online38% 25% Clients 28% 35% 35% 30% 34% Data Analytics 40% 29% 35% Focus 35% 24% Online Significantly Down Up 25% Clients Significantly 24% Online Analytics 35% 38% Suppliers 28%Significantly Up 24% Big Data 40% 29% Communities Focus Groups Clients 25% Communities Significantly Down Suppliers 28% Big Data Analytics 9% 35% 24% Focus Clients Groups 25% 24% Online38% Communities SignificantlyUp Down Significantly Up Suppliers Significantly 24% ytics 35% 38% 40% 29% 35% Focus Significantly UpSignificantly28% Communities Big Data Analytics Focus38% 25%Groups Suppliers 28% Significantly Down Down 24% 28% Groups 24% 38% Focus Groups Significantly Up Significantly Down 28% 24% FocusGroups Significantly Down 4 24% Winter 2014 Groups GRITReport.org IN USE IN USE IN USE IN USE 47% 34% 30% 34% 40% 29% 46% 40% 35% 41% 35% 35% 35% UNDER CONSIDERATION 45% 32% UNDER CONSIDERATION 28% 38% UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER CONSIDERATION 50% UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER CONSIDERATION 44% Clients Suppliers Significantly Up 38% Significantly Down
  6. 6. BrainJuicer Mentions (400) (142) Ipsos TNS le Mentions (142) Mentions (400) Ipsos Google Mentions (202) Mentions (126) TNS TNS Mentions (126) Google As in years past, we’ve decided to forgo the usual text-based InSites Consulting InSites Consulting Mentions InSites Consult (74) Mentions (74) Mentions (74) executive summary and give our readers an infographic summary. Research Now Research Now Mentions (72) Mentions (72) Here are the highlights of the current report. 33) w Mentions (126) Mentions (202) Mentions (133) Mentions (133) �THE DYNAM�ICS OF CHANGE �THE DYNAM�ICS OF CHANGE CHANGE CTIONS TO CHANGE DRIVERS OF CHANGE REACTIONS TO CHANGE REACTIONS TO CHANGE Shrinking budgets and a DRIVERS OF CHANGE thodologies Client Exploring rapidly changing technology Client budgetary constraints budgetary constraints Exploring new methodologies new methodologies 58% 28% 58% 28% 58% landscape are driving change. 58% 31% 58% 31% 58% The solution is a combination hnologies of rethinking business Increased use of non-traditional techniques and technologies Exploring new technologies Increased use of non-traditional techniques and technologies Exploring new technologies 41% 22% 41% processes and exploring how 22% 41% 52% 30% 52% to harness new tech and 30% 52% ame resources Supplier Budgetary constraints Doing more with same resources methods to deliver more Supplier Budgetary constraints 38% Doing more with same resources 38% 31% impact. 38% 31% 33% 26% Client demands for innovation mple resources 6% 30% 21% 30% 33% Exploring new sample resources Exploring new sample resources 27% 26% 30% 26% 30% Investing in more in in-house technology Visualization by 27% Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones 20% 24% Investing in more in in-house technology Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones Suppliers 30% 27% 20% 24% n in-house technology % 21% Client demands for innovation 33% 26% Clients Supplier Suppliers 30% 27% Clients Clients Visualization by INNOVATIVE COMPANIES Innovation may be a buzzword, but it’s also a vital brand attribute in a changing industry. Companies that leverage it across all communications channels reap the benefits, those that don’t risk being overlooked. TOP 10 WITHOUT ROLLUPS INNOVATIVE COMPANIES TOP 10 WITHOUT ROLLUPS Millward Vision Critical Mentions (400) Millward Brown Nielsen Mentions (203) Mentions (80) Vision Critical GFK BrainJuicer Mentions (102) Mentions (203) (142) Mentions Mentions (102) Mentions (142) Ipsos Mentions (202) Google TNS Mentions (126) Ipsos (133) Mentions Google Mentions (202) Mentions (133) Research Now GRITReport.org Nielsen GFK BrainJuicer Mentions (400) Visualization by Brown Mentions (80) Mentions (72) Research Mentions (72) TNS Mentions (126) InSites Consulting Mentions (74) InSites Consulting Now Mentions (74) Winter 2014 5
  7. 7. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Methodology and Sample GRIT respondents are recruited by email from lists of research providers and clients contributed by GRIT partners and by invitations delivered via social media channels. The sample size for this latest wave was larger than for any previous study (by almost 1000 completes). The global composition of the sample was also broader than ever before, with much more robust subsets from Europe and Latin America. The percentage of completes by sample source: GreenBook (direct email) 934 42% Research & Results 328 15% GreenBook Blog 167 7% New MR 166 7% International MR Society (LinkedIn) 109 5% The Research Club 109 5% NGMR (LinkedIn) 104 5% Insight Innovation Forum (LinkedIn) 96 4% MRIA 94 4% MSU 42 2% ANDA 24 1% QRCA 22 1% All Others 34 2% 2,229 100% TOTAL the sample size for this latest wave was larger than for any previous study While the more globally representative sample yielded many benefits for this wave of GRIT, it also forced us to look at ways to effectively compare results from the previous waves of the study. To enhance comparability of results between waves, data has been weighted within each year to match the 2013/2014 distribution by geography and client/supplier status. Note that statistical tests all employ Taylor series linearization to address the weighting (i.e., the weighted sample size is not an input into the computation of statistical significance). The weighted sample size is referred to as the Population in all tables and charts. For this report, the analysis is based on 2,229 completed interviews, although for some questions base sizes may be higher or lower due to skip patterns, rotations, routing, and other factors. The mix of respondents has varied over the 12 years of the study, but within fairly narrow bands. We hold relatively steady at 80% of respondents being suppliers and 20% being clients, broadly consistent with the last several waves of the study. That corresponds to 1,786 Suppliers and 443 Clients, sample sizes large enough to be meaningful during analysis for both groups. Despite the robust sample size, the GRIT Report is not meant to be a census or representative sample (if such a feat is even possible in our fragmented industry!), but rather a snapshot of the widest swath of insights professionals we can achieve. With that in mind, we consider it “strongly directional” and recommend that you view it the same way. The respondent revenue profile skews notably toward midrange and small firms at the expense of larger organizations with annual revenue above $15M, although 18% of Supplier-side respondents do identify themselves as working for larger organizations. This is consistent with previous waves of the study. We hold relatively steady at 80% of respondents being suppliers and 20% being clients 6 Winter 2014 GRITReport.org
  8. 8. What is the range of your company’s annual market research billings/ budget for primary market research (in USD)? $15 ,00 0,0 00 2013/14 e or rm o 45% 2012/13 18% s than Les With increased international participation, the percentage of respondents from North America is 45%, the next largest segment is Europe at 38%, Asia comprise 9%, Latin America makes up 4%, and all other geographies combined contributed less than 4% of the sample. Due to the relatively small base sizes outside of North America and Europe, we have opted not to show regional breaks consistently other than where we think it ads comparative value, although as always we encourage all readers to make use of the interactive online GRIT dashboard to conduct additional analysis. 44% 17% $1,000,000 39% 0 ,0 $1 0, 00 0 –$ 14 ,99 9,99 9 Where is your market research organization based or headquartered? Column % 37% 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 NET North America 45% 51% 65% 51% Europe 38% 29% 21% 32% Asia and Oceania 9% 12% 8% 9% South America 4% 2% 2% 3% International or Missing 2% 4% 3% 3% Middle East and Africa 2% 3% 1% 2% NET 100% 100% 100% 100% Column n 2,229 1,374 818 4,421 In-depth Interviews with Client-Side Researchers As a new component of GRIT this year, Ron Sellers of Grey Matter Research conducted a series of in-depth interviews by telephone with client-side researchers to explore their views on vendor selection and adoption of new tools and techniques. The participants included: • Brian Cain, Merck • Jill Capps, Gorton’s • Sylvia Choe, Marriott GRITReport.org • • • • • • • • Tom Morder, Chick-fil-A Kyle Nel, Lowe’s Home Improvement Kelley Peters, Post Foods Edwin Roman, ESPN Stacey Symonds, Orbitz Bill Tamulonis, Erickson Senior Living Marc Philippe Witham, Schneider Electric Dan Womack, Aflac Five participants were interviewed about research vendor marketing – how suppliers market and promote their services, how clients learn about new vendors, etc. The other six were interviewed about “NextGen” insights techniques ranging from mobile research to biometrics. We’ve woven these in depth interviews into the sections “The Drivers of Supplier Selection” and “Adoption of New Research Methods” within the report to add nuance and context to the overall findings. Winter 2014 7
  9. 9. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Basics: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Usage Call it the “Revenge of Qual”! After quantitative research methods outgrew qualitative methods in 2012, in 2013 respondents reported that qualitative techniques including Online Communities and traditional qual saw slight or strong growth year over year. In fact, Online Communities enjoyed the strongest growth. Subtracting respondents reporting decline from those reporting growth revealed net growth of 30% for Online Communities and 24% for Social Media Analytics. Despite the increasing press attention Big Data received in 2013, it somewhat lagged the other techniques, beating only Ethnography. How has your use of any of these types of research changed? Stable 57.9 Use change this year: % difference Online Community Online Community 6.3 1.5 4.8 27.7 8.1 35.8 Qual 53.7 12.4 .7 1 10.7 28.6 5.4 34 Social Media Analytics 62.4 6.7 1.5 5.2 10.7 0.8 24.8 6.1 30.9 9.9 25 5.3 5.7 1.2 4.5 9.9 2.3 30.3 19.6 Data Mining or “Big Data” Analytics 19.9 5.1 25 Ethnography 67.7 21.7 Quant Data Mining or “Big Data” Analytics 69.3 24.3 Qual Quant 59 29.5 Social Media Analytics 19.3 Ethnography 7.6 19.2 3.1 22.3 12.4 Base n = 2229 Serious decline Strong decline Serious growth Strong growth Base n = 2229 0 10 20 30 Use change this year: Client vs. Supplier Online Community The biggest disconnects between suppliers and clients were in Online Communities and Social Media Analytics. Suppliers reported net growth of 33% in Online Communities, compared to 21% of clients. Clients, meanwhile, were reaching outside traditional market research suppliers for Social Media Analytics; 37% of clients reported net growth in Social Media Analytics, compared to 26% of suppliers. This same disparity is in evidence with Big Data, with a 27% vs. 18% disparity between Client and Supplier. 21.4 32.6 Social Media Analytics 37.1 26.4 Qual 21.1 24.5 Quant 24.8 22.8 Net growth across all categories except Big Data was highest in South America. Big Data’s largest growth was in Asia and Oceania. Data Mining or “Big Data” Analytics 26.5 17.8 Ethnography 15.8 15.3 Suppliers reported net growth of 33% in Online Communities, compared to 21% of clients Client Supplier 0 10 20 30 40 Base n = from 2330 to 2740; total n = 4421 8 Winter 2014 GRITReport.org
  10. 10. GRIT Commentary Quality and Innovation for Long Term Success For many years research suppliers have been adapting and modifying solutions to meet client information, budgetary and deliverable expectations. Today we call our efforts to apply “better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs” innovation (REF: Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/innovation). The innovation occurring today is exciting and presents new alternatives to both active and passive data collection techniques. With being innovative comes a responsibility to pay close attention to the quality of the research being conducted and integration of different methods of data collection to communicate the complete story. An innovative solution, stretching the limits of technology, is of little value if the information gathered and reported are not sufficient quality to facilitate strategic decision making. Focus must be placed on how the innovative tool/technology is enabling high quality data collection to occur in the most effective manner. Beth Surowiec Executive Director, Clear Seas Research Email: LinkedIn: Website: surowiecb@clearseasresearch.com www.linkedin.com/pub/beth-surowiec/b/353/7b9/ www.clearseasresearch.com using the appropriate data collection technology. Active data collection techniques present huge opportunities for unique insight if the information is closely monitored and results validated to ensure the data used for analysis accurately represents the view of the target audience. Unqualified participants, straight liners, or those providing illogical or inconsistent responses must be removed from the final data set. 5. Communicating the findings. All research starts with the question “What decision(s) do I have to make?” Successful active and passive data collection techniques must address this most basic question. Once the methodology is developed, the fieldwork is conducted and the data is analyzed, the information must be reported in a straightforward, easy to understand manner that is immediately usable to strategic decision makers. Results today may need to be provided using more interactive methods including video and/or interactive apps or social interactive CRM tools (like Salesforce Chatter). It is important to consider the end users of the research and provide the most appropriate tools for them to access and interpret the information for strategic decision making. Tools using the most up-to-date communication technologies may lack appeal or be under-utilized by individuals that are not comfortable with technology. data collection methods must address the research objectives with questions designed to achieve an unbiased response regardless of data collection method. Passive data collection needs to consider the context of the feedback collected as well as the frequency of similar experiences from the target audience. While data quality and customer relationship management will likely always be important in supplier selection, a research supplier’s ability to be and remain innovative by keeping up with changing technology will ultimately differentiate them from competitors. Focus must be placed on how the innovative technology enables high quality data collection As research suppliers we need to continually focus on: 1. Seeking out new data collection technologies. As digital communication methods continue to evolve, the research supplier community must continually adapt to new ways of capturing respondent feedback. 2. Being mindful of target audience identification and access. When capturing respondent experiences in passive and active ways we must be sure to correctly identify the individual providing feedback and determine if they are the target audience or part of the general population. 3. Posing the right questions for the research objectives & GRITReport.org 4. Ensuring data quality and integrity. Innovative Winter 2014 9
  11. 11. Qualitative Research While many Focus Group facilities are expanding their support for other activities, including mock trials and product testing, researchers still value this technique more than any other qualitative approach, with 59% of respondents using the technique in 2013, virtually unchanged from the year before. Likewise, IDIs (In Depth Interviews) still maintain their strong appeal. The proportion of overall projects using a particular qualitative technique is directly proportional to the percent of respondents using that technique (correlation coefficient of 0.962). The top 8 most widely used techniques are also the top 8 techniques as a proportion of projects, in the exact same order. (Please keep in mind that these proportions are a respondent average not an industry average; a respondent who conducted 100 qualitative projects was not weighted differently than a respondent who conducted 10 projects.) No emergent qualitative technique dramatically increased in 2013. However, Chat (text-based) Online Focus Groups fell from 25% usage last year to 10% usage this year (arguably that was over reporting in 2012 rather than any significant shift). No emergent qualitative technique dramatically increased in 2013 Types of qualitative research used: 2012/13 vs. 2013/14 How often have you used these qualitative methods this year? Traditional (In Person) Focus Groups Traditional (In Person) Focus Groups 59% 60% Traditional (In Person) IDIs 46% 45% Telephone IDIs 30% 34% Interviews/Groups Using Online Communities 21% 21% In-Store/Shopping Observations Interviews/Groups Using Online Communities 32.4 Traditional (In Person) IDIs 17.8 Telephone IDIs 10.2 7.8 6.2 Bulletin Board Studies In-Store/Shopping Observations 20% 24% Mobile (diaries, image collection, etc…) Bulletin Board Studies 19% 21% Online Focus Groups with webcams Mobile (diaries, image collection, etc…) 19% 17% Online Focus Groups with webcams 14% 15% I haven’t used any qual techniques 5 4.2 3.2 Other 3 Chat (text-based) Online Focus Groups 2.9 Monitoring Blogs 2.2 13% Online IDIs with webcams Monitoring Blogs 11% 2 12% Chat (text-based) Online Focus Groups Online IDIs with webcams Telephone Focus Groups 1.8 10% Chat (text-based) Online IDIs 25% 1.4 10% Base n = 626 11% Other 5% 9% Chat (text-based) Online IDIs 3% 11% 2013/14 2012/13 0 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 In-Store/Shopping Observations made up twice the proportion of qualitative projects in South America and the Middle East/Africa (~12%) as they did in North America, Europe, and Asia/Oceania (~6%). Focus Groups and In-Person IDIs were the number 1 and number 2 techniques regardless of region. 7% Telephone Focus Groups 0 50 60 Base n = from 2229 to 3600; total n = 4421 10 Winter 2014 GRITReport.org
  12. 12. GRIT Commentary Research Is Now a Global Village In 1858, Queen Victoria sent a telegram via the Atlantic Cable to United States President James Buchanan. The transmission took 16� hours. Without the cable, such a dispatch in one direction alone would have taken twelve days. This was the birth of the death of global distance. Today, technology enables marketing researchers to envision almost any scenario for conducting research around the world in real time or asynchronous time, without researchers, clients, or respondents ever having to leave their offices or homes. Online bulletin boards, web room technology, and mobile applications are changing the structure of how research is conducted. For example, for an interview project that might encompass 75 financial directors in 25 countries, reporting on experience with a new software modelling tool, those interviews are done in real time via telephone and web room technology. Research with a specialist physician group evaluating proposed packaging and advertising would almost certainly be done using telephone, web rooms, and webcams. The same technology allows researchers to meet in real time with homebound patients who can visually share their experience with medical hardware by panning the webcam our using a mobile device to show how they are using medical equipment in their personal environment. For a study on smoking habits, smokers can record their struggles to quit using audio diaries that are transcribed and posted on a bulletin board for researcher review. A global food chain can easily deploy 1,000 respondents in multiple countries simultaneously, to audio record impressions in their native languages, which are then translated and posted in an online bulletin board for researcher analysis. Difficult to reach respondents in the Middle East can participate in research via online chat rooms anonymously to protect their identities. Respondents can create visual diaries that record the inside of medicine cabinets, drawers, closets, how a laundry product is poured into a washing machine, or how they are using a power tool – all now possible through two-way mobile ethnography. These technologies open the door for a more collaborative process with respondents, with more researchers and clients able to participate in a real time interview or focus group experience. GRITReport.org Rebecca West Innovative Technology Solutions Marketing Research Support Worldwide Vice President, Marketing Research Services, Civicom, Inc. Email: LinkedIn: Twitter: Website: rebecca.west@civi.com www.linkedin.com/pub/rebecca-west/9/499/11b civicom www.civi.com/marketingresearch Creative thinkers are able to figure out ways to adapt almost anything to an online focus group experience – even group brainstorming sessions using online flip charts, whiteboards, and multiple breakout rooms. In short, almost any project, locally or globally, can now be done exclusively with communications technology. In short, with the right support system in place for conducting research, location doesn’t really matter anymore. Research is now a global village. The broader trends are all in this direction, as researchers adapt to consumer and business lifestyles that embrace online as the only way of life. As Millennials mature into managerial roles, these trends will only gain even further traction. With the right support system in place for conducting research, location doesn’t really matter anymore Visual collaboration solutions now closely replicate the brain’s innate preferences for interpersonal communications. Researchers understand that leveraging online tools is an essential component in building a franchise in the global marketing research economy. As with any structure for conducting market research, embracing the global possibilities of research using communications technology requires reliance on experts and technicians that understand the multiple issues of bandwidth, mobile providers, satellite technology, audio networks, time zones, individual country requirements, privacy and security issues, and who can work in multiple languages simultaneously. Marketing researchers, already being continuously interested in how people think, can leave the technical details in the hands of communications technology experts while they concentrate on content and insights. Winter 2014 11
  13. 13. Quantitative Research Mobile Surveys increased by 4%, reaching 27% usage in 2013 Online Surveys continued their growth, rising from 78% of respondents using Online Surveys in the prior year to 82% in 2013. Mobile Surveys showed also increased by 4%, reaching 27% usage in 2013. Both techniques are cannibalizing CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing), Face-to-Face interviews, CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing), and Mail Surveys. Biometrics and Neuromarketing, despite the attention received by industry thought leaders, were only used by 5% of respondents. Similarly to qualitative methods, the proportion of overall projects using a particular technique is directly proportional to the percent of respondents using that technique (correlation coefficient of 0.958). Online and Mobile Surveys make up nearly half (49%) of all quantitative projects worldwide, representing 61% of projects in North America but only 28% of projects in South America and 23% in the Middle East and Africa. Types of quantitative research used: 2012/13 vs. 2013/14 How often have you used these quantative methods this year? Online Surveys Online Surveys 82% 44.4 78% CATI 11.8 CATI 41% Face-to-Face 45% 9.6 Face-to-Face CAPI 30% 5.4 39% Mobile Surveys 4.6 Mobile Surveys 27% Other 23% 1.9 CAPI Mail 22% 1.8 25% Biometrics/Neuromarketing 0.9 Mail 11% Automated Measures/People Meters 16% 0.8 I haven’t used any quant techniques IVR 7% 0.4 Biometrics/Neuromarketing Base n = 626 5% 4% 0 10 20 30 40 50 For clients, Online Surveys represent 52% of their projects compared to 43% of suppliers’ projects, reflecting the ease of bringing such research in house with the range of EFM (Enterprise Feedback Management) systems available today. Other 5% Automated Measures/People Meters 4% 5% 2013/14 IVR 2012/13 4% 7% Base n = from 2229 to 3600; total n = 4421 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 For clients, Online Surveys represent 52% of their projects compared to 43% of suppliers’ projects 12 Winter 2014 GRITReport.org
  14. 14. “Intelligence: Not because you think you know everything, but rather because you question everything you think you know.” -Anonymous Gongos is changing the conversation from market research to decision intelligence, challenging conventional wisdom to find what lies beyond. INFORM. INNOVATE. INSPIRE. Gongos Research O2 Integrated +1.248.239.2300 | gongos.com
  15. 15. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Drivers Of Supplier Selection Supplier selection importance to clients: Supplier Viewpoint Listens well and understands client needs 92% 94% 93% Good relationship with client/ supplier 92% 92% 93% Has knowledgeable staff 90% 91% 89% Familiarity with client needs 89% 92% 91% Completes research in an agreedupon time 88% 90% 89% High quality analysis 87% 84% 79% Previous experience with client/ supplier 84% 85% 92% Rapid response to requests 84% 89% 88% Good reputation in the industry 84% 83% 84% Familiarity with the industry or category 81% 82% 82% Flexibility on changing project parameters 78% 74% 76% Provides highest data quality 74% 74% 72% Breadth of experience in the target segment 74% 79% 75% Consultation on best practices and methodology effectiveness 73% 74% 67% Length of experience/time in business 62% 61% 62% Understands new consumer communication channels & technologies 61% 61% 52% Provides data analysis services 60% 66% 64% Offers unique methodology or approach 55% 53% 48% Uses sophisticated research technology/strategies 55% 52% 46% Company is financially stable 48% 49% 43% Uses the latest data collection technology 43% 42% 39% Uses the latest statistical/ analytical packages 33% 31% 27% 2013/14 Lowest price 48% 56% 56% 2011/12 Base n = from 2172 to 2246; total n = 3603 14 Winter 2014 We asked survey respondents to indicate what was important to clients when they were selecting suppliers for their market research needs. For clients, this was a straightforward exercise, as they simply indicated what they felt was important. For suppliers, the exercise required that they estimate the importance ratings that their client counterparts would give. The chart on this page shows the results from the research supplier perspective, for the 2012 and 2013 GRIT Reports. The bars reflect top two-box percentages (out of five), and they are ordered from highest to lowest by 2013 numbers. We see that, once again, research suppliers anticipate that their clients value service and relationship aspects in the marketplace. Listening, understanding client needs and building good relationships are at the top of the ratings, with upwards of 90% giving ratings in the top two-box range. These results have been remarkably consistent since the inception of GRIT. It is also informative to look at the ratings that have, in fact, changed. For example, “High quality analysis” has increased in importance from year to year, perhaps reflecting the emergence of Big Data as a focal point in the industry. Conversely, we see a trend of declining importance for “Previous experience with client/supplier.” This suggests that suppliers believe clients are becoming more open to working with new suppliers, looking for novel approaches to get meaningful insights. That interpretation is certainly supported by the fact that a similar attribute, “Offers unique methodology or approach”, has trended up in this same time period. We see the same attribute importance ratings from the perspective of clients, and it is clear that the consistency across the years with suppliers is not as strong as it is with clients. we see a trend of declining importance for “Previous experience with client/supplier” 2012/13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRITReport.org
  16. 16. “High quality analysis” rose from 76% top-box to 88%, reflecting a renewed focus on analytic quality Supplier selection importance to clients: Client Viewpoint Listens well and understands client needs 93% 89% 96% Good relationship with client/ supplier 85% 85% 89% Has knowledgeable staff 91% 90% 92% Familiarity with client needs 81% 77% 82% Completes research in an agreedupon time 83% 86% 90% High quality analysis 88% 76% 84% Previous experience with client/ supplier 67% 79% 74% Rapid response to requests 83% 86% 85% Good reputation in the industry 73% 82% 75% It is also interesting to compare ratings from the perspectives of suppliers and clients, that is, looking across the previous charts. What are the areas in which suppliers’ perceptions of what their clients want is different from what the clients actually say? Familiarity with the industry or category 79% 80% 79% Flexibility on changing project parameters 73% 70% 81% Provides highest data quality 84% 86% 90% First, we should note that, by and large, suppliers have a very good sense of their clients’ needs. The same attributes tend to float to the top or bottom of both. There are notable differences, however. The chart on the following page shows attribute ratings that differ by 5% or more between supplier and client respondents. The top portion includes those attributes for which suppliers overestimated client preferences, and the lower portion those attributes where suppliers underestimated client preferences. Breadth of experience in the target segment 74% 65% 73% Consultation on best practices and methodology effectiveness 76% 76% 70% Length of experience/time in business 59% 58% 59% Understands new consumer communication channels & technologies 65% 69% 57% Provides data analysis services 59% 63% 67% Offers unique methodology or approach 52% 52% 45% Uses sophisticated research technology/strategies 50% 57% 52% Company is financially stable 49% 55% 56% Uses the latest data collection technology 51% 53% 46% Uses the latest analytical packages 43% 36% 41% 2013/14 Lowest price 34% 35% 32% 2011/12 From the client perspective, several attributes sizeably shifted this year. “High quality analysis” rose from 76% top-box in previous waves to 88% in the latest, reflecting a renewed focus on analytic quality. New and emerging statistical modelling techniques, and algorithms for managing the burgeoning volume of Big Data may be driving this trend. And, as we observed with the supplier data, clients also placed lower emphasis on “Previous experience with client/supplier.” Clients and suppliers alike are noticing the shift here. One trend, while not statistically significant, is nonetheless intriguing. Clients indicated a continued erosion in the demand for on-time delivery from their research suppliers. It may be that deadlines have been shortened to the point that over-runs are becoming more commonplace out of necessity. Or alternately, it may simply be considered table stakes and is no longer a primary driver of differentiation. Base n = from 498 to 542; total n = 818 GRITReport.org 2012/13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Winter 2014 100 15
