Recap: The Future of Consumer Intelligence 2014

Imagine a line drawn in the sand that is filled with hot burning coals. To the left of the burning line stands a group of people. And to the right of the burning line stands another group of people. The group of people on the left are all directly facing the burning line drawn in the sand and are staring at the opposing group. The group on the right are also all facing the burning line drawn in the sand, staring directly at the group on the left.

The burning line drawn in the sand represents trust. The group of people on the left believe they are entitled to the right group’s trust because they are trying to help them. The group on the right believes trust is earned and will not easily give it to the group on the left. The tug of war between the two groups over trust causes friction and creates the burning line drawn in the sand that neither can cross without the right tools.

The above scenario is analogous to what was presented at the recent 2014 Future of Consumer Intelligence conference (#FOCI14). The group to the left was Big Business, the group to the right was the Public and we as attendees were willing and able to sit right on the burning line drawn in the sand and discuss how to bridge the gap between groups.

BIG DATA VS. BIG PRIVACY

As marketers and researchers we love to collect lots of data with the intention of using personal information to improve products, services, and lives. But at what point is it considered invasion of privacy? Do consumers really know how their data is being used, regardless of whatever they agreed to? At FOCI14 it was made evident that as marketers and researchers, we teeter on the brink of “Empowerment vs. Endagerment”. The path to maintaining the balance and bridging the gap on the subject of data between Big Business and the Public was made evident: provide clear, concise rules and guidelines for how consumer data is used that moves past legality and into the territory of morality.

MARKETING SCIENCE VS. PEOPLE

Clearly our industry is at a point of disruptive innovation as new technologies and methodologies allow researchers to get a clearer picture of consumer insights. But who are behind all of these insights? That’s right, people. In our industry we label people as consumers, customers, shoppers, respondents, target markets and more. But remember that behind all of our studies are people. And sometimes we can act as a barricade between companies, their brands, and their consumers in an attempt to remain unbiased and objective. So how do we bridge the gap?

For starters, John Havens, Founder of The H(app)athon Project, suggests we can begin by switching out the label “consumer” with “customer”. Whereas Elizabeth Merrick, Senior Customer Insights Manager of HSN suggests we consider research as another touch point of the brand, “We should allow customers to contribute to a brand, not just consume it.”

So it appears the segue between marketing science and people is essentially personal treatment and recognizing that customers are more than a data point within a spreadsheet.

From John Havens, The H(app)athon Project

TECHNOLOGY VS. HUMANIZATION OF DATA

The more I thought about it, FOCI14’s tagline of The Convergence of Technology, Marketing Science & Humanization of Data seemed unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) dichotomous where both Big Business and the Public were descending upon the line is drawn in the sand. So it goes with technology & humanization.

There is no doubt that technology improves lives at blistering speeds. Ray Kurzweil, Director of Engineering for Google pointed out that, “Information Technology expands exponentially across time, not linearly.” But as we become more technologically advanced, do we lose a piece of our humanity and our identity?

As we discussed more and more about the subjects of technological advances, psychological habits, triggers, and touch points at FOCI14, it seemed the key to closing the gap between technology & humanization of data relied upon engagement. If new technologies enable to us to engage with customers in a more meaningful way and people are able to build stronger psychological connections with each other, then the gap is bridged. If on the other hand, the research community were to stand disengaged with customers and people, then technology & humanization in the field will stand diametrically opposed on a bridge that is about to collapse.

So the real question in all of this is, “Has your organization bridged the line drawn in the sand?”

Tom Krause, VP of Client Services, Gongos Research
"It's all about people"

Chris Ruby is an award-winning Marketing Research & Consumer Insights Executive with Fortune 500 consulting experience. His niche is the ability to turn complex data into compelling stories that induce a call for action among key decision-makers. His work has been featured by MRA, MRIA, IIR, Norstat Times, Chadwick Martin Bailey & the Optimization Group. Keep up with Chris Ruby by following him on Twitter @ChrisRubyMRX or by reading the Chris Ruby Market Research Blog.

Do-It-Yourself Research is on the Rise

Roe vs. Wade, Gun Control, Immigration & Capital Punishment. 

It wasn’t that long ago where a simple conversation about Do-It-Yourself Online Research (DIYOR) among the Market Research community felt like a heated debate with the same intensity of the aforementioned topics.

For all intents and purposes, let’s not debate the pro/cons and the validity/invalidity of DIYOR within this space. These topics and arguments are already well documented and discussed. Instead, let’s take a look at the industry’s past, present and future.

DIYOR began in the late 1990’s and moved past the introduction stage of the product life cycle in the late 2000’s. Its current fragmentation of companies resembles the fragmented Market Research Industry where a handful of major players are accompanied by a majority of smaller companies.

DIY Research is in the growth stage of the product life cycle

The DIYOR Industry, as well as the NewMR Industry in which it is a subset, is presently within the growth stage of the product life cycle as revenues are increasing year over year.  Some suggest the industry is cannibalizing Traditional Research. However, relatively recent worldwide sales figures suggest that NewMR is supplementing Traditional Research, not cannibalizing it.

