As a freelance market research writer (my service sheet is here), I regularly check my public profiles to make sure they’re up to date. This time, I checked my profile on Savio, a marketplace connecting market research buyers with research experts, which is maintained by GreenBook.
After clicking around the website for a bit, I realized that every researcher’s hourly rate was completely and easily transparent, not hidden behind multiple clicks and privacy walls. My brain gears sped up….
People don’t talk about salaries which is a problem. Freelancers don’t know if they’re being paid what they deserve. Women don’t know if they’re being paid less than their equivalent male counterparts. So in that regard, I have to thank Savio and Greenbook for opening the black box and helping researchers see a piece of reality.
I downloaded the data and removed the business profiles. That left me with 191 individuals who provided an hourly rate, country, and the types of work they do. I manually gendered all the profiles. Obviously, I may have gotten a few wrong as I am not the gender police (much better said by Effin Birds) – 83 women, 107 men, and 1 unknown.
As all good data people do, I started with a frequency distribution. A few things were immediately apparent. 1) 3% of men and 4% of women VASTLY undervalued themselves. If you have listed an hourly rate under $50 per hour, go to your profile right now and FIX IT. I never want to see an hourly rate less than $50. From any freelancer. For anything. 2) 6% of men and 2% of women listed stunningly high rates, a couple over $1000 per hour. These rates might be for bragging, for negotiating, or for real but if you can command them, more power to you. 3) Women were far more likely to undervalue themselves while men were far more likely to overvalue themselves. [“THAT was a pencil in the neck moment!” -Luke Sklar]
Maybe group averages would paint a different picture but nope. Across all 191 rates, women asked for 81% of what men did – $168 versus $207 per hour.I tried excluding outliers from 12 people whose rates were below $50 or above $500. Women still asked for 81% of what men asked – $153 versus $189 per hour. I then focused on the three countries with at least 8 researchers. In Canada, two women and myself listed rates that were a paltry 40% of what five men listed. Among 123 US researchers, women asked for a somewhat better 80% of what men asked for. I am thrilled, though, to offer a huge hurray to the 14 researchers in the UK where hourly rates listed by men and women were equal. (Okay, women can increase their hourly rates by $5 in the UK.)
Maybe it’s because women do “less valuable” work so I tried grouping by the 25 different type of work people specified they did. Major caveat though – these data do not account for the fact that someone might charge different rates for different types of work.
I’ll pick out two examples from the chart since it’s a little bit complicated and uses two axes. At the left of the graph, among people who offer legal research services, women specified an hourly rate of $169 compared to men at $136. Thus, women listed a rate that was 124% of what men listed. There exist four categories of work where women listed a higher hourly rate than men – Legal Research, Field Services, Recruiting, and Support Services.
Second, at the right of the chart, among researchers who conduct Mystery Shopping, women listed an hourly rate of $138 compared to men at $225. Women listed a rate that was 61% of what men listed. There exist 21 categories of work where men listed a higher hourly rate than women.
I don’t know if these differences are because women undervalue themselves or because men overvalue themselves. I don’t know how much of these differences exist for bargaining or bragging purposes.
But I do know this. As much as I love statistics, t-tests and chi-squares aren’t necessary to determine the likelihood that these results are due to chance. Correlations and Cohen’s D aren’t necessary to determine whether the effect sizes are meaningful.
Women ask for less financial compensation than do men.
Women, my advice to you is simple. Give yourself a raise. Give yourself a giant fucking raise. (I’m channeling my inner Cindy Gallop and I urge you to follow this amazing woman on Twitter or LinkedIn and personally talk about your salary with her here.)
If you’re currently in the $50 to $99 bucket, up your rate to land in the $100 to $149 bucket. If you’re in the $200 to $249 bucket, give yourself a raise into the $250 to $299 bucket. Don’t think twice, it’s all right.
If you’re curious, I may have started my day claiming my worth to be 80% of what my male research colleagues felt they were worth.
It sure didn’t end that way.
You might wish to look at:
Happy International Women’s Day! Let’s meet some #MRX women who are flying under the radar #IWD #WIRe #NewMR #WIREheroes
Happy International Women’s Day!
The market research industry is lucky to benefit from a diverse range of people. Indeed, unlike some industries that are vastly male or vastly female, about half of us are women.
I know many women within our industry who regularly take the stage or sit on association boards or have roles on leadership teams. You probably know them too. Don’t you think it’s time to get to know some other fabulous women who keep the cogs or our industry turning? Let me start with two of those fabulous women!