  17. 17. Two disparities are particularly noteworthy. First, we see that suppliers felt clients would give higher ratings than the suppliers actually provided to “Previous experience with client/supplier.” Earlier in the report, we noted that both groups acknowledged a decline in this attribute, but it is apparent that suppliers did not anticipate the magnitude of this decline. The message is clear. Suppliers overstate the importance of “Lowest price” among their client populations Good relationship with client/supplier 92% 85% Familiarity with client needs The second disparity is one that appears consistently in GRIT Reports. Suppliers overstate the importance of “Lowest price” among their client populations. There are several possible explanations for this disparity. Price may not be particularly important in getting on the “short list,” but more crucial in final selection and therefore more salient to suppliers. Suppliers have to engage with Procurement in the RFP process, and these agents may be much more focused on price. Or it could simply be that clients are more likely to report that price is a determinant, just to avoid having to inform a candidate that their firm’s offering was of inferior quality. 89% 81% Completes research in an agreed-upon time 88% 83% Previous experience with client/supplier 84% 67% Good reputation in the industry 84% 73% Flexibility on changing project parameters It is also interesting to note that the two areas in which suppliers underestimated the importance that clients gave: data quality and statistical analytics. In fact, data quality ranked fifth among the 23 attributes for clients, but suppliers perceived it only as 13th in their list. Given the proliferation of new data sources in today’s market research environment (website analytics, social media data, global positioning information), savvy researchers will be alert to the needs for careful vetting of the information they are using to drive insights. 78% 73% Uses sophisticated research technology/strategies 55% 50% Lowest price 48% 34% Provides highest data quality 74% 84% Uses the latest statistical/analytical packages 33% 43% Supplier Client 0 16 Winter 2014 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRITReport.org
  18. 18. GRIT Commentary Supplier: Time, Cost and Quality…Pick any Two Client: I need all three. Matt Warta CEO, GutCheck Email: LinkedIn: Twitter: Website: “More insights in less time with less money.” How often has this request (or mandate) been delivered to you, either explicitly or implicitly? The answer is it has probably become more common over the last few years. When GutCheck was started in 2010, it wasn’t uncommon for market research providers to pan the idea of delivering insights in quicker timeframes. Clients don’t mind waiting a few weeks for the answer was a refrain we heard often. Well, that has changed dramatically in just the last couple of years. And not only do clients want information quicker, they want it for less and with good quality. Whether you are a big established brand or an emerging scrappy competitor, winning in today’s market hinges on your ability to innovate and differentiate faster and more efficiently than the competition. This year’s GRIT report shows abundant and growing evidence of this reality. For instance: GRIT respondents were asked to rank the importance of eight key criteria in selecting methodologies. • Timeliness of Results ranked #3 • Cost came next at #4 • Most interesting is that time and cost significantly closed the gap on the top two criteria of Data Quality and Effectiveness / Impact. Corporations must be faster, more innovative, and differentiated than their competitors in order to win in the marketplace. Keen, timely customer insights lie at the heart of a company’s ability to meet this competitive pressure. Nowhere is this more evident than in Procter & Gamble’s move to bring back A.J. Lafley as their CEO. Lafley gained a reputation for pushing innovation at P&G, telling employees to get their ideas directly from consumers. In a nod to GRIT’s findings above, he kept in place a move by his predecessor, Bob McDonald, that brought together teams of marketers, researchers, and executives so they could move together more quickly in their attempt to bring blockbuster new products to the market. GRITReport.org matt@gutcheckit.com linkedin.com/company/gutcheck gutcheckit www.gutcheckit.com To remain relevant, consumer insights teams must become more nimble and cost-efficient To remain relevant in this type of environment, consumer insights teams must become much more nimble and costefficient: in short, they need to become agile. Becoming more agile is one reason why online research communities have grown so much over the last few years. This year’s GRIT report shows online communities continuing to be the #1 fastest growing methodology overall because they provide insights significantly faster and in a more flexible way than traditional methodologies. Online community platforms continue to innovate and in some cases have shrunk timelines to days and driven down costs to new levels. These new solutions now allow researchers to “turn on a dime.” Leveraging agile practices and methodologies like online research communities to drive immediacy and intimacy is potentially transformative for research departments. Alice Fawver, Director of Global Insights for Logitech and recent adopter of agile techniques, recently commented that her group “has moved from big, expensive and late to flexible, inventive and responsive. And we can do more research for the same budget.” Agile is enabling Logitech to do more research for the same budget and in less time, and arrive at a better result. So, the next time you need an answer, be Agile and pick all three. Winter 2014 17
  19. 19. Understanding Client Views on Supplier Selection Ron Sellers of Grey Matter Research conducted a series of five in-depth interviews by telephone with client-side researchers to explore their views on supplier selection. for clients, the preferred way of finding out about new vendors is word of mouth personal relationships are critical for most clients There is very little feeling that research vendors have differentiated brands 18 Winter 2014 Although obviously there is no quantitative projectability involved, it is still interesting to note how much agreement there was. Participants report being inundated by vendor marketing, promotional and sales attempts. Unsolicited email is the most common, followed by phone calls. However, for clients, the preferred way of finding out about new vendors is word of mouth. • “Everybody says they do great work. I’ll listen to somebody whose opinion I trust, so it’s mostly word of mouth.” • “I’d say past knowledge and experience would be the number one way.” The second way that clients learn about new vendors is at conferences, particularly if the vendor is actually presenting. At the same time, some clients did note that conferences could be frustrating, because so many vendors target them during that short time. • “People that we see at a conference or a seminar. That’s how we ended up with our online software vendor. I had known a little bit about them in the past, but I went to a conference or workshop on online research, and they were there giving the presentation. ” • “I think it’s finding the right events and probably finding the right ways (to approach people). Because the thing that I find terribly frustrating at conferences is people just out of the blue showing up, or literally bugging you to death when you have that two or three days out of the office that you rarely get to do something other than work for a few minutes.” Networking and personal relationships are critical for most of these clients. • “I’ll be honest; the [people] that I generally meet and wind up doing business with are the ones who aren’t trying to sell anything. They are doing something to give back to the industry or contribute to the work we do as a whole. And I get to know them through that, and over time I get to know their business, and we find a way to work together.” • “I would emphasize the social media aspect of it. If I have seen a good comment (on LinkedIn), I have contacted the person. That was an element in choosing somebody for an Ethnography study that we just completed.” • “It’s hard to differentiate between vendors. I think that’s why, at least for me, it comes down to the personal connection. If I am at a seminar and sitting at a table with somebody , in my mind, that’s going to give them a plus over someone else I don’t know. Meet me in person.” • “Get to know me first and worry about the sale after that.” Clients reported that the is the people behind a company or a methodology are key. • “I’m convinced that the individuals behind are the most critical part.” There is very little feeling that research vendors have differentiated brands. Some clients tended to differentiate a few vendors by size or by methodology or specialty, but the brands themselves generally had little real meaning to clients. This is particularly true with services such as qualitative recruiters, field centers, and other established