#Netgain5 Keynote Roundup: Last Thoughts #MRX

GPS navigation solution running on a smartphon...

Image via Wikipedia

What follows are some of my silly musings and key take-aways of the session.
Closing remarks by keynote speakers

Share your insights, interesting learnings from today
– Lot of work to merge GPS and mobile into the method
– We need to embrace new tools and do some research on them, we can’t be slow like we were in the telephone research era
– We need to lead our clients towards these new things even while we’re still wondering about representativeness and such
– Frightening and exciting capabilities are ahead of us, leads to empassioned debate
– MR can be too process oriented
– Do we need to call everything market research or is it something different with different ground rules
– HEY! Ray says he is surprised that there are so many bright, intelligent people in Canada (i think he was kidding 🙂

Colleges are teaching students how to do surveys and traditional research. How should we train new researchers?
– Things are always going to change so you must master the core skills. Everyone learns the basics so that they can move beyond to the fancy stuff. The skill is always needed.
– Don’t fight the trends, join them.
– School is for theoretical. Industry is for practical. Most people only learn market research on the job.
– Parallel to law, how do you apply ancient rules to new situations? Same with research, how can i make this research project work in the new principles of market research?
– Get work experience in lots of different companies. It’s a great social life and you’re not stuck in front of a TV. And maybe, you’ll be offered a job.

Comments on privacy and ethics
– Our practices AND our ethics musts change.
– “Am i going to be sued. Am I breaking the rules.” (If this is all you care about, this sounds horrible to me!)
– Every researcher needs to develop a moral compass. Every company/country is different. Ethics are different everywhere. Apologize immediately when you are wrong.
– Our industry is better off for better ethics.
– Unethical businesses will put themselves out of business. You need to develop your own ethics. If you are looking for ethics, then you’re not doing anything of interest for the market research industry. (Audience got excited over this comment.)
– Need to watch out for special care required of children. Take the high road. If you aren’t sure, then don’t do it.
– Where is the informed consent if neuroscience tells me I’m a racist homophobic and I didn’t choose to reveal that information and it hurt my feelings? (argument: no one has complained yet – this is insufficient!)
– Always be open about who you are and what you’re doing if you are participating in a community panel, be as transparent as you can
– Police yourself and slap the hands of those who forget

Related Links
#Netgain5 Keynote Roundup: Last Thoughts
Brian Levine: Neuroscience and Marketing Research
Brian Singh: Insights from the Nenshi Campaign
Monique Morden: Online Communities, MROCs
Ray Poynter – Overview of Online Research Trends
Tom Anderson: Web Analytics
Will Goodhand: Social Media Research and Digividuals

One response

  1. Sorry if this is not the right place to post this question, but it seemed the most likely as it is a great NetGain write-up.

    While the various new ideas presented at the conference truly stole the show, privacy generated some strong emotion and concern. That said, I’m not sure I understand the differences between the positions people took and would love the experts reading to chime in.

    Since their views were so different, I’m going to use Annie Pettit and Tom Anderson as my examples below. Let me also apologize ahead of time if I’m getting details wrong – it is my best recollection.

    Annie showed during her presentation a person on Twitter that cursed Starbucks. She then asked permission from that person to use the information they shared. Tom detailed using publicly available social media data but not necessarily asking permission (please forgive me if I am oversimplifying).

    Where I’m confused is that I do not actually see much difference between these two:

    1. Neither got permission ahead of time – nobody asked “I’m a media researcher, so do you mind if I follow you on Twitter in case you say something useful to me and my clients?”
    2. Both used information publicly accessible.
    3. Because you cannot tell your brain what information is acceptable to use and remember, both received information that would inform their research and presentations regardless if they were explicitly cited.

    The only difference I can find is that Annie asked if she could use the post so others could learn from it, while Tom did not. Even if she did not receive permission, Annie would certainly still benefit from the information and, indirectly, so would her clients. It seems as if the permission issue just changes which examples Annie uses and who then owns that information (Annie in her own head or her clients).

    What’s the moral difference between searching social media, learning something that will affect the way you view your research question but not necessarily explicitly reporting the results versus explicitly reporting the results?

    I ask a bit from the periphery because I am not involved in the searching social media side of the business but am still interested in questions of privacy and doing the right thing. I would appreciate any insights from those working in this side of the business as you all are the experts that can help clarify – I’m sure I’m just overlooking a key element.


%d bloggers like this: