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?

Mobile is an inherent part of our lives today and it’s important for researchers to grasp how this medium can help us improve our research outcomes.  That’s why, last month I attended the Merlien Institute conference MobileMR 2010: Market Research in the Mobile World conference in Berlin.

Some interesting examples of how it can enhance our research were presented including:

• Steve August and Ian Ralph showed how using mobiles for diary studies results in far more frequently and timely responses
• Siamick Salari, founder of Everyday Lives, spoke about using mobiles to collect and tag on the go multi-media ethnographic information
• Julie Gade gave a great case study using mobiles to get children/teenagers to share via photos what they eat.  We know asking questions doesn’t always tell us what we need to know, and when it comes to teenagers – mobile is what they know.  Furthermore, letting them have a role in storytelling can be a powerful tool.  As Julie said, mobile reduces the gap between what people say and do.

But as Steve August from Revelation kindly reminded us mobile is a technology not a methodology; it’s just a medium for gathering information in a different way, which has its strengths and weaknesses, like all others.

During the conference there was lots of discussion on how to get people to participate in research using mobile phones.  But to me, the same rules apply no matter what medium you use:

• make it interesting
• make it relevant
• make it easy and simple

And when it comes to motivating them we need to:

• Make it about them and their lives
• Share the results and let them see the results of others
• Not underestimate the importance of the social aspect

Ultimately, if you are considering including mobile as a medium for data collection you need to ensure there is a benefit for the participant (be it easier, interesting, social or just fun).

The online tax push by Gerry Harvey (Harvey Norman), and other large Australian retailers such as Myer, David Jones, Target, House, Borders is receiving incredible (and ongoing) backlash from angry consumers. What the retailers are proposing, is for either the local GST to be scrapped on goods sold for less than $1000, or for a similar duty to be applied to goods bought from overseas online sites.

This tax push reveals two key points – the retailers’ lack of understanding of their customers, and their lack of understanding of the power of social media.

The ordinary people on the street (aka the customers) are flocking to Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to express their anger and disgust over the retailers’ proposition. In fact, the retailers’ public push for this online tax appears to have opened a can of worms. While many people are now saying they will no longer buy from these stores (particularly Harvey Norman), it has also provided consumers the chance to air ALL their grievances to do with the big retailers.

Media reports that the retailers are stunned by the reaction from consumers, which is interesting as we all know shoppers love getting a ‘bargain’. And they love the convenience of shopping online. Combine the two and it’s a heady mix. Trying to take this away from them is like taking a lollipop from a child. It’s never going to end well.

Before the advent of social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc (that allow everyone a say) this proposed online tax would probably have gotten off the ground without a peep to be heard from disgruntled consumers.

However, social media has changed all this, as borne out by the reactions to this proposed campaign.

Following the public outcry, a recent media release from Gerry Harvey reveals he is stepping away from the campaign, saying it was ‘suicidal’ to have been involved. The backlash to him personally and his chain of franchises, Harvey Norman, has been too strong.

The irony in all this is that retailers source cheap goods and labour from overseas (and consumers are aware of this), but do not want consumers to be able to do the same.

A lesson in amongst this entire fracas is that companies need to create sustainable and mutually respectful relationships with their customers.

In the meantime, the retailers have alerted the public as a whole to the advantages of online shopping with overseas companies – wide range, big savings. Welcome to the 21st century!

The polls below tell the story.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald 7 Jan 2011

It seems like everything is going wrong for Australia at the moment, losing the cricket to England, being knocked off as the best brand in the world and suffering the indignity of just a solitary vote in the football World Cup voting in a race that we were hotly tipped to win. People have been very quick to lay the blame for all of these performances as always but the video that was supposed to sell Australia as the destination to hold the 2022 World Cup has come under particular scrutiny.

Much of the criticism has come from Australians who once again have been subjected to the same old efforts in attempting to bottle everything that we think outsiders like and know about Australia and sell it to the world.

From inside, we see this as dated effort and clearly now question it’s worth as a marketing tool. Externally though, is this still how foreigners see Australia or more importantly how they want to see Australia portrayed?

The video of the surfing kangaroo amongst the quintessential Australian backdrops, the occasional (retired) sports star and (should have retired long ago) movie star has divided the nation with over two-thirds believing it did nothing to boost the chances of Australia winning the bid. This was a poll on an Australian website and most likely taken by Australians, who in the end are not the audience that the video was aimed at. The real question is what the FIFA representatives thought. In the end, it obviously wasn’t that much.

Although the blame can’t be put solely on the video itself, the question is raised whether the world is tiring of ‘brand Australia’ and if the stereotypical images which we send out through tourist campaigns are getting old and have lost their impact. Surely we can do better than rolling out Paul Hogan whose image is solely build upon a movie released over 20 years ago now. Is that what foreigners are still thinking about when the word Australia is mentioned? I hope we’ve come a long way since then, but do outsiders?