Some of the major players in the DIYOR market are beginning to behave as if operating within the maturity stage of the product life cycle and are buying competitors, forming partnerships and extending product lines. This behavior seems relatively quick as only a few years have passed since the industry outgrew the introduction stage.  Though, perhaps the move to maturity for some isn’t so quick after all since first and foremost DIYOR companies are technology companies that exist in an ever-changing market.

In terms of present offerings, two key factors have yet to normalize in the DIYOR market: Service & Price.

Service and Research Design in the market range from truly unaided services to aided / self-guided services. DIYOR vendors in the unaided market provide the technology for customers to field quantitative and qualitative studies, but do not assist the questionnaire design process and provide the results of the survey as raw data without data analysis services.  Whereas aided / self-guided companies provide a full suite of self-guided questionnaire design templates as well as data analysis applications. For an extra fee, some aided / self-guided companies can provide an experienced researcher to help design customers’ quantitative and qualitative projects. And of course, there are DIYOR companies that exist somewhere between both ends of the spectrum.

Both services and prices widely vary in the DIY Research market

The relative price of service in the DIYOR market increases or decreases relative to the amount of service provided and overall price points display a fairly wide variance in the DIYOR market.  Charges range from free, to charging per respondent, to charging per month, to charging per year, to charging with sliding-scale credits, to charging for a basic user profile, to charging for an intermediate user profile, to charging for an advanced user profile, to charging for enterprise services, etc., etc. Get the picture?

It's going to be a challenge for consumers to truly evaluate all the different price points, at all the different offerings, for all the different users, at all the different levels of service.  Without a doubt, the rising DIYOR industry is in need of a solid pricing study that will ultimately optimize and ease consumers' purchasing decisions.

So what lies in store for the DIYOR industry? My humble prediction is within the next 5 years, larger full-suite, self-guided DIYOR companies will continue to purchase smaller DIYOR companies that display attractive technology and operate within a niche of the market, in order to add to their portfolios of services. Customers by this time will have determined for themselves which product offering at particular price points makes the most sense.  This combination of vendor consolidation and educated pricing from a consumers point of view will ultimately streamline the DIYOR industry as a whole and normalize its product offerings and prices. 

In your opinion, where is the DIYOR industry heading in the next 5 years? Please comment below.

Chris Ruby is an award-winning Marketing Research & Consumer Insights Executive with Fortune 500 consulting experience. His niche is the ability to turn complex data into compelling stories that induce a call for action among key decision-makers. His work has been featured by MRA, MRIA, IIR, Norstat Times, Chadwick Martin Bailey & the Optimization Group. Keep up with Chris Ruby by following him on Twitter @ChrisRubyMRX or by reading the Chris Ruby Market Research Blog.

A Millennial Problem in Market Research

When you talk to colleagues in Market Research and Consumer Insights about how they started in the Industry, how many times have you heard the phrase, “I just kind of fell into it”? Honestly, I’ve heard this phrase more often that I would have liked throughout the years. I recently attended a Market Research event and heard the same phase repeated again. So I just finally had to ask, “Why?”

Is it perhaps because for lack of better terms, a defined career path for Market Research in college? Universities have Accounting, Math and Science departments, but the overwhelming majority do not have Marketing Research departments or offer degrees in Marketing Research.

Maybe it’s due to a general lack of awareness of our trade among the public? Or perhaps it’s due to the nature of the work and the skill set required? Whatever the reason, the “just fell into it” phenomenon is a foreseeable problem for our industry that is expected to add 32% more Research Analysts over the course of the next decade. And who are likely to fill these roles? Why, Millennials of course. 

“Intense interest and behavior of young people can improve our research." ~ Martin Sorrell, CEO, WPP

And Millennials are a perfect fit for our industry. They are the first generation that has lived with the internet since birth. They are technically savvy in so many aspects and have a fantastic set of interactive, adoptive & digital skills. With such a set of appealing traits, are we as an Industry expecting them to “just fall into” the trade as well? Or are we recruiting and training the brightest, most intelligent, most curious young individuals that we can? If we are participating in the former, our industry is in for quite a shock.

A recent poll among Millennials revealed they want to work for prestigious online / tech firms like Google, Apple, Facebook, & Microsoft. These firms are likely perceived to be creative, innovative and push the technological envelope. Likewise, these same firms want Millennials to work for them for similar reasons, and are recruiting top talent among the best colleges throughout the nation.

So if Millennials want to work with top tech companies, and these same companies are recruiting top talent like crazy, where does that leave our Industry in obtaining top talent? According to Martin Sorrell, Chief Exectuve Officer of WPP (parent company of Kantar, TNS, Millward Brown & Added Value) we are desperately in need of this talent. “Intense interest and behavior of young people can improve our research and make it more accepted. And right now our industry has the need for more skills in programming, data, & digital.”

It’s evident we have a need for Millennials, but do they have a need for us? Is our Industry perceived as innovative, creative, and technologically savvy in the eyes of Millennials? Enough to join? Only time will tell since not a single Top 50 Honomichl Company made their preference list. (Please comment below)   

Chris Ruby is an award-winning Marketing Research & Consumer Insights Executive with Fortune 500 consulting experience. His niche is the ability to turn complex data into compelling stories that induce a call for action among key decision-makers. His work has been featured by MRA, MRIA, IIR, Norstat Times, Chadwick Martin Bailey & the Optimization Group. Keep up with Chris Ruby by following him on Twitter @ChrisRubyMRX or by reading the Chris Ruby Market Research Blog.

