Five steps towards consumer centric thinking – consumer collaboration and beyond by Tom deRuyck #Qual360 #QRCA
Live blogging from the Qual360 conference in Toronto, Canada. Any errors or bad jokes are my own.
- you need to talk with consumers every single day and you can do that through consumer consulting boards, 150 people every day
- you don’t have to do everything consumer’s ask
- you must have a strategy
- you cannot fake it, it needs to be transparent
- it’s not enough to learn things quickly, it’s the speed of execution that counts
- you need to make consumers an integral part of everything you do
- how do you create consumer centric company?
- you need a chief consumer officer, the person in the company who knows most about the customers of the company needs to be there when decisions are being made
- Consumer collaboration initiative – don’t tackle everything at once, start small but think big, start with one brand or one team and add more later, need to be reactive and proactive, bring down the silos of
- Create a wall of fame with all the community accomplishments like new products they’ve created, the advertising campaigns they improved
- Activate internal stakeholders to take relevant actions – forget online, offline, report multiple times with old ways and new ways and even in person when that’s right, inspire them, share your presentations, tell the insights but let them feel the insights through an experience, turn insights into actions
- Inspire and empower employees at all levels – executives, management, frontline, staff, activate the movers and shakers, motivate not the sales person but the consumer directly
- Leverage results and culture externally – talk about this in your marketing and make it tangible, tell them the product was co-created, surf the wave of enthusiasm – have community members who helped co-create tell the story
- Research the impact – measure culture performance and communication, you need a chief consumer officer – consumer coach, people engagers, ecosystem builder, action heros
- Peanut Labs Ask-Me-Anything with special guest Tom Ewing
- Peanut Labs Ask-Me-Anything with special guest Kristin Luck
- The Lysol Bathroom Workout by Terri Bressi and David Najgoldberg #GreatTalk #Qual360 #QRCA
- Qualitative research goes online – a journey into qualitative online research by Susan Abbott #Qual360
- Innovation for insights into the Millennial Moms’ Online Shopping by Annie Iverson and John Williamson #Qual360
- Designing with packaging usability in mind by Claudia Del Lucchese #Qual360
- The power of cognitive interviewing and what qualitative research can learn from Behavioral Economics by Gina Henderson #Qual360 #QRCA
- Defining the future of market research – moving from reporting to consulting by John McGarr, Kathie Miller, Kristian Gravelle #Qual360 #QRCA
Live blogging from MRIA’s #NetGain8 conference in Toronto. Any errors or stupid jokes are my own.
Tom de Ruyck, Head of Research Communities, Insites, Belgium
Consumer Consulting Boards (MROCs):
Integrating the Voice-of-the-Customer across the Entire Enterprise
- consumers have the power to make or break a brand
- brands don’t have full control over what is being said about your brand
- fans want to have a say in the future of their brand
- consumers expect better, faster, stronger every single day
- being open and agile is what consumers need to be, but most companies are not here
- most companies think they have two way dialogues with consumers but most don’t, they are faking it or not really doing it, they are afraid of starting a dialogue
- it can take 18 months to bring a new “ketchup” into a shop – that is not agile! There is too much passing between departments. Need to stop ad hoc projects and we need to work on teams not departments.
- customers are the best consultants a company can hire. obviously customers know more than someone whose only been the brand manager for a year or two. The brand manager knows the marketing, consumers know the product.
- your brand fans might be the toughest audience ever, they become angry when the brand team do something wrong
- consumers consulting boards are closed long term communities – you can have clashes of ideas which can spark great ideas
- it’s one piece of the puzzle to be a more open company, a community doesn’t necessarily mean you are more agile though
- to succeed, you need the right people on board – find people who are TRULY fans of the brand who are interested and interesting, you don’t need a “rep” brand. instead of the 2 out of 8 people in your focus group who are interesting, why not just do the research with those 2 – plus more of those 2.
- to succeed, you need the right number of people – 50 intense participants is enough, 150 or more is when they start to interact less and it’s more difficult for the moderator to probe
- to succeed, you need engagement – tell them about the research and the incentive which is feedback and maybe a small gift, maybe a basket of products they have worked on. they like to show it off to their family and friends.
- “i was part of a global team that redesigned the Heinz ketchup bottle” – that kind of incentive works, it doesn’t always have to be dollars
- people tell you more if one of the moderators is joe-participant, they may not ask the research questions but they know what buttons to press
- why would you NOT have a 16 year old girl help you analyze data from 16 year old girls [darn right!]