I first met Kim Wong when she interviewed for a researcher position at Conversition, a social media research company. It was quickly apparent that she was a perfect choice. She figured out our business super fast, even though it was a strange concept at the time. She soon became a wizard at sentiment analysis, content analysis, and data quality of social media data. We could trust her to turn any set of random data into exactly what we needed. You know how amazing it is to find a colleague who can take a task and run with it independently? Yup, that’s Kim. Kim, cheers to you, your awesome contribution to our research team, and to the market research industry. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Meredith Morino is another quietly awesome researcher who deserves a big round of applause. I love your dedication to and passion for qualitative research. I love your openness to try new things even when they seem outside your usual way of doing things. I love that you’re a team player who works hard to ensure that you and your colleagues at Sklar Wilton & Associates do well. Meredith, I look forward to many more intriguing blog posts from you, and even seeing you present on stage. You’ll be awesome, I know it. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Do you know Kim or Meredith? It would be awesome if quiet people could stand on stage and get the huge applause that thought leaders/speakers get all the time so let’s do it here. If you appreciate the work that Kim or Meredith do, leave a note for them here. Even better, send them an email and tell them just how much you appreciate their work.
What do Kim and Meredith need to do now? Recognize another woman in research who is making a difference! Tell us which women researchers are your unsung heroes! You could leave their names in the comments below, tweet their name and why they are awesome, mention why they’re awesome on LinkedIn or, even better, email them and let them know why you think they’re awesome. Don’t forget to tag it #WIREheroes so we can clap for all these awesome people!
What should YOU do? If you’ve been named, and even if you’ve not, it’s your turn to name a woman in research who is flying under the radar. Let’s see how many unsung heroes we have! Don’t forget to tag it #WIREheroes!
This list shows the gender ratio of speakers at marketing research and related conferences during 2018.
These data are not 100% accurate. I am not always able to identify whether a speaker is male or female based on their name. Online programs aren’t always up to date, and printed programs often change at the last minute and don’t reflect who was actually on stage. If you are able to correct my numbers, I would be grateful for the help.
And yes, there is far more to diversity than gender. Diversity of age, ethnicity, ability/disability, sexuality, and more also matter. But let’s at least measure what we can from conference programs.
Please contribute: If you have a PDF or image of a conference program, email it to me so I can include it in this list.
FYI, I put a ⭐ beside any conference between 45% and 55% and a 👎🏻 beside any conference under 30% or over 70%.
- QRCA, Arizona, January: 19 female, 7 male=73% female (Qual research has more female than male specialists)
- Qual Worldwide, Spain, May: 20 female, 9 male = 69% female
- Qual360, Washington, March: 17 female, 11 male speakers = 61% female
- ESOMAR World, Amsterdam, March: 15 female, 11 male = 58% female
- Customer Experience Strategies Summit, April: 15 female, 12 male=56% female
- ⭐ NewMR Festival, online, February: 16 female, 13 male=55% female
- ⭐ TTRA, June, 49 female, 41 male=54% female
- ⭐ IMPACT MRS Annual, March: 45 female, 42 male = 52% female
- ⭐ Market Research Summit, London, May, 18 female, 18 male = 50% female
- ⭐ ConsumerXscience, The ARF, March, New York, 24 female, 25 male= 49% female
- ⭐ Africa Forum 2018 AMRA, Nairobi, February: 19 female, 20 male=49% female
- ⭐ MRMW APAC, June: 9 female, 10 male = 47% female
- ⭐ MRMW NA, April: 21 female, 24 male = 47% female
- ⭐ MRIA, Vancouver, May: 25 female, 30 male=45% female
- ⭐ Sentiment Analysis Symposium, New York March, 9 female, 10 male=45% female
- The Insights Show, London, March: 19 female, 25 male= 43% female
- CX Next, Boston, April: 10 female, 13 male = 43% female
- TMRE IN FOCUS, Chicago, May: 10 female, 13 male = 43% female
- Quirks LA, January: 45 female, 63 male=42% female
- Insights NEXT, April, New York: 28 female, 38 male=42% female
- Customer Experience & Digital Innovation, San Francisco, April: 5 female, 7 male = 42% female
- ESOMAR MAIN FEST Latam, Buenos Aires, April: 23 female, 33 male = 41% female
- Quirks Brooklyn, February: 55 female, 81 male=40% female
- FUSE Brand & Packaging, New York, April: 19 female, 28 male = 40% female
- SampleCon, February, Texas: 13 female, 25 male = 39% female
- IIEX, Amsterdam, February: 50 female, 84 male=37% female
- Qualtrics experience summit, March, Utah, 32 female, 57 male = 36% female
- IIEX, Atlanta, June: 44 female, 85 male speakers = 34% female
- Sysomos Summit, February, New York: 6 female, 12 male=33% female
- Sysomos Summit, London, April: 4 female, 10 male = 29% female
- 👎🏻 Insights CEO Summit, January, Florida: 4 female, 13 male = 24% female
- Insights50, May 2, New York: 1 female, 4 male=20% female
- 👎🏻 Sawtooth conference, March, Florida, 12 female, 58 male= 17% female
- MRMW Europe, September: female, male = % female
- PMRC : female, male=% female
- AMAART Forum, June: female, male=% female
- AMSRS, September: female , male =% female
- Big Data & Analytics for Retail Summit, June: female, male=% female
- CRC, October: female, male=% female
- CX Talks, October: female, male= % female
- ESOMAR Big Data World, November: female, male=%female
- ESOMAR Congress, Berlin, September: female speakers, male speakers =% female
- ESOMAR Global Qual, November: female, male=% female
- ILC Insights Leadership Conference (Insights Association), September, female, male=% female
- Insights Corporate Researchers Conference, October, Florida: female, male=% female
- Insights Leadership Conference, November, San Diego: female, male=% female
- MRIA Net Gain, November, Toronto: female, male=% female
- MRMW Europe, November: female, male=% female
- MRS Driving Transformation Through Insight, October: female, male= % female
- MRS, Customer Summit , November: female, male= % female
- MRS, Financial, November: female, male=% female
- MRS, Methodology in Context, November: female, male=% female
- Omnishopper International, November, female, male =% female
- Qual360 APAC, Singapore, October: female, male=% female
- Sentiment, Emotional & Behavioral Analytics, July: female, male=% female
- Sysomos Summit, September: female, male=% female
- TMRE, October, female, male=% female
Gender Ratios of Years Past:
- The gender split in #MRX conferences: 2017 edition
- The gender split in #MRX conferences: 2016 edition
- The gender split in #MRX conferences: 2015 edition
- Note: 2014 ratios were done in individual posts
Some of you might remember a long-running and regularly updated post I created last year listing the gender ratios at marketing research conferences around the world. I stopped doing it because an entire year of data is sufficient for an industry that depends on data to see what’s happening. The data showed that women were vastly underrepresented as speakers at conferences. Conference organizers could see that this was an industry issue, not a “just them” issue. The data gave us the perfect opportunity to make great progress in how we source speakers.
I’ll admit it can be difficult to see the problem but Twitter and Facebook make the job of spotting single gender panels much easier. Now, I truly don’t care about single gender, or single race, or all young, all old, all differently abled, or whatever the panel bias is. I DO care when the only type of biased panel I ever see is middle-aged, white, male panels. Has any #MRX conference ever had an all black panel not talking about black issues in #MRX ? Or an all woman panel not talking about women’s issues in #MRX? That’s the problem. That’s the statistically improbable problem.
So that’s why posts like this are so disappointing.
twitter account.) There are hundreds of websites listing #WomenIn_________. There are Facebook groups, google plus groups (yeah, tons of techies there!), Reddit groups, you name the digital channel, they have #WomenIn___________ groups. There’s #WomenAlsoKnow. There are thousands of lists of women experts if you look for them. You don’t even need to ask a woman/black person/differently abled person if they know another woman/black person/differently abled person who is an expert on a topic. You just need to know how to use the google. Or the internet explorer if you work for a company that still operates in the dark ages.There are literally hundreds of Twitter lists labeled as #WomenIn_________, insert industry category. (Some of the relevant lists are on my
But with that tweet, and the emails that came my way to complain, I guess I ought to do the counts again. I hope that while we may have not reached peak equality, e.g., at least 45% of one gender, we at least have shown improvement. I hope that instead of 35% of speakers being women, that at least 40% of speakers are women.
Please do send me PDFs of any market research conference agendas you have saved. I’d appreciate the help. So would your friends and colleagues. My gmail address is anniepettit.
In which I rant about “we only choose the best conference proposals and we can’t help it if they’re mostly from men” #NewMR #MRX
I’ve had this post on my mind for many months now but I’ve been hesitant to write it. It seems today is the day.
If you’ve been following my speaker gender ratio post, you’ll see that I keep adding to the list conferences where fewer than 40% of speakers are women. Today, I added several to that bucket. On top of that, Ray Poynter just pointed out that the nine new and genuinely deserving fellows of the MRS are all, you guessed it, men. Have women not made any important contributions? I highly doubt it. So today is the day.
There are many different reasons for conferences to over index on male speakers but I’d like to address one reason in particular. Conference organizers regularly say they choose the abstracts that will be the most interesting and intriguing for their audience. If that means that most of the speakers are men, then so be it. Quality wins. As it rightly should.
Men do not propose better topics than women. Men do not have better ideas than women. Men do not propose more innovative nor more important ideas than women. This is truth.
How do I know? I’m lucky that I get to go to a lot of conferences. I’ve been in the audience for literally hundreds of talks. I’ve seen lots of men give horrible talks. But, as expected, the vast majority of talks given by men are fine. Not horrible, not great, just fine. Most male speakers are awkward or forget what they were going to say or don’t speak loud enough or rush or go over or under time. Most men are basically acceptable speakers. Such is the law of averages.
To be clear, most women are also basically acceptable speakers. I, for one, know I’m an awkward speaker who regularly forgets what I want to say. If the goal of conference organizers is to choose great speakers, well, I’m not seeing it. They could have randomly selected speakers by putting submissions in a hat and the quality of speakers wouldn’t decrease very much. It could even increase because the gems who keep submitting awkward proposals might actually get chosen.
And when it comes to the topics of the talks, most talks that men give are fairly ordinary. People like to think that THEIR talk is unique and innovative and offers a previously undiscovered point of view in their field but that’s usually not the case. The vast majority of talks given by men cover material that has already been addressed in twenty other talks at twenty other conferences and in twenty other white papers and fifty other blog posts. New material is exceedingly rare. Our industry simply doesn’t move very fast.
To be clear, most women also cover material that has been addressed in twenty other talks at twenty other conferences. Again, the topics I present are rarely truly new and innovative. If the goal was to choose innovative topics, I’m not seeing that either. Once again, we could randomly choose talks with a magician’s top hat and the degree of innovation would… Well, actually, the talks might be more innovative simply because people who stink at bragging would finally have their papers chosen.
Even better, random choosing based on top hats would increase the demographic diversity of speakers, and ensure speakers better reflect the diversity of submissions.
My point is that men and women are similarly generally ok speakers. Men and women give similarly ordinary talks. If submission acceptances for men outweigh acceptances for women, something is terribly wrong with how organizers identity “greatness.”
Maybe it’s time to completely rethink how conference proposals are reviewed. Maybe it’s time to use only blind submissions where names and companies are removed. Maybe it’s time to find a way to remove writing style gender cues that unconsciously affect our perceptions. Maybe it’s time to consciously review proposals with the mindset that some people brag and exaggerate the importance of their work whereas other people stick to the facts and discuss their findings within the confines of appropriate generalizations. Maybe it’s time to give the magician’s hat a chance – remove the obviously horrid submissions and then put every submission in the hat.
It could only improve things. Rant done.
(By reading this far, you hearby commit to submitting to at least one conference this year. Thank you for being part of the solution. )
Live blogged at MRS in London. Any errors or bad jokes are my own.
Moving more with cancer by Emily Fu and Justin Webb
- 77% of people with cancer are not active to recommended levels which reduces consequences of treatment, reduces comorbigiteis, reduces disease progression, decreases mortality
- Imagine you have cancer and what would keep you from being more active, physical abilities are not as influential as you think, people have a huge knock to their confidence, feel depressed and vulnerable and frightened
- Social support and social pressures are influential on behaviour, family is all about sit down and rest be safe, they fear injury or psychological damage
- There is social stigma around cancer, around scars, and being self conscious, cancer is invisible for many people
- For some types of cancer, finding a bathroom is a huge problem for getting enough activity, physical symptoms of cancer and surgery are problematic
- People who were active planned it around treatment cycles, built things up slowly, didn’t get disheartened if they couldn’t do as much as they wanted
- Need to reeducate via media – don’t take it easy if you’ve got cancer, get moving! Let people know exercise is safe. Created a ‘Get Active Feel Good’ pack for people and families
Creating a buzz around gender equality by Philly Desai and Nasir Nansir
- Gender discrimination in Nigeria – violence, leadership, decision making
- Five year program working directly with young people, empower through self-esteem, increase positive attitudes, change the rules by securing laws and budgets that respond to women’s needs
- Must influence wider society through marketing communications types of activities
- Quant study to explore attitudes and social norms, what do I believe, what do others believe, what attitudes and behaviora do not match up
- Violence against women is widely condemned but common in practice
- Younger people support women’s having more leadership but they expect resistance from society
- Needed to create a brand identify which appealed to young people but does not alienate men
- [by the way, these notes are being written as my friend and diversity advocate @RayPoynter sits on an #AllMalePanel in the next room. He must be horrified. 😦 ]
- Created a radio drama, created posters and billboards promoting diversity and 50/50
- Www.iampurple.ng – website targeting young people on mobile [bet this site is truly mobile friendly!]