methods where there’s not much that’s revolutionary in terms of the approach offered – clients really couldn’t name many brands that stand out to them in any way or have any equity. • “If I were to think of a good brand of automobiles, I can immediately think of a Mercedes. When it comes to market research vendors, no, I don’t think there are really strong brands out there. ” • “Very undifferentiated. It always surprises me, given the work that we all do – you would think that we would understand [brand differentiation] as well or better than anybody. ” • “I’d say by and large it leans more toward the commodity market.” The perception that research brands are largely undifferentiated goes hand-in-hand with the perception that research vendors too often see potential clients as undifferentiated. These clients complained strongly about how many times vendors approach them in an entirely impersonal way, knowing nothing about them or their needs (and yet still promising to solve whatever those needs may be). • “They don’t even know if I’m sales or marketing or market research. ” • “[Their biggest mistake is] not asking me what I’m looking for first. They start talking about what they do and what they offer without knowing what is on my plate or what’s keeping me up at night first.” • “Understand what my needs are a little bit better instead of one size fits all. The target group is all heads or VPs of insights, but we may not all have the same needs.” Similarly, clients reported strongly feeling that too many vendors don’t treat them as people, but as potential accounts. In short, there was a pervasive sense that too much vendor marketing focuses squarely on solving the needs of the vendor (for more sales), rather than caring at all about actually learning and solving the needs of the client. GRITReport.org
  20. 20. • “If on the rare occasion I am able to answer a call or get on the phone with someone, and then I learn that they are only trying to set up an appointment for me with someone else, because they don’t know crap about this industry, that is incredibly frustrating.” • “It’s very generic. They don’t really mention any specifics, a specific need or a specific project. It’s just very general. You can tell they’re just kind of fishing. ” • “I am talked to as though my needs are the same as everybody else’s. And it’s all about the vendor and not about me. Get to know me. If you’re in the market research and insights industry, isn’t that your job? Isn’t that what you’re helping us do? So why aren’t you doing it yourself?” • “Just try to be a normal person. Forget you’re trying to sell me something. Use normal interpersonal skills to keep the relationship open. Don’t come to me and say, ‘What’s the next project for us?’ Treat me as a person as opposed to the next client that they can check off.” An extension of this problem is when vendors try to circumvent the research department and reach out to other people in the company, or just blanket as many people as they can in the company. This really leaves a bad taste in clients’ mouths. • “We’ve had a few potential suppliers become nonpotential suppliers when they didn’t reach the insights team and they started branching out to every other part of the organization. That only generates more phone calls for me, because people internally will forward stuff or call me, and we don’t want a lot of research going on outside the insights team. And here a company is trying to sell just that.” • “It does not do a research company any good to blanket our corporate e-mail system with cold e-mails!  In our organization, people will forward those to me, and then I get to chuckle at the duplicated ‘personal touch.’  It tends to give me a feeling of the kind of attention my project might get.” There were also complaints about vendors that promise to do everything. Specializing in everything usually creates the impression that the vendor really specializes in nothing. • “Pick a niche and just become known as a specialist or an expert in a particular industry or market segment or methodology. I guess those might be the three ways you could differentiate yourself.” • “[The most overdone message] for me it’s that they’ll do anything and everything, it’ll be a top-quality job, and they haven’t asked me what kind of work I might need. ” GRITReport.org These clients also largely dismissed vendor advertising as bland, undifferentiated, and ineffective. • “I don’t think much of it. In maybe ten years of looking at Quirk’s and other ones, I can remember one ad that I really liked.” • “It’s not very effective. They all usually have a picture of a person that’s either the company president or supposed to be like a respondent’ that kind of thing. ” The balance between vendors managing to keep their name in front of potential clients and becoming an annoyance is delicate. These clients acknowledged that unless a vendor stays in their view, they’ll forget about that vendor, so they recommended persistence. At the same time, they didn’t want to be constantly bothered. A substantial distinction between “staying in touch” and “annoying me” is whether even a modicum of a relationship exists. If the client has even a slight personal connection to the vendor, “staying in touch” can actually mean “staying in touch.” If the client is being treated as the next number the vendor is calling, “staying in touch” can quickly fall over the edge into “annoying me.” • “If I have a relationship with them or I know them, of course I’m going to respond to them.” too much vendor marketing focuses squarely on solving the needs of the vendor clients also largely dismissed vendor advertising as bland, and ineffective content marketing has value for clients In terms of contacting potential clients with something of value rather than just a sales call, content marketing also has value for these clients. • “Send me a little something every once in a while with an interesting article you’ve read or an interesting white paper you’ve written. Send me a story like that that sticks in my mind or gives me something to remember you by.” • “[Content marketing] gives them a lot of credibility. It gives me a sense of expertise, particularly when I’m thinking about whitepapers. I like blog posts because that shows me they’re active in the dialogue of what’s happening out there.” • “The next best thing [to conferences] would be if they publish things in industry publications. If they’re sort of out there as experts, then that sticks with me as well.” In short, these clients roundly criticized many of the attempts at vendor sales, marketing, and branding as undifferentiated, impersonal, and focused on what the vendor is selling rather than on what the client may need. Some marketing messages might get through, but primarily when fortune dictates that the message comes at a time when they just happen to need that service. The personal touch is critical, through highvisibility activities such as participating in industry functions, presenting at conferences, or being part of the social media conversation, but also through the simple act of treating the potential client as a human being rather than the next potential sale. In an industry of relationships, clients want to buy from and work with people rather than just companies. Winter 2014 19
  21. 21. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How Do Research Pros Get Information? Staying abreast of developments: Client vs. Supplier At GreenBook we are always curious about the channels that market researchers find to be most effective for information access. To that end, we asked two questions related to information sources: one regarding the channels used to stay abreast of changes in the industry, and a follow-up related to what is most important in their selection of industry events. Seminars, Conferences or Tradeshows 66% 61% Webinars or Virtual Events 60% 59% Consistent with previous GRIT waves, conferences & tradeshows, webinars, and online information portals remain the most popular among suppliers and clients, with conferences being somewhat more popular with clients. Industry Websites 55% 55% Technology Websites or Publications 49% On the supplier side, technology-specific websites and business networking platforms like LinkedIn are popular, most likely due to the supplier imperative to keep abreast of innovation and make connections with colleagues and prospects. 54% Business Networking Communities like LinkedIn 45% 52% White Papers Interestingly, less than one third of GRIT respondents consider blog subscriptions, more general social networking sites or Twitter to be important, perhaps reflecting the time commitment necessary to fully utilize them or the “information overload” aspect of the stream of information coming in at all times via those channels. More curated content approaches seem to have wider acceptance as means of delivering focused content relevant to market research professionals. 51% 48% Trade Organization Events 47% 45% Blogs 39% 40% Industry Print Journals There were significant differences when we compared this wave of data with previous waves, although these differences could be artefacts of sample changes rather than growing awareness of, or engagement with, different information channels. 42% 39% E-mail delivery of Blog Subscriptions 30% 33% Social Networking Sites like Facebook & Google+ 24% 28% Twitter 19% 22% Client Supplier Base n = 2229 0 20 Winter 2014 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 GRITReport.org
  22. 22. Is Better Done Online I s B etter D o ne In Person Than k fully, Schles in ge r A s s o c iate s D o e s B oth Actually, we can’t guarantee your favorite team will win the big game. However, we will deliver the right solution to push any market research project over the goal line. Whether it is qualitative or quantitative, Schlesinger Associates is your resource for complete global data collection services. Tel. +1 866 549 3500 YOUR GLOBAL RESEARCH PARTNER, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. Recruitment > Focus Groups > Online > Technology > Global Project Management © 2011 Schlesinger Associates.