- [communities sound like gamification of surveys if you do them right]
- give people a different hat to release them from social or cultural issues – “You are now the boss” “You must tell us all the bad things you see”
This is a live blog posting from the Esomar 3D conference in Miami. Written, summarized, and posted just minutes after the speaker has finished. Any inaccuracies are my own. Any humorous side-notes are mine as well.
- BRIC consumers are very socially connected even though internet penetration is lower than most western countries (Brazil, India, Russia, China)
- 300-500 people is viewed as a small community. 🙂 [Hey survey fans, I thought 10 meant small]
- BRIC are more likely to read than post but everyone posted at least a couple times a week.
- Youth want to talk with other youth around the world about their shared experiences. A recognizable brand involved makes them feel exclusive and in the know. Keep the tone fun, frequent, and flexible.
- China and India posts more often, more lurking, more words, more contributions.
- Leverage the diversity, it is a draw, not a barrier. Youth from other countries want to know what it’s like to drive on a highway with no speed limit. [Buzzword!: leverage]
- Know why you’re there: Have a commonality, life-stage, brand passion, professional affiliation.
- Beware the western lens: ignore your assumptions, keep it simple, don’t get lost in translation, be culturally aware. [i need to be reminded of this all the time. i forget that other people aren’t addicted to dessert like I am.]
- Allow consumers to show, not just tell: get unfiltered emotions that get lost in writing, particularly if people aren’t proficient. Use videos, photos from home, work, shopping.
- Facilitators must play an active role: Must be part of community, interact with members, probe for follow-up, write with care, take the time. You’ll get more out of the community if you put a lot into it.
- A Decade of Netnography #Eso3D #esomar (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- How Far is Too Far by Bernie Malinoff #Eso3D #esomar (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- The Researchification of Games by Peter Harrison #Eso3D #esomar (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Facial Imaging #Eso3D #esomar (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Why Women Rule the Web, Yahoo and TNS #Eso3D #esomar (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Keynote by Philip Sheldrake #Eso3D #esomar (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Digital Trends by Dominic Harrison #Eso3D #esomar (lovestats.wordpress.com)
15.30 PANEL: Will communities kill the 6 group project?
- The future for research communities in generating insight
- How online communities fit into the overall market research mix
- Evaluating cost efficiencies and quality trade-offs
Nick Priestley, Managing Director, Tuned In
- Are communities mainstream now? We are approaching mass market in terms of awareness. People still have concerns about blurring boundaries but there are more and more success stories. Barrier is internal stake holders.
- Is it research? should we call it research? It’s more about collaboration and getting input in at the beginning. Forward thinking clients are open to it. Does it replace traditional focus group?
- is 6 group project under threat? It will never die. It is still relevant. But there are many benefits to online approach. Start with hypotheses, develop over time. You can do this in two hour. Vast geography, you can’t do focus groups in hard to reach areas.
- What kind of people work best in communities? 1% are super users, 9% are active, 90% don’t do anything. We want more people to be active. Now, people are more familiar with the idea. We need to show the process more to interest more people.
- Segment communities so you can identify the creative people and the strict people and use each group to their strengths. Find tasks that are creative as possible to encourage people. People often don’t realize they were capable of expressing themselves in that way.
- Audience – it’s important to listen to people who know nothing and these people aren’ t in communities.
- Online doesn’t necessarily mean cheaper. You get more value from community. More people, less geography issues, less time of day issues, more natural setting, technology gives you more creative options.
- Is it the shiny object effect? Do groups need a fresh spark? There is absolutely room for both. [Ah yes, the dichotomy must always be there, qual vs quant, online vs offline, MY favourite must always win. Can we just all use one big tool box with all the shiny tools in it?]
- Are communities a safe haven with fewer ethics issues? Are communities fake social media? Communities are no different from people in real life.
- Audience – Will facebook put an end to parties? Same as will communities put an end to groups. The two must work together. [ha, yeah. no more parties for me.]
- Communities when used properly will replace parts of panel and parts of focus groups. [Because it is a better tool for various objectives. Use the RIGHT tool from your toolbox.]
- Audience – Are focus groups more boring than they need to be? Can we incorporate fun of communities back into focus group.
- Audience – What about finding pre-existing communities, that aren’t created by MR. This area is littered with huge fails because of lack of transparency, researchers failing to identify themselves. Perhaps use those areas for recruitment. [remember patientslikeme]
- Audience – 6 groups aren’t under threat, the creative brainstorming groups are under threat. Communities let you do it over a longer period of time.
- Audience – Are communities at risk because anyone can do them, even if you aren’t trained? Well, the client can read the entire transcript and confirm it all.
- Community Approach by Bester and Dunn, #SoMeMR #li #mrx (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- No way? Way! The LoveStats Book! #MRX (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Ethical Framework for SMR, Panel #SoMeMR #MRX #li (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- The Gap between brands and consumers by Adams and Hallums #SoMeMR #li #mrx (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Will Communities Kill the 6 Group Project by Nick Priestley #SoMeMR #li #mrx (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Brand Together by Meyassed and Koch, #SoMeMR #MRX #li (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Mumsnet Engagement #SoMeMR #li #mrx (lovestats.wordpress.com)
- Mum knows best by Child and Boreham, #SoMeMR #li #mrx (lovestats.wordpress.com)
Co-creation is a beautiful idea. Companies working together, in cooperation, with the common woman and man on an equal footing to create new and better products and services.
But are they really on an equal footing, each one contributing and benefiting the same amount from the team effort? Let’s be honest with ourselves. There is no equality in the relationship. There is a researcher and there is a opinion provider. There is a client giving serious cash to a research company and an opinion provider who is hopefully getting a sense of contribution and perhaps a couple bucks.
Is it co-creation? No. Co-creation is an idealistic term, a Pollyanna word, a term we use to describe a utopia, a term we use to make ourselves feel better about an unequal relationship, a term to deal with the cognitive dissonance we feel around our inability to pay opinion providers more than a couple of bucks. It makes us feel better about the imbalance of power that permeates our work.
Don’t get me wrong here. The lead researcher may very well feel very strongly that they are engaging in a well-rounded team-based relationship. And, maybe the senior management of the company feels that way too. But wanting doesn’t make it so. Until that ideation has percolated down to everyone on the team, the junior analysts who’ve only been told to monitor the system for swear words, the portal programmers who haven’t internalized the importance of privacy, until everyone internalizes the concept of team effort, until the opinion providers have just as much say and benefits in return as the clients and researchers, it’s just not co-creation.
Research groups, or DROCs, or MROCs, or whatever you like to use when you’re busy with co-creation, are a great idea for everyone involved. All parties get something desirable for their efforts.
But in the market research space, where transparency has turned into one of the biggest buzz words out there, let’s be transparent about this and just call a spade a spade. Or in this case, a research group a research group.
Other popular links
An Acceptable Use of Pie Charts: Van Gogh Color Distributions #MRX
3 Reasons Why Researchers Hate Focus Groups #MRX
Pie-Packing by Mario Klingemann: More fascinating pie chart art
Can a Cup of Coffee Prevent a Suicide?
My Tastebuds are Leptokurtic, How About Yours? #MRX
On several occasions now, I’ve come across a comment like, “Everyone on Twitter is smarter/funnier/more dedicated/better than I am.” I even saw a tweet from someone who said something like, “I go to Store ABC because the people on Twitter make me feel dumb.”
Well, if you stop and think about it, the only people you CHOOSE to follow (ignoring courtesy follows) on Twitter are the people you either:
- want to learn from,
- want to laugh from,
- have similar interests, or
- have some commonality with you that prevents you from turning off the follow.
Also think about this, do you follow people who bore you, have a stupid sense of humour, say stupid things? I doubt it. You tune those people out as fast as you can. This means you end up with a finely tuned group of people who make you happy, people who choose the best of their witty remarks, the best of their smart remarks, and the best of all the random junk that’s passing through their brain. It’s a very personalized self-determined segmentation. In my case, it means I follow:
- online icons, and
- a bit of random silliness.
Those are my segments. In the end, these leaves you with a very skewed representation of who is on Twitter. You’re only seeing what you want to see, and it’s dang hard to see what you can’t see. Again, in my case, it seems like everyone on Twitter loves research and works in a professional setting. So, forget that nonsense about how much better or worse people on Twitter are and enjoy what it offers you.
And if you’re interested, here’s what my Twitter interest profile looks like, thanks to Wordle. (Hi Tom!)