- Site has 1 million visitors and 30 000 registered, have celebrities and popular people driving engagement
- Men must be seen as partners, need to message to appeal to men, ‘our strength is not for hurting’
- Craft messages that appeal to subconscious of target audience
Learning for tomorrow by Jackie Hughes and Catriona Ferris
- It’s hard for big brands to “do good”
- #Lifebouy campaign is about washing your hands more often to stay healthy which means buying more soap
- It has to be at the heart of the brand purpose, functionality is no longer enough, brands with a purpose are growing faster, need to create a purpose
- We learn by doing and experiencing, context, role playing
- Let’s create a classroom, students, and bring experts to spark inspiration, bring insight in, get creative work going
- Did one in London and one in Mumbai, brought in typical experts from India and Vietnam
- What is the meaning of education? More blackboards? More books? More kids?
- There was playtime, colouring, books just like a real classroom
- Spoke to moms and kids, spoke about real concerns about attending schools, fear of violence and rape, conflicts with kids working schedule, teenage pregnancy, as well as their hopes and dreams
- Sending kids to school is like setting them free
- They wanted to activate the first day of school
- Led to unicef campaign about the first day of school, first day of school means they are so grown up, one of the most important days of their lives, it’s on their way to their profession in life, it’s giving them a beautiful future, these are the first steps
- Persia is helping 10 million children get a quality education. #FirstDayOfSchool
A behind the scenes look at choosing speakers for the Worldwide Conference on Qualitative Research, by Susan Abbott #MRX #Diversity
This is a guest post from my colleague Susan Abbot who was on the speaker selection committee for the Worldwide Conference on Qualitative Research. After reading an earlier blog post of mine about diversity of speakers, Susan decided to run the numbers on the conference and see how the conference did. These numbers can be seen in context with others on my conference comparison post. I would be thrilled if other conferences followed suit because this type of transparency is how we can really determine where any problems may lie.
We received multiple proposals from the same speakers, in varying combinations. Any given name was only counted once, and counted in the place first recorded, which would have been in the order received.
Some proposals had more than one speaker. We counted only primary and secondary speakers.
Our keynote speaker is female. We did a search, and invited this individual to speak, we did not solicit proposals. Factors considered: wanted an expert on futures, wanted an expert based in Europe, wanted someone who would connect with our audience, wanted to be within our budget. We looked at three speakers from one organization as finalists, two males and a female, and felt the woman would connect better because she had some qualitative research background. She is not included in the numbers shown below.
Proposals received from:
|Primary speaker gender||Secondary speaker gender||Totals|
|Total count female||33||12||45||57%|
|Total count male||26||8||34||43%|
The final program line-up is as follows.
I would note here that some people who were offered a speaking slot (including both males and females) declined the offer, for a variety of reasons.
As well, I believe one male secondary speaker was added after the session was accepted, and I didn’t try to take that into account.
|Primary speaker gender||Secondary speaker gender||Totals|
|Final Program Female||19||6||25||58%|
|Final Program Male||13||5||18||42%|
We have a speaker committee of three people who have done a lot of conference planning work over the years.
In addition, I was involved in the initial discussions with the committee, and Kendall Nash, my co-chair, also participated in some of the final selections.
A consideration in forming the committee was to have at least one European (which we did, from the UK).
We did actively solicit speaker proposals through social media, through e-mail announcements with partner organizations, and so forth. The committee also invited noteworthy individuals to submit, and we made announcements at other industry events. Basically, looking for the best and brightest.
The initial review of proposals was blinded as to name and organization. It is difficult to do that entirely, because you see trademark phrases and styles in the proposal content that make it easy to guess, however I would say we worked hard NOT to guess. Where people recognized the content, or had close friends or associates with a proposal, they disclosed this and/or recused themselves from discussions.
I have to say that we didn’t really give gender a lot of consideration in discussions.
After an initial independent rating of each proposal by the committee members, any session rated below a cut-off was not given significant further consideration.
We DID give region/country quite a bit of consideration, as we wanted to have a truly global program, which we do. Since we had many more proposals of merit than we had speaking slots, we did not have to sacrifice anything to get this global mix.
In our final deliberations, we considered our collective knowledge of the individual’s skills at presenting, as well as how often we had seen them on a conference platform recently. We also tried to ensure that the same people are not on the podium every year, even if they are really good speakers, because they already get a lot of air time for their ideas.
So, I am pretty thrilled to see that gender does not appear to have been a factor in our deliberations.
Gender is clearly a factor in how people choose to engage with QRCA – our volunteers tend to skew female, and I think that chapter meeting attendance also skews female. I’m not sure about overall membership, and there is really no way to know about participation in the workforce, as there are a lot of people who do qualitative and other marketing research that are not members of any organization. My hypothesis is that conference speaking is a more appealing way for males to participate in the industry than volunteering is.