  23. 23. Considering the consistent importance GRIT respondents give to events, we asked a new question in this year’s edition of GRIT about what they consider most important when selecting events to attend. Content proves to be king for event selection, with the agenda’s relevance to the business, exploration of “cutting edge” topics, and overall quality of speakers being most important attributes. Content proves to be king for event selection In what may be surprising for many event producers, cost, location and brand of the producing entity were not major drivers of consideration. Perhaps we will see fewer events in major tourist destinations and a greater focus on delivering impactful content as the lure for events. Both clients and suppliers were aligned across all attributes, with one exception – opportunities to network with peers are much more important to suppliers. Staying abreast of developments: Top 2 What is most important to you in selecting the events you participate in? Seminars, Conferences or Tradeshows Focuses on issues important to my business 62% 63% 59% 44% Webinars or Virtual Events Explores “cutting edge” topics 59% 49% 51% 43% Industry Websites Quality of speakers 55% 51% 47% 47% Technology Websites or Publications Networking opportunities with peers 53% 29% 40% 40% Business Networking Communities like LinkedIn Cost 51% 49% 33% 35% White Papers Interest in speakers 49% 22% 22% 35% Trade Organization Events Location 45% 19% 21% 32% Blogs Organization producing the event 40% 11% 29% 7% Industry Print Journals Supplier or partner vetting 40% 4% 6% 30% E-mail delivery of Blog Subscriptions Possibility of educational credits 32% 33% 4% 3% Social Networking Sites like Facebook & Google+ Client Other option 27% Supplier 2% 1% 18% Twitter 2013/14 21% Base n = 2229 2012/13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 16% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Base n = from 3348 to 3387; total n = 4421 22 Winter 2014 GRITReport.org
  24. 24. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Drivers of Change in the Industry What steps is your organization taking to address these issues? Client vs. Supplier Exploring new methodologies 56% 56% Clients and suppliers cite similar issues as drivers of change; however, the focus of those drivers highlights a fundamental difference in the mindset that exists between client and supply side researchers. Exploring new technologies 41% 52% Doing more with same resources Supplier side researchers reported being highly invested in new technologies in 2013 (52%), while client researchers (41%) actually are less focused on technology, although interest in new methodologies (56%) was very similar among both groups. Given that budgetary constraints, increased mobile usage, and reduced outsourcing impacted insights delivery and workloads, it’s not surprising that client researchers are more focused on newer methodologies than new technologies, which often require both a proof of concept and internal testing in order to gain acceptance. The concept of doing more with the same resources (38%) resonated strongly among client researchers. 38% 33% Exploring new sample resources 26% 30% Investing in more in-house technology 24% 30% Spending/charging less for the same services 13% 19% Close partnering with quality access panels 16% 19% Client demand for innovation was reported to be lower in 2013 than in 2012 (21%) while supplier interest rose in 2013 to 27%. As the chart on the next page indicates, client researchers are very consistent in their needs while suppliers tend to underestimate the impact of internal workloads and financial pressures, while overestimating external factors and the impact of new research technology. Working longer hours with less staff 18% 17% Negotiating discounts or shorter timelines with vendors 19% 15% Changing ratio of insourcing vs. outsourcing of research functions In established markets, clients and suppliers alike noted that budgetary issues are critically affecting data collection. While mobile communication (14%) was cited most often as a primary driver of change, client budgets (13%) and budgetary restraints (12%) collectively comprise 25% of the mentions noted as influential in the choice of data collection methods. 20% 12% Opening direct channels of communications with customers 17% 12% More diligent validation 10% 12% Asking for sacrifices from vendors client researchers are more focused on newer methodologies than new technologies 14% 10% Asking for sacrifices from employees 10% 10% Recommending higher respondent incentives 8% 10% Client Supplier Other Base n = 2188; total n = 2229 6% 5% 10 24 Winter 2014 20 30 40 50 60 GRITReport.org
  25. 25. Issue prompting major changes in data collection: Client vs. Supplier Issue prompting major changes in data collection Client budgetary constraints Increased use of mobile communications 28% 31% 14% Client budgetary constraints 13% Increased use of non-traditional techniques and technologies 22% Budgetary constraints 30% 12% Budgetary constraints Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones 31% 9% 26% Client demands for innovation 8% Client demands for innovation 21% Quality of sample 27% 8% Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones The economy, business growth/slowdown 20% 6% 27% Desire for a more collaborative process with respondents 6% The economy, business growth/slowdown 20% Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors 25% 4% Desire for a more collaborative process with respondents Changes in response rates 15% 4% 20% Availability of US sample 4% Quality of sample 15% 17% Availability of non-US sample 3% Increased reliance of alternative data sources Other issues 17% 16% 3% Changes in sample costs 3% Changes in response rates 12% 15% Changes in staffing or layoffs 2% Changes in sample costs Changes in salaries/wages/costs 13% 15% 1% Availability of US sample 0% More insourcing of research process 25% Availability of non-US sample 14% 0% Desire to avoid limitations of self-reported attitudes/behaviors 13% 14% Increased use of mobile communications 0% Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors 0% Changes in staffing or layoffs 14% 13% 0 5 10 15 Base n = 2188; total n = 2229 Changes in salaries/wages/costs 10% 10% Client Supplier Other issues Base n = from 2229 to 6% 4% 2631; total n = 4421 0 GRITReport.org 10 20 30 In emerging markets (primarily South America and the Middle East/Africa), mobile technologies clearly played a significant role in the expansion of data collection and were the primary drivers of growth. While budgets played a significant role in data collection in these markets, the impact was more likely associated with an expansion of services (new allocation dollars) rather than contraction of existing budget allocations. Winter 2014 25
  26. 26. In more established regions, clients and suppliers alike realize that shifts toward more customer centric marketing and declines in response rates are driving a need for more interactive platforms. While there are many reasons associated with these shifts, clients and researchers agree (56% respectively) that new methodologies are needed. However, there is a strong divergence among the clients (41%) and suppliers (52%) on the need for new technology. Clients (17%) are also emphasizing a more direct relationship with customers while only twelve percent (12%) of suppliers see this as a priority. In established markets, clients and suppliers alike noted that budgetary issues are critically affecting data collection Issue prompting major changes in data collection: Geographic Location North America Europe Asia and Oceania South America International or Middle East and Missing Africa Increased use of mobile communications 13% 13% 14% 22% 12% 17% Client budgetary constraints 13% 15% 12% 13% 8% 9% Budgetary constraints 12% 13% 10% 8% 8% 9% Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones 10% 8% 10% 8% 14% 13% Client demands for innovation 8% 8% 7% 10% 8% 7% Quality of sample 8% 7% 11% 7% 10% 7% The economy, business growth/slowdown 6% 6% 10% 3% 6% 9% Desire for a more collaborative process with respondents 7% 5% 6% 10% 6% 2% Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors 4% 4% 4% 0% 10% 0% Changes in response rates 5% 3% 5% 2% 6% 4% Availability of US sample 3% 5% 2% 2% 4% 4% Availability of non-US sample 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% Other issues 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 2% Changes in sample costs 1% 4% 3% 5% 0% 11% Changes in staffing or layoffs 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Changes in salaries/wages/costs 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% Availability of US sample 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Availability of non-US sample 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Increased use of mobile communications 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Base n = 2188; total n = 2229 26 Winter 2014 GRITReport.org
  27. 27. GRIT Commentary To where and how fast? For me, it’s always refreshing to begin the start of each calendar year with a stack of information that will help or substantiate decision-making for the business. For me, GRIT is one of those trusted information sources for a number of years now. GRIT illustrates the changing behaviors of an industry whose conservative core has, and continues to be transported to a new, progressive destination GRIT does not maintain Delphic proportions in the industry yet; the Marketing Research industry has never been more complex. But it has over the past years built an open information platform that illustrates the changing behaviors of an industry whose conservative core has, and continues to be transported to a new, progressive destination. Whether this stop is temporary and a U-turn is around the bend remains to be seen, but certainly the impact of technology, the rise of consumer participation, privacy and ever-increasing budgetary pressures show that the velocity of change in industry continues to increase significantly. Understanding the velocity of change is a powerful predicative tool for business leaders. News cycles hungry for new fodder focus on the latest disruptive products or services, but these are typically not aligned with the pace of business adoption. To stay progressive it’s important to keep a keen eye on the latest in wearable technology, drones and nanotechnology, but to stay competitive one can look to the current platforms that have impacted Marketing Research for the last 3-5 years. Mobile, CRM, Social, Online Communities and panel sample are where finite budgets are most in flux. The underlying drivers affecting how fast budgets are being put into which of these areas will have the greatest effect on competitiveness in 2014. If 2013 could be summarized in a term, outside of the year of Gangam Style (unfortunately), it would be ‘Data’. Data supply has never been higher and the demand for it follows a similar trajectory. GRITReport.org David Brudenell Executive Vice President, pureprofile Email: LinkedIn: Twitter: Website: dbrudenell@pureprofile.com www.linkedin.com/in/davidbrudenell/ davidbrudenell www.pureprofile.com Data collection is one of the key pillars for Marketing Research practice; it’s impact on design, cost, speed and insight arguably has the greatest impact on decisionmaking. So to look to understanding the velocity of change in industry, this is a great spot to look at. Below are some interesting insights from this years report: • First, and not surprisingly, is that the increased use of mobile communications on data collection continues to be the leading issue in industry. The rising penetration of mobile technologies shows continued investment in mobile data collection, participation platforms and question-design is paramount. • At the top level, attitudes on the impact of the economy on data collection appear to be trending up. But on deeper analysis, Clients in 2013 were less inclined to mark economic factors as being impactful as Suppliers. This could illustrate the growing investment by Marketing in data from other budgetary divisions (1) that trickles into Marketing Research budgets. • Clients want more and better ways to collaborate with respondents. This is interesting as when viewing the use change within industry: online community growth as a technique is slowing, however the overall growth is significant. This could possibly show that adoption of online communities has reached saturation and as Clients become more comfortable using this medium, expectations of new and better engagement techniques have risen. A similar pattern in the use of mobile technologies could also be found in this report. These are a few interesting highlights from a report deeply saturated with insight. I encourage you to dive into to GRIT and view some of the changing behaviors and sentiments of industry. If you’re reading this commentary you are on the journey with the rest of us. Perhaps you might be the one to see the destination and time of arrival. Winter 2014 27