The Best Time To Post On Social Media is...?

We've all been there before. We are about to post across Social Media (SM) and that foreboding question finally hits us. “When is the best time and day to post on SM?” I mean, we want as many relevant (maybe even irrelevant) people to see our postings and content, right?

This ever evolving digital social process is called “The Science of Timing” (SOT). If we get it right, everyone lives happily ever after. If we get it wrong, no one gives us a second thought.

The "Science of Timing" predicts the optimal time to post on Social Media

SOT (a.k.a. the optimal time to post) revolves around 5 different paradigms and approaches otherwise known as: The Common Sense Approach, The Segmentation Approach, The Best Practices Approach, The Auto Scheduling Approach, and the Contracompetitive Timing Approach.

Huh?  Keep reading.

The Common Sense Approach is based on an intuitive sense of when people would or would not be on SM. For example, when people are asleep, at work, or at school, they are probably less likely to interact with SM. Whereas, if people are awake and the timing is before, after, or outside of work or school, their likelihood to use SM increases on average.

The Segmentation Approach involves timing based on the SM habits of your targeted audience, which coincidentally, you've collected over time. For example, if you and your organization are targeting teenage gamers during the upcoming summer, you've likely monitored their SM patterns over time, and will run a campaign based on the SM idiosyncrasies they've displayed. In all likelihood, their SM behavior will be different when compared to the entire online population as a whole. Hence, the Segmentation Approach.

In contrast, The Best Practices Approach is based on how the entire SM audience acts as a whole and provides optimal timings based on aggregate online behavior. You can think of it in terms of talking at a cocktail party, where there is a lot of chatter at its peak attendance point.

The optimal time to post on Twitter is late in the weekday, between 2pm – 5pm EST

Dan Zarella, SM Scientist for Hubspot, recently addressed the SOT Best Practices Approach for both Twitter and Facebook. “The optimal time to post on Twitter is late in the weekday, between 2pm – 5pm EST, as this maximizes ReTweets. Coincidentally, we’ve found there is no significant difference in clickthrough rates according to the time of day or the day of the week, so it’s okay to experiment with your Tweets on the weekends and during late hours.”

Zarella further explains, “We've discovered clickthrough rates dramatically reduce, the more you post within an hour.  The clickthrough rate for a second post drops to 50%. The clickthrough rate for a 3rd post within an hour is almost nil.” Zarella is not suggesting to Tweet less as he points to a strong relationship between the number of tweets per day and total followers. Instead, he suggests not to “crowd out” your tweets per hour.

Zarella also suggests three key timing points for Facebook: (1) post every other day as mainstream pages that did this displayed the most likes, (2) post content on the weekends since it elicits the most amount of shares and (3) post content in the morning as shares tend to do marginally better than those published at other times.

Don't "crowd out" your Tweets per hour

But if everyone uses The Best Practices Approach, wouldn't the SM landscape become overcrowded during those specific times and diminish the likelihood of anyone hearing your message?”

Great question.  Keep reading.

The three previous methods require someone from within to personally determine optimal timing. Whereas with The Autoscheduling Approach, 3rd parties determine optimal posting times. But what are these 3rd parties’ optimization practices you say? And how do they measure up to yours?

After investigating Autoscheduling practices, two unique terms surfaced: static vs. dynamic. A static Autoscheduling system optimizes timing based on The Best Practices Approach, not on individual behavior. While a dynamic system optimizes timing through individual / follower behavior, and gets better over time. So which method would you prefer? Find out which method your provider utilizes.

Last but not least, there is The Contracompetitive Timing Approach. This approach is actually the opposite of The Best Practices Approach and circumvents its downside. This territory lies at the beginning and tail-end of the cocktail party, where crowds are smaller in number, thereby improving the odds of individual engagement. By utilizing Contracompetitive Timing, smaller crowds are more likely to hear your voice that would otherwise be lost in the chatter of a full-swing cocktail party.

So which SOT approach is the best? The Common Sense Approach of when people are online? The Segmentation Approach that profiles your specific target audience? The mega-blast to a crowded room, Best Practice Approach? Perhaps the best is The Autoscheduling Approach which leaves it in the hands of the experts? Or maybe the Contracompetitive Timing Approach seems like a valid alternative, so your messages aren't lost in the masses? Perchance it is a combination of all the above? 

In your personal experience, the best SOT approach is _________. (Please comment below)

Chris Ruby is an award-winning Marketing Research & Consumer Insights Executive with Fortune 500 consulting experience. His niche is the ability to turn complex data into compelling stories that induce a call for action among key decision-makers. His work has been featured by MRA, MRIA, IIR, Norstat Times, Chadwick Martin Bailey & the Optimization Group. Keep up with Chris Ruby by following him on Twitter @ChrisRubyMRX or by reading the Chris Ruby Market Research Blog.