Insight and Innovation
Rating conferences on gender ratios is not easy. Though we may want every conference to be 50/50 male/female, it doesn’t always make sense.
- Not all industries are balanced on gender. For instance, qualitative researchers are much more likely to be female than male, and some regions in the world have very different employment rates for women and men.
- Men and women don’t necessarily submit at the same ratio. For instance, maybe 70% of the submissions were male and thus it makes sense that 70% of the speakers were male.
- Men and women don’t necessarily agree to speak at the same rate. A conference may offer equal numbers of acceptances to men and women but then it’s up to men and women to actually accept those offers. Conferences with 10 speakers can instantly drop from 50% female to 44% female if just one women declines the invitation.
- Normal variation means that sometimes a conference will have more men or more women. That’s just how numbers work and you can’t fault an organization because one time, one of their conferences wasn’t perfectly equal. But when ‘random’ variation across every conference is consistently in the same direction, you’ve got to wonder what’s happening behind the scenes.
Regardless, the best way to be aware of whether there may be gender issues is to actively measure reality. My methods aren’t perfect. I can’t always tell the gender of a speaker from their name and so I manually check names in LinkedIn and other times I leave that speaker out of the equation. I never know the submission rate by gender and so I can’t defend a conference that has few female speakers even if they had zero submissions from women. If you can correct my numbers, then I absolutely welcome your help. And, if you’ve been to a conference that I haven’t attended, do let me know the numbers and I’ll add them here.
TOTAL (Excluding AAPOR/WAPOR): 1845 men, 1096 women: 37% female
A: Ratios between 47% and 50% – Huge round of applause for any conference that lands here!
- TTRA June (Colorado): 194 speakers, 78 men, 89 women (cannot identify gender of many names) = 53% female
- TMRE October (Florida): 126 speakers, 65 women, 61 men = 52% female
- TMRE Consumer Insights May (California): 12 men, 12 women, 50% female
- IIR Insight Tech: 22 speakers, 11 men, 11 women: 50% female
- AAPOR/WAPOR June (Austin): 1463 speakers, 718 men, 745 women = 49% Male (Yes, you read that correctly. 745 female speakers.)
- Quirk’s Event February (USA): 126 speakers, 64 women, 62 men = 49% Male
- LIMRA June (Florida): 39 speakers, 19 women, 20 men = 49% Female
- NewMR February (Global online): 27 Speakers, 14 women, 13 men = 48% Male
- MRIA June (Canada): 63 speakers, 33 men, 30 women = 48% Female
- EphMRA June (Frankfurt): 45 speakers, 24 men, 21 women = 47% female
- AIMRI Under30 February (New York): 9 speakers, 5 men, 4 women = 44% Female. Although this percentage doesn’t strictly belong here, with 9 speakers it can’t get any more equal.
B: Ratios from 42% and 46%
- MRS Health February (London): 26 speakers, 12 men, 14 women = 46% male
- PMRG May (USA): 37 speakers, 17 women, 20 men = 46% female
- IIR New Face: 22 speakers, 12 women, 10 men = 45% male
- Qual360 February (Berlin): 32 speakers, 14 women, 18 men = 44% female
- Media Insights February (Florida): 56 speakers, 24 women, 32 men = 43% female
- IIeX Health April (Philadelphia): 40 speakers, 17 women, 23 men = 43% female
- NEMRA May (Massachusetts): 14 speakers, 6 men, 8 women = 43% male
- ARF Audience Measurement: 58 speakers, 25 women, 33 men = 43% female
- NEMRA May (New England): 14 speakers, 6 men, 8 women = 43% male
- WCQR March : 43 speakers, 18 men, 25 women = 42% male. One of the conference organizers ran the numbers and determined that the ratio of submissions from men and women was the same as for speakers. You can read details about their speaker selection process here.
