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.

I wonder when Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook he realised he would be contributing to the first revolution driven by social media. The events that unfolded in Egypt highlight the influence of online networking – uniting like-minded citizens to overcome physical barriers.

Wael Ghonim is recognised to be one of the leaders of the Egyptian Revolution 2011. The word ‘leader’ here is used unconventionally, as his role was not in the public eye, but simply (or should I say powerfully) through his Tweets and Facebook page.

A striking contrast of the online space for free protest was exposed to the Egyptian people, as opposed to the claustrophopic state of a suppressed nation. This contrast may have contributed to the citizens of Egypt becoming aware of the nature of their country and the values of democracy.

In the online society every person has access to a voice, and subsequently, this poses a threat to organisations around the world, including governments. Recent history has demonstrated how social media can individually empower people to dramatically change the world in which they live.

As a man I’ve been told that I am unable to simultaneously undertake a number of tasks at the same time. This is the domain of the female, who thanks to some clever wiring in the brain, which men do not possess, is able to have 3 conversations, shop, text, check email and read the latest copy of Women’s Health all at the same time. OK, maybe that is a little over the top, or is it?

Technology these days allows us the freedom and the ability to undertake tasks simultaneously. Ever since mobile phones were released, it was not enough for us just to make a phone call. We’ve always wanted more. From giving us the ability to text and take a grainy picture while playing a game of ‘Snake’ through to today’s smartphones which allow us to do so much more at the one time. Take the recently released Windows Phone for instance. The home screen alone allows you to see your calls, emails, text messages, social network updates, photos and even more all at the same time. Think about the level of information available to you and this is even before you look up and take in your actual physical surrounds.

The question then stands, with all this information coming at us at once, how much of it are we actually taking in? Can we actually soak up everything we are bombarded with?

In the work place, studies have found that this information overload is a serious issue, with a study of 1,700 people by LexisNexis indicating that 49% of respondents couldn’t deal with the amount of information that they were being presented with each day. This is work related information of course but then put on top a personal life and the need to be connected with this each day, makes this statistic a little frightening.

With the seemingly unending pursuit of having our lives at our fingertips added to the responsibilities that we have in the workplace, something has got to give. Of the 49% studied by LexisNexis, 51% of them said that they were on the verge of giving up. Not a good sign.

Given that the ability to connect with the outside world is likely to continue increasing in complexity as time goes by, I think it is time that us males learn how to multi task better!

Author’s Note: Whilst writing this blog, I was not on Facebook, texting or reading Women’s Health.

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

This is a terrific presentation about social media I came across. Check it out, it is informative, insightful and laugh out loud funny!

One of those funny emails came around the other day about ‘you know you’re living in 2010 when…’ and one of the answers was ‘when you email the person sitting at the desk next to you’.

I laughed, having definitely done that. And without wanting to kill the joke too much by overanalysing it, I think the reason it’s funny is because on the face of it, it seems like such a strange, disconnected thing to do. The joke suggests that instead of talking or relating ‘face to face’ the use of technology is so entrenched now that we do everything electronically – even when someone is sitting a metre away.

You hear comments that people don’t talk anymore, that family and personal relationships are suffering because people spend all their time in front of the TV or the computer. But I don’t think heavy use of technology is to blame.

And, upon reflection, I also don’t think that emailing the person at the desk next to you is necessarily an antisocial choice.

I think my argument is best served by a couple of real life examples.

My husband is in IT, I work with online communities, my parents are in IT, so you can probably guess that we have a lot of gadgetry in our house. At last count it was three laptops and one desktop computer.

At various times of the day, evening, weekend, etc. it is not uncommon for my husband and I to both be using our laptops.

One fine Saturday I was using mine at the dining room table and my husband Skyped me while surfing the internet in the back garden: ‘come outside, it’s lovely!’ To which I replied ‘I’m on my way!’

Last Tuesday evening we were both using our laptops sitting together on the couch. I started an online chat with a friend in another city, arranging the details of her visit to our place. Part way through this chat I realise that my husband had been looking over my shoulder and had then started his own online chat with the same person to play a joke on me. Bantering messages went back and forth between the three of us for about 10 minutes, and we all had a great laugh.

If I were just to say ‘my husband Skyped me from the backyard’ or ‘we had an online chat while sitting next to each other on the couch’, at first you might think that was weird and evidence of a possible reluctance to talk face to face.

But in actuality it was as connected and intimate as a face to face interaction.

So what’s my point? Technology does not mean disconnection and using it is not being antisocial. It just means the ability to connect, socialize, play and interact with people in other ways. Building and maintaining relationships is about the content of communication, not the delivery medium.

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.

Latitude Insight’s case study of iPhone users uncovered just what consumers find so fascinating about the iPhone, why they use that four-letter word – LOVE, and how brands can become part of this ‘affair’.

The study revealed that Smartphones change user’s lives. Initially thinking they are getting a new phone, with email and web capabilities, they find iPhone gives them so much more.

It helps them communicate. It makes them more connected because of its web capabilities. But going even further, the real benefits are about being more entertained, more efficient in what they do, having more freedom because they are not stuck to a computer, and having more ability do things away from home and work. It’s a whole new world where users can do things anywhere, anytime.

Smartphone users also admit to relying less on their computer now they have a mobile device. With predictions that by 2011, 85% of handsets will have some sort of browser, it’s important brands recognise the opportunity mobile devices gives them in terms of another distribution channel to engage with their customers.

Furthermore, with over 100,000 apps available, many free, it’s important apps have lasting traction. They need to ‘do’ something and have a tangible impact on time or convenience to be worthwhile and valued by users.