By: Margie Lane, Research Director

The end of the year came & went, a reminder of how much time flies. So I’m making the time now to reflect on what we’ve achieved and the direction we need to take next year with our online communities.

1. There is always room for more scope to explore market gaps and opportunities rather than simply answering burning questions or sense checking ideas just before they go to market.  We need to help our clients to use our communities much earlier in the product development process when ideas are first on the drawing board.

2. Research shows, and our members tell us, that they’re happy to tell us about their lives and be involved in the cocreation process as long as we tell them how the information is being used.  We need to help our clients provide our communities with feedback so they receive the recognition and feedback they need and deserve.

3. As we continue to develop our mobile platforms we will be including more mobile tasks and challenges for consumers to capture insitu experiences that help identify actual behaviour and can be used to bring the consumer to life in the boardroom.

4. Internal stakeholders benefit much more when they are fully engaged with our communities.  We need to invest more time upfront when our communities are being established to inform and excite stakeholders and provide ongoing dialogue, not just written reports.  Debriefs will be more brainstorming sessions than formal debriefs.

5. Focus more on engagement than be concerned about size.  We know engagement is the key to delving beyond predictable, rational responses and our focus needs to be on continually challenging, inspiring and relating to our members to reveal their true behaviour and attitudes.

6. Ideally we want more time for spontaneous discussions and exploration of issues and ideas as they emerge.  The accessibility of online communities makes it too easy to use them to seek an answer to a question, but answers to direct questions do not always provide an accurate reflection of what the consumer will do.  Far better we learn from consumers’ conversations of how they go about using products and services and making their decisions to guide decision-making.

How do you plan to use your online communities in 2013?

By Victoria Parr, Managing Director, Latitude Insights Sydney office 

At the last AMSRS conference I presented a paper on the research to develop the design of plain packaging for tobacco products (yes, that colour…… Pantone 448C). During the questions that followed, an audience member highlighted that even though the emphasis of the conference had been on new methodologies and digital data collection, most of the papers dealing with significant social or community impact had used very traditional methods, including mine.  He was questioning the tension between the ‘new’ methodologies and the need for delivery of robust and evidence based research that is required for government research.

This is an issue that I believe many in the audience of that last conference were grappling with, especially those of us that work within the social and government sphere. Our government clients are similar to commercial clients in that they too need to do everything cheaper and faster. They are also aware of that ‘new fangled’ thing called the internet, and they know that  people now have 100′s of friends and followers whose profile pictures they see on a daily basis, and who they converse with in 140 characters or less.

How our government clients differ is that the research they do is funded by all Australian taxpayers, so all of us in the community who are relevant to the problem need to be represented in the research. It is a critical part of the democratic model of government that all have chance to express their views and opinions on matters that affect them,  and that means the research we do must be representative of the population in question.

And here lies the crux of the issue.

As I said at the conference, government needs to be accountable and need to  ensure reliability of rigorous and robust research methods to achieve this. But at the same time, the world is changing and we all know that the way people are communicating is now different. We type to communicate almost as much, if not more, than we verbalise our thoughts. As AMSRS committee member Victoria Gamble gamely said when called out to take the roving microphone at the conference ‘I don’t like to speak in front of so many people, that’s why I use twitter’.

So my question is, if we don’t start to talk to people using the same way they communicate with each other, are we in fact losing some of the rigour of the research? Not only do we miss representation of the people who will not elect to do face-to-face qual, are we also not missing a vital part of capturing their views and opinions by not communicating with them in the way they are accustomed to?

Fishkin[1] wrote about deliberative democracy and public consultation under the title ‘When the People Speak’. My question is about recognizing that how people are speaking is now, in fact, different and we in the social and government side of research need to explore this issue more, both clients and suppliers alike. All methodologies, both the tried and tested and the ‘new’ have their faults. What we really need to consider as we look at each new project or problem is what method is going to really give a voice to those whose views and opinions we are trying to represent?

Having recently joined Latitude Insights and the market research industry as a whole, I was quite interested to hear about something called an “online community”.   I had never learned about “online communities” at uni (certainly not in enough depth for me to remember learning about them anyway!).

