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……

When I first started working with online communities I used to agonise over what I was going to talk to my members about to keep them engaged and interested. Trying to keep abreast of current events, latching on to anything interesting that might have happened out in the ‘big wide world’ to chat about.

But what I soon discovered (quite quickly, thankfully!) was that it was the more everyday musings and mundane snippets of my life that elicited the most response. The more I was just ‘me’ and shared my (sometimes very random) streams of consciousness the more community members responded. Blogs about peanut butter toast, accidentally coming to work with a stain on my shirt, feeling overwhelmed by laundry and the like had members laughing, commiserating and sharing similar stories both with me and each other. It’s the little things we all have in common that connect us more than we realise.

Not only has this made my job far easier, but highlights one of the main motivations for members participating in communities. And why we call them communities in the first place. We are social creatures, naturally interested in other people’s lives. Being a real person made me as much a member of the community as the ‘respondents’ I was ‘moderating’.

I let them into my life and get to see into their lives in return.

This is one of the key strengths of online communities in research. Members get comfortable, get real, and reveal truths about themselves. A genuine bond and sense of belonging develops. Something that I have never achieved in years of moderating focus groups.

As we are seeking to reveal deep consumer insights, that has to be a good thing!

It’s incredible to think so much has changed over the past three years. As Charleni Li points out in her recent blog Groundswell Paperback: A Look Back Three Years Later, it was only back in May 2008 that Facebook and Twitter were still emerging trends. Even more incredible, the iPhone had no apps! Can any of us now imagine a world without our iPhone, without Facebook or without Twitter? I know I can’t!

And marketers and researchers alike are embracing these technologies to reach their different audiences.

This then led to me on to a bit of a tangent, wondering whether MROCs (market research online communities) or insight communities have yet fully ‘emerged’. It seems the world of marketing research may be lagging a little?  There are still many who are wedded to the idea of focus groups sufficing for all qualitative research.  Which continues to amaze me, because once the richness, depth of information and honesty online research community members reveal, there’s really no going back.

When it comes to social networking, Google hasn’t had a very good run. Google Wave no longer exists, while Google Buzz got off on the wrong foot (with privacy invasion) when it first rolled out. In the next few weeks Google will launch its +1 button – which functions the same as Facebook’s ‘Like’ button. Given its track record, will Google ever be able to go social? If a company such as Google can’t build a successful online community, what hope is there for us market researchers?

Google obviously has the technological savvy to create these types of social networking platforms, but its core offer isn’t about being social, it’s about being useful. Google Search, Maps, News, Scholar. It’s about getting the user on and off a page as quickly as possible, with the information needed. Social media offers fun, entertainment and interaction – keeping the user on the platform for as long as possible.

Building an online community takes more than just providing a platform. Ignoring ‘the social’ impacts considerably on how your community grows – if it does at all. When establishing an insights community, keep in mind the lessons of Google. It’s just as much about interaction as it is information.

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.

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.

Approaching the Federal election, there’s no doubt that the two biggest brands at the moment are the Australian Labor and Liberal Parties.
Examining the online presence surrounding the election, here are some key outtakes about how social media can be used to encourage consumers to act…

Getting people inspired

A couple of weeks ago, GetUP– an independent campaigning group launched an anti-Liberal video online (titled Tony Abbott’s Archaic Views), calling for donations from the public to put the ad on TV. Within a week of the launch the call raised over $300,000 and the clip has indeed been aired on television.

The viral element of this strategy is what made it successful. The ability for consumers to connect to other platforms such as Facebook and Twitter directly from GetUp’s website, saw the rapid spread of the video, and encouraged consumers to donate to the cause – seeing the direct result of their participation on TV.

Getting people involved

“Democracy is not a spectator sport,” reads the catch line on Oursay.org. This is an independent site that facilitates interaction between the public and politicians. Once you set up an account log in, you can post and vote for questions you would like to ask the politicians in the “hot seat”.

This platform directly engages with the audience, and places control into the hands of the users. Content is negotiated amongst consumers, and the most popular topics drive the conversation.

Getting people to interact (but don’t waste potential!)

The ALP has invented its own social media platform – Labor Connect – to act as a networking tool. The network currently possesses 20,000 community members, however falls short in a few areas.

From a new user’s perspective its lack of content and moderation, coupled with the inability to connect with the user’s existing social networks leaves the consumer directionless upon joining.  Nonetheless, this is an interesting example of what could be improved when establishing a social media platform.

Without examining Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and websites, these examples are only a small fraction of the use of social media in this year’s election. However, each tool illustrates how consumers can organise themselves on social media – driving the outcomes that they choose.

There is some debate over the value of social media tools in qualitative research, particularly in regards to open communities for research purposes. Open communities are public social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace etc, which provide a continuous stream of peer-to-peer conversation.

Although both open and private communities sit under the social media umbrella, they require different research approaches from a qualitative perspective. Understanding the benefits and limitations of each type of community is essential in research design, data collection and analysis.

Below I’ve outlined some key considerations for researchers…

Benefits of open communities

Organic conversations - As public communities do not have a formalised structure, the conversations that occur are completely natural – giving researchers an understanding of topics that are of genuine interest to the consumer.

A wider audience – 75% of Australians are members of social networking sites. Many of these people may never have participated in market research and probably never would.

Cost effective - With no community set up costs, listening to these conversations is essentially free.

Limitations of open communities

Lack of context – As open communities are available to the public, there is greater difficulty in determining whether conversations reflect your target audience.  There is no real way of telling who is ‘talking’ and whether they have a predetermined agenda.  The lack of context provided is another challenge in gaining relevant insight.

Time consuming – Conversations are spontaneous, unprompted and live 24 hours a day. Trawling through thousands of conversations can be relatively time ineffective, with no guarantee that people will be talking about your brand/product.

Restricted pre-determined research objectives – As mentioned above, the raw, spontaneous nature of conversations means that defining a specific set of research objectives is unrealistic, and potentially counterproductive in listening to open communities in the first place.

No methodology is without flaw, however a balanced understanding of each tool and its application will provide a wider scope for research. While open communities offer a platform for listening to organic conversation, they do not give researchers the ability to direct discussions for further probing. However, these types of communities may be a useful starting point, and, when coupled with additional tools, can provide the researcher with a deeper understanding of the consumer.