- MRA ISC May (New Orleans): 43 speakers, 18 women, 25 men = 42% female
- CASRO CRC, October: 72 speakers, 42 men, 30 women: 42% female
C: Ratios from 37% and 41%
- MAGHREB SUMMIT January (Casablanca): 17 speakers, 10 men, 7 women = 41% female
- MRS Travel March (London): 22 speakers, 13 women, 9 men = 41% male
- ESOMAR LATAM April (Bogota): 32 speakers, 13 women, 19 men = 41% female
- ESOMAR APAC May (Tokyo): 51 speakers, 20 women, 31 men = 39% female
- Omnishopper July (Chicago): 67 speakers, 41 men, 26 women: 39% female
- AMSRS September (Melbourne): 61 speakers, 37 men, 24 women: 39% female
- BHBIA May (London): 39 speakers, 24 men, 15 women: 38% female
D: Ratios from 32% and 36%
- MRS National March (London): 94 speakers, 34 women, 60 men = 36% female
- MENAP Forum March (Dubai): 25 speakers, 9 women, 16 men = 36% female
- ESOMAR congress September (New Orleans): 72 speakers, 26 women, 46 men = 36% female
- CASRO Tech (New York): 11 speakers, 7 men, 4 women: 36% female
- PMRC Europe October (Berlin): 25 speakers, 16 men, 9 women: 36% female
- Shopper Brain, June (Chicago): 23 speakers, 15 men, 8 women: 35% female
- OmniShopper International, November (London): 31 speakers, 20 men, 11 women: 35% female
- CXfusion April (Las Vegas): 53 speakers, 18 women, 35 men = 34% female
- ARF ReThink: 141 speakers, 48 women, 93 men = 34% female
- Febelmar Februrary (Brussels): 21 speakers, 14 men, 7 women = 33% female
- MRA CEO January (Florida): 12 speakers, 4 women, 8 men = 33% female
- Sentiment Analysis Symposium July (New York): 15 speakers, 5 women, 10 men = 33% female
- Shopper Brain Amsterdam (June): 21 speakers, 14 men, 7 women: 33% female
- IIeX NA June (Atlanta): 194 speakers, 63 women, 131 men: 32% female
F: Ratios <32%
- MRS Kids January (UK): 29 speakers, 20 women, 9 men = 31% male
- MRSI February (India): 35 speakers, 24 men, 11 women = 31% female
- IIeX Europe March (Amsterdam): 115 speakers, 36 women, 79 men = 31% female
- IIR Analytics: 42 speakers, 13 women, 29 men = 31% female
- ARF ReThink March: 140 speakers, 96 men, 44 women = 31% female
- MRMW Europe: 54 speakers, 37 men, 17 women: 31% female
- IIeX Latam: 68 speakers, 47 men, 21 women: 31% female
- MRweek: 32 speakers, 22 men, 10 women: 31% female
- MRIA QRC January (Toronto): 15 speakers, 11 women, 4 men = 27% male
- CASRO Digital March (Texas): 46 speakers, 14 women, 32 men = 30% female
- CX Fusion: 53 speakers, 35 men, 16 women: 30% female
- BVM Kongress April (Berlin): 28 speakers, 8 women, 20 men = 29% female
- Market Research Exchange, Florida (May): 41 speakers, 29 men, 12 women = 29% female
- AMA Analytics February (Arizona): 18 speakers, 5 women, 13 men = 28% female.
- NMWF April (Dubai): 36 speakers, 9 women, 27 men: 25% female
- Insight Show MW May (London): 123 speakers, 30 women, 93 men: 24% female
- CX week May: 25 speakers, 6 women, 19 men = 24% female
- MRMW APAC March (Malaysia): 39 speakers, 8 women, 31 men = 21% female
- ESOMAR Big Data: 27 speakers, 22 men, 5 women: 16% female
- Text Analytics Event April (Chicago): 19 speakers, 3 women, 16 men = 16% female
- SampleCon January (USA): 40 speakers, 6 women, 34 men = 15% female
- Predictive Analytics World April: 28 speakers, 4 women, 24 men = 14% female
Upcoming ratings: ESOMAR congress September, AMSRS congress September. (Please let me know of others.)
What can YOU do?
- Submit! You can’t complain if you don’t join the cause. Take the plunge and submit your first proposal ever this year! Make it easier for conference organizers to find you by taking the first step yourself.
- Encourage! Look to your left and look to your right. Have your neighbors submitted to a conference yet? Well, maybe right now is the perfect time to encourage them to just do it!
- Demand diversity! When you notice that conference speakers reflect a very narrow group of people, point it out and ask for more. Organizers want to give you want you want. But first, you need to tell them what you want. And, still, sometimes organizers don’t realize what is happening.
- Recommend! Remember that awesome speaker you saw at the last company meeting? At the last chapter event? Email your favourite organization and let them know you found a speaker for them. Organizers can’t ask them to speak if they don’t know who to ask.
What can conferences do?
- Look at submissions from a new point of view. Realize that people from different walks of life write differently and that some proposal styles may have greater appeal to you. Notice how much the writing style is affecting your choice of content and remove your style preferences from the equation. Recognize that some equally high quality proposals brag and exaggerate, while others are factual and modest.
- Ask sponsors to promote diversity. As conference organizers, only you know when the collection of speakers has veered away from a diverse group. Take a proactive approach and let sponsors know you care about representing the entire community. Ask sponsors to send great speakers who don’t fit into traditional boxes – really old, really young, differently abled, non-white, women.