Nonetheless, as I learnt more about them, one of the things that stood out to me was this concept that “engagement” and other intrinsic rewards can be much more valuable to members than monetary rewards.

I’ll admit that I was a little sceptical at first to think that people could truly appreciate intrinsic rewards, especially in an increasingly price-conscious world… that was, until I actually experienced an online community for myself!  As I began to invite individuals to various communities, I expected every second person to ask me, “sooo….what are the ‘rewards’ for this research?” (A polite way of saying “show me the money PA-LEASE!!”).   Whilst this is an essential question for some, overall, this question is rarely asked. It is more common to get comments such as, “I’m really looking forward to this discussion, I think it will be very interesting!”

Read the rest of this entry »

The press has stopped for Encyclopaedia Britannica as it paves its future in digital. Following the footsteps of Wikipedia, the Britannica will now only offer online compilations of its publication.

How is it that Wikipedia (which relies on the collaboration of hundreds of authors working for free, nothing, zilch) is able to topple a 244-year-old publication like Britannica?

At last year’s AMSRS National Conference, using Wikipedia as an example, I spoke about the intrinsic reward that people get from online communities. Intrinsic rewards are non-monetary rewards – such as feelings of belonging or working towards a greater cause.

These same intrinsic rewards can be nurtured in Insights Communities. Wikipedia is evidence that by letting go of control and allowing members to ‘own’ their online environments, we are able to bring people together in collaboration. In your Insights Community, if you can create these feelings of self worth, acceptance and contributing to something bigger, you’ll find less need for extrinsic, monetary based incentives.

Half way through a traditional face to face qualitative project with mums and kids, and it’s got me thinking about kids and their role in market research.

As we move forward to new technologies and channels for accessing adults are we going to be missing out on insights from kids, and what does this mean for our clients and their products?

At the moment we can conduct direct research with kids with their parents consent, be it in focus groups, accompanied shops, in home sessions etc. But contacting kids online and through mobile devices is a bit more of a grey area.

Does this mean more heavy reliance on mum for an interpretation of her kid’s thoughts, desires and relationships with brands and products?
Kids researchers know the value of hearing it ‘from the horse’s mouth’ so to speak, and clients certainly respond well to watching and listening to kids, who are often instrumental in driving mums purchase behaviour. Many a time we have seen kids in the next room choosing a totally different ‘favourite idea’ to the one their mums are picking for them across the hallway.

Sitting down to talk about a particular brand and what it means to kids can unearth insights far more powerful than we may first think. Kids are so used to being asked for the ‘right’ answers in school. But given the chance to explore their inner thoughts and feelings through drawings, projective techniques and other mechanisms, can be empowering for them. They enjoy harnessing their imagination and creativity, which can lead to fabulous food for thought for brand managers, advertising creative and design teams.

Often mums tell us they buy stuff for kids ‘because they want it’ – but how often do they know why?

I for one am interested to ‘watch this space’ and see how we connect with kids as ethical debates, technology and research evolve. After all, kids are often the most switched on when in it comes to new technology. In a recent focus group, the first question from the 9 year olds boys was “woah is that an ipad 4?”. I have to admit I didn’t know the answer……

Badges are becoming commonplace on social media platforms. To enhance levels of engagement, badges ‘gamify’ actions and reward users. This ‘gamification’ of experience in turn, motivates further action. But how are badges useful? Why do they work?

In an initial study, Antin & Churchill (2011) set out to answer these questions. I have briefly summarised their findings below.

Goal Setting
Challenges are an effective motivator and consuming goals is an end unto itself. Studies have shown the most effective goals are those just out of comfortable reach.

Instruction
Providing a framework for users, badges illustrate valued activities of the community.

Reputation
Badges contribute to the identity of users. They allow others to make ‘reputation assessments’ such as a particular member’s interests or expertise.

Status/Affirmation
Acting as status symbols, badges highlight achievement, acknowledging user accomplishments.

Group Identification
Shared experiences increase collaboration in online communities. Badges connect users to these shared actions, and provide ‘perceptions of similarity between an individual and the group’

In short, badges act as social agents in online communities, assisting users to navigate their virtual identity and relationships. Transferring these agents into research communities may help provide another layer of user engagement.