  28. 28. Adaptation To Change Locked into current approach Research provider's lack of imagination Too hard to organize Old fashioned research supplier Logistical reasons Budgetary constraints It’s boring Time constraints Too expensive Not fashionable Reasons for not using types of research Social Media Monitoring 0 2.1 4.9 0.3 4.5 3.4 3.1 4.3 1.3 1.8 Research Gamification 0 3.5 3.6 0.6 5.2 2.8 2.5 3.4 2 2.3 0.4 2.1 2.6 0.5 4 3 2.7 6.1 1.3 3.2 0 0.6 2.9 0.3 2 8.1 3.3 3.4 1.8 6.4 Text Analytics 0.4 5.6 2.7 1.6 5.3 2.7 1.1 3.3 0.6 0.5 Mobile Surveys 0.4 3.6 2.3 0.4 3.8 8.8 2.3 4.8 2.4 3 Online Focus Groups 0.3 3.3 2.5 1.4 3.2 7.7 1.7 6.1 2 4 Online Communities 1 4.9 5 1.1 9.1 5.2 1.9 4.1 1.4 2 0.3 8 8.5 0.5 12.9 6 0.7 1.9 0.9 2 4.3 16 9.9 2.7 17.8 7.5 4.7 4.8 3.1 3.3 Telephone 9.8 19.9 8 5.6 11.2 9.6 2.1 2.8 2.8 1.6 Mail 9.6 6.2 17.8 7.4 4.6 14.3 6.6 4.2 0.3 0.6 4.1 26.7 12.1 2.2 16.7 7.8 1.4 8.5 1.4 1.6 Crowdsourcing Online Other techniques Focus Groups Face to Face Base n = from 43 to 198; total n = 2229 many client organizations have transitioned a significant amount of data collection to in-house platforms Notably, there is a common theme among suppliers (33%) that clients are spending more on in-house technologies, while clients (38%) see themselves doing more with the same resources. Only about a fourth of clients (24%) plan to invest in new technology while 30% of suppliers plan on significant investments in the near future. This may be due in part to the relatively slow conversion of suppliers to mobilebased platforms. While clients have become more adept and efficient within smaller budgets and smaller staffs in 2013, they also continue to manage more chronic issues such as declining response rates, limitations with self-reporting, and the need for faster execution. As a result, many client organizations have chosen to exert more control and have transitioned a significant amount of data collection to in-house platforms. Although the capabilities of these platforms are growing, significant limitations still exist in data extraction and management. 28 Winter 2014 As previously discussed, technology was not a huge driver for client researchers; however as respondents tire of existing technologies, it is likely that next generation methodologies will increase researchers’ dependence on technology. While client researchers have displayed a strong preference for customer centric research, the role of behavioural insights is potentially the most significant factor in their decision process. As researchers become more accustomed to benefits and limitations of communities, new techniques will likely enhance the learnings associated with interactive response, data analytics, and community dynamics rather than new methods of stated data extraction. This may be represented through a commitment to more interactive platforms and/or a process that is more focused on data synthesis. The following table represents a series of techniques and reasons why each of the techniques are not currently within the tool set of most researchers. In many cases, the lack of familiarity with the technique and its application were cited as primary reasons for non-incorporation as well as a need for proof of the concept. GRITReport.org
  29. 29. Lack of knowledge Ignorance Unproven Fear of trying something new Lack of proof it works No suppliers have an adequate offering Technological limitations We are not capable of doing it Client's lack of imagination Old fashioned clients Too many risks involved Blockers within the company 2.6 2.4 4.2 2.9 6.8 8.4 5.1 12.6 3.6 8.3 4.5 13 2.8 2.9 4.7 5.7 5.7 4.7 4 10.4 4.6 6.6 6.8 15.3 3.9 5 3.7 4 4.2 2.5 2.2 10.2 4.1 5.6 8.9 19.9 2.5 6.2 7.3 2.6 3.7 9.2 4.1 10.7 3.8 7.8 5 8.3 2.9 2 3.4 3.2 7 11.2 7.7 8.9 4.6 5.4 7.4 12.8 2.9 3.7 6.1 4.8 4.6 15.1 3.4 8 4 5.2 2.7 7.6 2.5 6.3 5 3.9 5.2 9.5 4.6 9.1 4.9 4.7 3.7 8.7 2.5 6.2 6.5 3.3 7 5.5 3.1 7.3 5.2 4.5 3.6 9.6 4.3 2.7 1.4 5.4 3.3 10 1.9 7.7 6.4 7.4 2.9 5 1.6 0.2 3.3 6.3 2.7 0.4 0 3.9 2 0.8 1.3 3.5 1.2 5.5 1.7 0.3 1.6 6.3 0.9 5.9 0.6 0.8 0 1.9 2.3 3.8 3.7 1 0.9 6.1 1.1 6.5 0.7 1.1 0.3 1 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.2 2.6 1 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.8 1.5 0 On a final note, the primary drivers, as would be expected, are based on a combination of financial need, insight development, quality control, user experience, and leveraging of mobile technology. For those in emerging markets, drivers were more consistent with usage of the data while in more established markets the transition to more agile platforms that increase both survey efficiency and insights delivery are key areas of focus. While mobile/digital technology is the single most transformative factor in most organizations, researchers often struggle with optimal survey content within the platform from both a content and display perspective. The most consistent finding was the gap that exists between client and supplier goals. The ability to produce stronger insights through hybrid methodologies incorporating multiple data streams is increasingly important to organizations as “real time” feedback. Client researchers are open to new methodologies that enhance their current operations and most recognize that mobile technology is currently on track to dominate customer interactions; however, current research GRITReport.org solutions are limited in their ability to adapt to the platform and offer little more than directional guidance. While there is an interest in new technology, the primary interest remains with their ability to develop a more efficient process that increases insight while reducing the overhead associated with internal research. Suppliers who align their services to support those goals are likely to have a higher rate of success than those who attempt to introduce new technologies designed around data collection. The most consistent finding was the gap that exists between client and supplier goals Winter 2014 29
  30. 30. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adoption of New Research Methods This section looks at the adoption, by clients and suppliers, of new research methods, and the barriers to adopting new approaches. In evaluating the current picture and changes from the previous year it should be noted that two new research methods have been added to the survey this year: Big Data Analytics and Micro-Surveys. The data suggest that not much has changed over the last 12 months. The same four techniques head up the list, with Online Communities being number one. However, there are some interesting insights when we look at the detailed data, such as the way that clients seem to be adopting Social Media Analytics and Big Data Analytics more widely than suppliers are, and these nuances are explored in this section. This section also looks at the why approaches are not used. The data remind us that no approach is right for every situation, and that barriers can range from not understanding a new technology through to finding an older approach too slow and too expensive. Communities, Mobile Surveys, Analytics Techniques of the future: 2012/13 vs. 2013/14 In use Under consideration 2013/14 2012/13 2013/14 2012/13 Online Communities 49% 45% 33% 38% Mobile Surveys 41% 41% 41% 45% Social Media Analytics 36% 36% 40% 42% Text Analytics 33% 31% 35% 37% Big Data Analytics 31% 0% 38% 0% Webcam-Based Interviews 27% 25% 30% 39% Eye Tracking 26% 23% 25% 21% Mobile Qualitative 22% 23% 39% 41% Mobile Ethnography 21% 20% 38% 39% Micro-surveys 19% 0% 32% 0% Prediction Markets 17% 17% 27% 30% Research gamification 16% 15% 38% 33% Crowdsourcing 14% 13% 33% 30% Virtual Environments 14% 17% 28% 30% Facial analysis 13% 9% 23% 20% Neuromarketing 11% 9% 25% 22% Biometric Response 8% 7% 19% 21% Bases 2012/13= 1,375, 2013/14=2,229 30 The data show very few changes between waves, and continue to show that Online Communities is the new technique with the largest reported adoption, with 49% of respondents claiming to be currently using them, and 82% either using or considering them. Winter 2014 Significantly up Given that the differences between the two most recent waves are few, the interest lies in where the two new items in the list have been placed. Micro-Surveys have entered the table at just under halfway up, with 19% saying they already use them, and 38% considering them. Micro-Surveys are an essential element of the new type of market research that many are predicting, so it will be interesting to see if their ranking is even higher next year. The other new entrant is Big Data Analytics, with 31% saying they already use it and 38% having it under consideration. The table suggests that there may be a drop in organizations that have Online Communities ‘under consideration’. However, combining ‘use’ and ‘consideration’, the figures are 83% last year and 82% this year, so no real change, and a massive endorsement for the proposition that communities have become mainstream. Online Communities is the new technique with the largest reported adoption Significantly down GRITReport.org