I’m sure that research is being done by Tourism Australia to establish overseas if the view that outsiders have of Australia is still one of Fosters drinking, BBQ eating, zinc wearing, beach goers or whether there has been a shift to reflect our more modern culture that internally at least, we’ve been trying hard to change. We have moved on and grown up as a country, but does the rest of the world want us to?

CSIRO is currently creating technology that could one day assist market researchers in dealing with self-report bias. In a nutshell, CSIRO is designing software that allows computers to accurately identify human emotions in facial expressions, even micro-expressions (which may only be present for 1/15 of a second on the participant’s face). Already the software shows potential with its accuracy, and as technology advances, it can only become more precise.

Humans are very skilled at recognising facial expressions; we do it subconsciously in every interaction we have. At the same time, we send out our own signals to others – whether intentional or involuntary. It is the involuntary expressions that may be of most interest to the market research industry.

Machines detecting even the slightest expression may help relieve doubts of self-report bias (social desirability, a tendency to agree, leniency or harshness etc.). Another approach to add to the industry toolbox, keep an eye on this!

The notion of the ‘virtual self’ is gaining momentum as more people take to creating an online personality. Whether people join social networks, game in virtual worlds or post on YouTube, the projection of ‘self’ into the digital space is a first for the human condition – hence the fascination of psychologists, sociologists and marketers alike.

But what compels us to form, build and maintain relationships with people we may not even know in the offline world? I believe it is largely the same reason we choose SMS over a phone call, an ATM over a teller and a community over a focus group. Control. Online we can minimalise the ‘not so nice’ side of interaction – embarrassment, judgment, confusion, and miscommunication. People have a certain degree of anonymity and influence over their engagement with others.

For researchers, Insights Communities provide the platform to allow people to express freely, minus the friction that can occur in real world interaction. However, as Community Mangers, we are often asked whether our samples are skewed towards those more technologically inclined. The answer is no. For most members, this is the first time that they have participated in an online network. It is not the technology that drives participants to online communities (or any social network), rather, it is the fundamental human instinct to express, create, and identify with each other. The ‘virtual self’ is another means in which to fulfill this need.

Part of what I love about working with the team at Latitude is the opportunity to laugh each and every day.

Throughout the week, our community moderators post blogs to their members to touch base, say hello, give them an update and (hopefully) make them smile.

With our unique approach to community engagement, moderators are encouraged to inject a healthy dose of their own personality into communications with their members, with often humorous results. Throwing in a few tidbits of novelty information, or a joke or two allows us all to reveal a little about what interests us, makes us tick, or cracks us up, which in turn encourages members to do the same.

Here’s a couple of snippets from some recent moderator blogs…

One moderator shares her weekend of indulgence with her community…

To celebrate International Talk Like A Pirate Day…

While this sort of dialogue may not be a source for powerful insights for our clients, what it does facilitate is a fun, friendly atmosphere in which our members can express themselves openly, engage with us as moderators and bond with each other as members.

Because after all, who doesn’t love to laugh every now and again!

As part of last months State of Design Festival, Dan Hill, Senior Consultant with Arup ,was discussing some of the design innovations occurring around the world, and the potential they have to fundamentally change the way we interact with the physical environment.

One area he touched on that I found of particular interest was a traffic experiment in the city of Drachten, The Netherlands.

In 2002, all traffic signals were removed from a busy inner-city intersection that handles around 17,000 vehicles per day. The results can be viewed below…

I watched this short clip with a mixture of both fascination and horror as I waited to witness the imminent disastrous collision. However it never occurred, and Dan assured us that this intersection has proven to be essentially accident free!

The notion that a somewhat chaotic approach to traffic control, where anything goes and motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are left to sort out the rules amongst themselves initially seemed absurd. Yet upon further consideration this relaxation of the rules began to make more and more sense.

Perhaps, in many ways, it is actually the rigid rules and regulations of some activities that can lead participants to ‘switch off’. When expected to follow the prompts and directions prescribed to us by others, could it be the case that our level of engagement diminishes simultaneously?

When left to our own devices, armed solely with the desire to avoid smashing into something or someone else, we are suddenly required to pay attention, to increase our awareness and to apply a further level of consideration to our thoughts and actions.

Rolling this idea around in my head got me thinking about some of the unmoderated activity that happens everyday in our online research communities. The common assumption is that all of the real ‘nuggets’ of insight are derived purely from the research discussions we as moderators initiate.

However, when left to their own devices, our members not only initiate a great deal of their own discussions, but also show a great commitment toward ensuring the community runs smoothly; in many ways, they moderate each other. By practicing tolerance and embracing the different ideas and opinions of others, members prove to be very effective at creating a safe and harmonious place to interact.

Observing these interactions between community members is essentially very similar to observing Drachten’s traffic experiment. By removing the formal rules and regulations, and allowing individuals to navigate and negotiate themselves, we have the opportunity to gain a powerful insight into what they observe, what they pay attention to and how they respond.