What does it take to get a seat at the table?

1. 00
POINT OF VIEW
STAN STHANUNATHAN
ADMAP JULY-AUGUST 2012
is a series of intellectual manoeuvres, a
massage of numbers, and profound
justifications to defend the original story. In
the process, we forget that we started all this
with an aim to achieve perfection. What went
wrong? I can’t help but quote Einstein, who
said: “A perfection of means, and confusion
of aims, seems to be our main problem.” We
need to define who we want to be or else
somebody else will define it for us.
The insights profession needs to make
a choice between subservience or thought
leadership, and risk mitigation or opportunity
creation. While the choice is very clear and
obvious to everyone, breaking away from
risk-averse behaviour, stemming from years
of conditioning is never easy. There are many
things to consider.
Firstly, using the past to predict the future
reeks of ‘incrementality’. In the last decade,
most industries have experienced anaemic
growth rates. Focusing on share gains within
a fixed pie will end up as a value-destroying
activity over time. The need of the hour is
step-change – a new way in which
businesses figure out how to grow the pie. In
this new world order, the role of the function
is not just about providing insights – it is all
about inspiration and provocations that will
drive transformational actions. This calls for
excellence, big and bold thinking, and not
perfection.
This can happen only if we divert more
and more money from ‘rear-view research’
to ‘forward-looking research’. Our role is to
ignite passion and help businesses to dream
again.
Does it then mean that we should abandon
accuracy and perfection? No. Accuracy is
table stakes, but attempts to raise accuracy
levels beyond reasonable levels, in a pursuit of
perfection, can be a value-destroying activity.
When we raise the game and tell
engaging stories, the dialogue always moves
from technique/craft/accuracy/perfection,
to business impact. We need to move the
dialogue quickly from the ‘what’ to ‘so what’
to ‘now what’. When that happens, a seat at
the table happens automatically.
After 100 years of history as a profession,
if we are still bemoaning not having a seat at
the table, surely it is time we took big steps
to change the course of the industry and the
function. Aiming for perfection is certainly not
going to get us there. If we continue to focus
single-mindedly on perfection, it becomes the
enemy of greatness.
Imperfection is good
Insights professionals often plead for a ‘seat
at the top table’. What they should ask
themselves is: “How do you earn a seat at the
table?” and, the bigger question, “Who gets a
seat at the table?”
In answering these questions, the sagacious
insights person would do well to understand,
and reflect on, the history of our profession.
The market research industry is around
100 years old. It has its roots in measurement.
Initially, measurement was focused on
understanding the past – the readership of a
magazine or the listenership of a radio station,
for example. The function’s DNA was defined
by its roots. This definition of the DNA
became more entrenched over time when
marketing as a function started demanding
more measurement, more validation and
better ways to reduce the risk in marketing
decisions. All this resulted in research money
going after ‘rear view’ research. Even today,
70% to 80% of budgets are spent on
measuring and understanding the past. Not
surprisingly, it almost becomes an imperative
to measure it better and better. Thus starts
the pursuit of research perfection.
We tend to aim for perfection because
very often our stakeholders ask a profound
question: “How sure are you about what
you are saying?” This tends to send
researchers into defensive mode. Measuring
what has already taken place is relatively
easy, but what often follows from such a
question is a need to measure these events
with an ever increasing degree of precision.
We know only too well that increasing
accuracy from 80% to 85% is much more
expensive and time consuming than
increasing accuracy from 70% to 75%.
So the search for precision is an
expensive business, and constrained by
an economic environment of finite and
sometimes shrinking budgets, researchers
tend to evolve into risk-mitigators who
pretend to tell their clients, with a very
high degree of confidence, that their
marketing decisions are either solid or weak.
They go home happy only to be called by
the client a few days later with the
observation: “Your results
were very different from
our actual in-market
experience…just
how sure are you
about what you
are saying?”
What follows
13
question is a need to measure these events
with an ever increasing degree of precision.
We know only too well that increasing
accuracy from 80% to 85% is much more
expensive and time consuming than
increasing accuracy from 70% to 75%.
So the search for precision is an
expensive business, and constrained by
an economic environment of finite and
sometimes shrinking budgets, researchers
tend to evolve into risk-mitigators who
pretend to tell their clients, with a very
high degree of confidence, that their
marketing decisions are either solid or weak.
They go home happy only to be called by
the client a few days later with the
observation: “Your results
were very different from
our actual in-market
experience…just
how sure are you
about what you
are saying?”
ADM July Stan_2nd.indd 3 6/20/2012 16:19:27