  31. 31. GRIT Commentary The Drivers of change aren’t going away – it’s time to go mobile Looking through the results from the GRIT questionnaire, I found myself going back to the Drivers of Change section. It’s not only the results that caught my eye (though they did, but more of that later), but I’m always interested in what people in our industry feel is driving us all forward. And more importantly, what the actual impact of those drivers has been. MR is an industry with enormous potential for evolution – even disruptive evolutions – which, for a well-established, mature sector is something we should all be pretty excited about. But I’m not sure we’re living up to the opportunities. At least, not all of them. Here, I’m mostly talking about mobile, which tops the list of drivers for change. Hardly a huge surprise, more a confirmation of a fact that surveys like this have been telling us for some time now. But are we really making the changes we need to? The lack of progress in the optimization of surveys for mobile has – in 2013 – been a disappointment. For several years now, the proportion of respondents opening surveys on a mobile has increased (it now stands at around 20%) but much of the MR industry has steadfastly failed to make progress in accommodating this development. This is frustrating, given the technology is there, effective and ready to use, and this inertia will only service to frustrate respondents and drive down response rates. There are two areas to consider for those MR agencies who are adding mobile to their data collection repertoire: accidental and purposeful. Accidental, like those situations referenced above, are those respondents who’ve been sent an online survey, but who open it on a mobile device. If these people are not provided with a good survey experience (for example, thought Responsive Web Rendering), they’ll simply abandon the survey and never return to it. The resulting lack of engagement and reduced response rates simply isn’t something we, as MR practitioners, can accommodate. The technology is there to ensure that web surveys open automatically to take advantage of the native characteristics and components of the device in question so there’s no excuse not to use it. GRITReport.org Wale Omiyale SVP, Confirmit Email: LinkedIn: Twitter: Website: wale.omiyale@confirmit.com www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1621999 wale100 / confirmit www.confirmit.com Purposeful mobile is increasingly becoming an area that we need to consider, though in many respects there’s less urgency than there is for capturing the accidental mobile audience. However, purposeful mobile – which includes Apps that capture mobile diaries, rich media and GPS data – provides an incredible opportunity for those businesses who are prepared to get stuck in. Apps can enable respondents to provide data while offline, and lend themselves extremely well to providing extensions of other CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing) programs. Think about mobile research as a way to converse with respondents in the way that they prefer to communicate Think about mobile research as a way to converse with respondents in the way that they prefer to communicate, or in some cases, the only way in which they can be reached. From an industry that’s been dealing with declining response rates and (from some sources) threats of complete extinction – it’s a short-sighted decision to opt out of mobile entirely. And not one I’d recommend. Winter 2014 31
  32. 32. NA The world of consumer insights is changing fast. » 11 forward-looking tracks » Over 100 speakers » 80+ presentations » Hands-on workshops » Networking events 2014 Atlanta June 16-18 Corporate Partners Learn more at www.iiex-na.org
  33. 33. Regional Differences More Qual or More Quant? The data show relatively modest differences by region, but once again there are interesting nuances. About half the respondents expected their balance between qual and quant to remain about the same over the next two years, with just over 20% reporting that they will be doing more quant, and just over 20% reporting that they will do more qual. This consistency is in line with the picture reported by the last few ESOMAR industry studies, which have shown little change in the balance between qual and quant over the last few years. North America has a lead in the largest number of methods, with significantly high scores for Mobile Surveys, Text Analytics, Big Data Analytics, Webcam-Based Interviews, Mobile Qual, and Mobile Ethnography. Europe is significantly strong in Online Communities and Eye Tracking, whilst Latin America is significantly strong in Social Media Analytics and Micro-Surveys. Clients and suppliers share a similar view about the balance of qual and quant over the next two years, neither predicting a big change. The regional data also suggests no change as the main picture, with the data from Latin America suggesting a small shift to qual and the data from Asia suggesting a small shift to quant. Adoption by Clients vs. Suppliers The overall pattern between clients and suppliers (what clients are buying and what suppliers are selling), is broadly similar (particularly when the ‘in use’ numbers are combined with the ‘plan to use’ numbers) – which is hardly surprising. However, there are some interesting differences, as shown in this chart. Techniques of the future: Client vs. Supplier In use Client Under consideration Supplier Client Supplier 38% 32% Mobile Surveys 28% 45% 46% 40% Social Media Analytics 47% 34% 35% 41% Text Analytics 30% 34% 35% 35% Big Data Analytics 40% 29% 35% 38% Webcam-Based Interviews 19% 29% 27% 30% Eye Tracking 25% 26% 25% 25% Mobile Qualitative 13% 24% 38% 40% 13% 23% 37% 39% Micro-surveys 16% 20% 31% 32% Prediction Markets 18% 16% 29% 27% Research gamification 9% 18% 36% 38% 13% 14% 34% 33% Virtual Environments 11% 14% 25% 29% Facial analysis the mobile revolution is going to be more ‘supplierdriven’ than ‘client-pulled’ 50% Crowdsourcing Another interesting difference between the client and supplier responses is in the area of Social Media Analytics and Big Data Analytics, both of which are currently stronger amongst the client respondents. It is possible that this reflects involvement by people outside of traditional market research. 44% Mobile Ethnography The single biggest difference between the client and supplier values was for Mobile Surveys. This may suggest that suppliers are more aware that something like 20% to 30% of ‘offline’ surveys are already being conducted via mobile devices – a phenomenon that is sometimes referred to as ‘accidental mobile’. However, the fact that both Mobile Qualitative and Mobile Ethnography are stronger amongst suppliers than clients might suggest that the mobile revolution that many are forecasting is going to be more ‘supplier-driven’ than ‘client-pulled’, with a growing range of options being offered. Online Communities 9% 14% 20% 24% Neuromarketing 11% 12% 27% 25% Biometric Response 7% 8% 18% 19% Base: Client=443, Supplier=1786 GRITReport.org Significantly up Significantly down Winter 2014 33
  34. 34. Inside many client organizations, the insights team does not conduct the purchasing of Social Media Analytics and Big Data solutions. The insights team may be working with the information generated from these tools, often to add context or depth, but they may not ‘own’ the process. If the finance department, IT, COOs, CTOs and the like, are making purchasing decisions, they may not be looking to market research companies to find their suppliers. The second connected factor is that many of the providers of Social Media Analytics and Big Data solutions are not from the market research industry; even when the purchasing is conducted by client-side insights teams, the work may go to a non-MR organisation, or be completed in-house using a DIY tool. Inside many client organizations, the insights team does not conduct the purchasing of Social Media Analytics and Big Data solutions Barriers to Adopting New Approaches The other side of looking at what is being adopted is to assess why new approaches such as Biometrics, Neuromarketing, Facial Analysis, and Virtual Environments are not gaining in adoption. The study asked respondents whether they ever felt inhibited from using some types of research methodologies or approaches. In total, about two-thirds (66%) said they had felt inhibited, up from 58% last year. Clients and suppliers were almost equally likely to say they were sometimes inhibited. Respondents from the Middle East and Africa and from Asia were the most likely to say they had felt inhibited (74% and 71%, respectively). Respondents in companies with 3 or fewer employees were the most likely to report feeling inhibited, but even the larger and largest companies reported 60+% rates for inhibition.
  35. 35. GRIT Commentary MR’s Hopeful But Cautious Approach to Mobile, Online Communities and Social Analytics Robert Clancy Vice President of Insights and Strategy, uSamp Email: LinkedIn: Website: The saying, “all or nothing” does not typically apply to Market Researchers. As pioneers, we’re certainly excited and dazzled by new technology, but as researchers, we are methodical in approach, and as a consequence, not always the earliest of adopters until a case has been proven – or budgets allow for this kind of exploration. This year’s GRIT Dashboard revealed the tension between progress and pushback. As researchers, we are methodical in approach, and as a consequence, not always the earliest of adopters Two-thirds of all respondents report feeling inhibited from using certain methodologies such as gamification, online communities, mobile, social analytics and crowdsourcing. At the same time, respondents indicate that the top three methodologies of the future are online communities, mobile, and social analytics. This contradiction indicates definite interest, but hesitation to go “all in” until clients and suppliers presumably see more proof of how insights produced through these methods can impact business and/or until their companies are willing to commit more dollars. The report reveals a few things that have impacted the way data are collected: One, the increased use of mobile technologies and non-traditional research techniques, and two, client budget constraints. Given the latter point, it’s not surprising that clients admit to taking more of the research in-house, especially as it applies to social media analytics. This is a technique that is more easily in-sourced than, for example, creating and managing an online community – another popular methodology amongst suppliers. GRITReport.org robert@usamp.com www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-clancy/48/838/ba6 www.usamp.com Overall, the dashboard revealed increased usage of online and mobile methodologies in the quant space and a decrease in face-to-face interviewing – with respondents naming mobile among their top three methodologies to leverage in the near future. But while it’s arguable that the future belongs to mobile research, it still remains an underutilized platform, only accounting for about five percent of total research conducted. Why the gap? The majority said they feel inhibited from using this new technology. At the same time, “technology limitations” are the primary reason respondents cite for not using mobile. The data suggest that suppliers and clients simply do not believe or do not realize how far the technology has already been developed. Alternatively, they might not have seen enough clear proof that mobile works. Either they have not fully investigated mobile options, or we need to do a better job of educating them about the feasibility of mobile. There is obviously interest in mobile and people recognize it as an important methodology for the future, but several factors, like those described above, are holding researchers back. Once the technology is completely proven and researchers start to see the power of the insights mobile can provide, then we should start to see mobile acceleration. It won’t happen overnight, though. It takes time for a new methodology to gain universal acceptance, and online is still, by far, the most trusted and utilized research methodology. Winter 2014 35

×