- Ask for recommendations. Not just of the most popular speakers who know other popular speakers. Ask your fringe speakers about other awesome fringe speakers.
- Go to Twitter. There are tons of lists of women speakers and experts. My Lovestats account has several lists you can use. WIRe has a list a women speakers. Just ask.
- Share your numbers. When it turns out that one of your conferences seems skewed, let people know that the submissions were also skewed. It’s not necessarily a bad thing if 30% of your speakers were female if only 30% of your submissions came from women.
- Be the change we want to see. Even if your speaker ratio matches the submission ratio, if it’s not mostly equal, do something about it! Don’t wait for submissions. Hunt for awesome speakers who didn’t submit.
Demand that your conferences be Diversity Approved! (Tweet this post!)
Similar posts for other conferences
- Because it’s 2015: I challenge you to make your #MRX conference Diversity Approved
- The gender split in #MRX conferences: we’re not there yet – 2015
- The Presenter Gender Split #IIeXap14
- The Gender Bias Rears its Face #ESOMAR
- The Conference Presenter Gender Gap #WAPOR
- Gender bias among #AAPOR presenters
Demand that your conferences be Diversity Approved! (Tweet this post!)
When Canada’s new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, was asked why his cabinet was 50% male and 50% female, his answer was simple. Because it’s 2015. Such a simple answer to a long standing problem.
As I look back over 2015, I see that “because it’s 2015” didn’t apply to every market research conference. Some conferences had speaker lists that were 70% male. Some conferences had speaker panels that were 100% male. No conferences had attendee lists nor industry lists that were 100% male let alone 70% male.
There are many reasons that men might be over-represented as speakers, but few that are acceptable.
- Random chance. As a lover of statistics, I accept that random chance will create some all male panels. But since I’ve never seen an all female panel, random chance is not what’s at play here. If you’d rather see the math, Greg Martin calculated the chance of having all male speakers here. It’s not good.
- 70% or more of submissions were from men. That also is an acceptable reason. If women aren’t submitting, then they can’t be selected. So on that note, it’s up to you ladies to make sure you submit at every chance you get. And don’t tell me you’re not good enough to speak. I ranted on that excuse already.
- You haven’t heard of any women working in this area. This excuse is unacceptable. You can’t look for speakers only inside your own comfortable friend list. Get out of your box. Get online. There are tons of women talking about every conceivable industry issue. Find one woman and ask her for recommendations. You can start here: Data science, Marketing research, Statistics, Tech.
- The best proposals happen to be from men. This excuse is also unacceptable. It demonstrates that you believe men are better than women. You need to broaden your perception of what ‘better’ means. Men and women speak in different ways so you need to listen in different ways. It’s good for you. Try it.
- Women decline when we ask them to speak. It’s a real shame particularly if women decline invitations more often than men. But any time a woman declines, ask her for a list of people she recommends. And then consider the women on that list. No women in the list? Then specifically ask her if she knows any women.
- It’s a paid talk and they only sent men. Know what? It’s okay to remind companies that their panel isn’t representative of the industry. You can suggest that they send a broader range of people.
- We didn’t realize this was a problem. Inexcusable. Diversity has been an issue for years. People have been pointing this out to market research conferences for years. The right time to fix things is always now.
When was the last time you prepared a sampling matrix balanced on age, gender, and ethnicity and then were pleased when it was 70% female, 70% age 50+, and 90% white? Never, that’s when. You stayed in field and implemented appropriate sampling techniques until your demographics were representative. This is absolutely no different.
So, to every conference organizer out there, ESOMAR, CASRO, MRA, MRIA, ARF, MRS, AMSRS, ESRA, AAPOR, I challenge you to review and correct your speaker list before announcing it.
- What percentage of submissions are from men versus women? Only when submissions are far from balanced is it acceptable for the acceptance list to be unbalanced.
- Are there any all male panels? Are there any all female panels? (By the way, all female panels talking about female issues do NOT count.)
- Are more than 55% of speakers male? Are more than 55% of speakers female?
- Is the invited speaker list well balanced? There is zero reason for invited speakers to NOT be representative.
- Did you actively ask companies to assist with ensuring that speakers were diverse?
If you can give appropriate answer to those questions, I invite you to publicly advertise your conference as Diversity Approved.
Will you accept this challenge for every conference you run in 2016? Will you:
- Post the gender ratio of submissions
- Post the gender ratio of acceptances
- Proudly advertise that your conference is “Diversity Approved”
Demand that your conferences be Diversity Approved! (Tweet this demand!)