When moderating communities, you do your best to engage with members and present yourself in a way that makes them comfortable with contributing and posting their thoughts. Being a similar type of person to the members in the community is extremely important so to understand and relate to their opinions. As a male I’m not going to be the best person to moderate a community for pregnant women. How could I ever pretend to relate to members? That just would not work.

It’s for this reason that I was chosen to moderate a community of young (mainly male) students who had just started university. It was felt I was well placed to relate to their lives, interests, thoughts and opinions. Sure, it has been a few years since I graduated university but how much could have changed? I was 18 once. I can relate.

I have come to realise that things have changed. Firstly and probably most significantly is that prevalence of ‘text speech’ becoming a more and more accepted means of writing. Words are replaced with numbers (2 instead of to / too), acronyms replace phrases (By the way becomes BTW) just to name a couple of these intricacies.

In order to best connect with members, I have had to adapt my language and tone to ensure students are comfortable with opening up to me and as such have taken to posting discussions and blogs in the language of the youth. It has been a challenge and I usually find myself writing as I normally would, re-reading and then altering words and phrases to adapt to this strange new language. I’m definitely not there yet but i think that im getting used 2 usin sum of this 2 improve the way i connect wif students. Gr8 isnt it.

I’m interested to see if anyone else has had experiences of their own that they’d like to share?

In market research, a respondent’s anonymity is sacrosanct – to be protected with the utmost diligence. There are guidelines, rules and laws, all of which have been created to ensure that at no time will the personal details of a panel member, survey respondent or online community member ever be divulged. Sure, they are happy to tell us almost everything else about themselves if the question dictates this but as we say in the business ‘at no time will your responses be personally attributed to yourself’.

Online research has meant that the power of anonymity has grown, as no longer is there any physical contact with the collector of information. Surveys, communities and focus groups can all be undertaken online in the comfort of one’s anonymous surroundings.

The benefits of this increased level of anonymity are many. Respondents are happier to divulge information that previously they would have been unwilling to share with an interviewer. Things like medical conditions, financial standing to name just a couple of examples. Working with financial clients in the past where respondents were happy to talk about having to remortgage their house and living from pay check to pay check really proved to be an eye opener to the benefits of discussing these topics in an online environment compared to an open focus group session.

We expect people to be more open and honest in their opinions, which for market research is imperative in ensuring that the correct results and insights are delivered to a client. Honest opinions are both positive and negative of course. When the information tells us something that someone might not want to hear is where the problems lie.

Ben Elton’s latest TV offering ‘Live from Planet Earth’ received some poor reviews but it was the level of vitriol served up by ‘tweeters’ which got Ben and a number of media commentators quite wound up. Karl Quinn at theage.com.au was particularly incensed by the comments. It was the anonymous negative opinions being aired throughout the show which he called bullying. He quotes Matt Zoller Seitz in his article. “The protective force field of anonymity – or pseudonymity – brings out the worst in some people. They say things they would never say in the presence of flesh-and-blood human beings.” That may be true but as we’ve said, at least these opinions are honest and do not ‘sugar coat’ the truth.

It is not the anonymity of the tweeters which is the problem but the actual honesty of their opinions, (which is really what we want in the first place) that is upsetting Karl Quinn.

Twitter is now seen as an instantaneous, real-time yard stick to how a program is performing. If Ben Elton’s ‘Live from Planet Earth’ had been applauded and people loved it, would journalists have found the need to talk about how many tweeted their love for Ben Elton’s ‘best work ever’? Unlikely. Their honest anonymous opinions would have been seen as an indication of the triumphant creation of a brand new comedy hit but not something worthy of reporting.

Anonymity can help get the most out of a discussion when talking to someone and although honesty is crucial, when this honesty is not something that is particularly ‘rosy’ then this is just a fact that has to be lived with. Research is done for this very reason. If a new advertising campaign is terrible and never sees the light of day, it is because of the opinions and thoughts of focus groups, surveys and communities where these are first tested. If something rates poorly it is shelved. Just like Live from Planet Earth was in the end.