This list shows the gender ratio of speakers at marketing research and related conferences during 2020.
These data are not 100% accurate. I am not always able to identify whether a speaker is male or female based on their name and/or photo, and online and printed programs don’t reflect last minute changes to the schedule. However, given that conference organizers want to project the most positive reflection of their conference program, I am assuming the available programs are within a reasonable margin of error. If you are able to provide more accurate numbers, I would be pleased and grateful to make corrections.
And yes, there is far more to diversity than gender. Diversity of age, ethnicity, ability/disability, sexuality, and more also matter. But gender is a start.
Please contribute: If you have a PDF or image of a conference program, even if it’s from 2015, email it to me so I can include the results in the list.
Let’s create the change we want to see.
- MRS Sports, UK, February, 7%
- Insights CEO Summit, USA, January, 23%
- MRMW, Amsterdam, June, 23%
- CX Talks, Dallas, March, 25%
- MRS Data analytics, London, February, 35%
- ESOMAR, Lima, April, 39%
- ARF Audience x Science, New York, April, 41%
- IIeX, Amsterdam, March, 43%
- MRS National Impact, London, March, 45%
- NGCX, USA, March, 46%
- ESOMAR DRIVE, Delhi, March, 48%
- NGCX, California, March, 48%
- ARF+SXSW, Texas, March, 50%
- Insights Double Down, Las Vegas, February , 50%
- Sysomos/Meltwater, London, March, 50%
- Qualtrics experience summit, Salt Lake City, March, 53%
- NewMR Festival, Virtual, March, 50%
- QRCA, Texas , January, 62%
- MRS Kids, UK, January, 68%
- Advancing Research 2020, New York, March, 69%
How To Find Speakers
- Be part of the Women in Research 50/50 initiative and take advantage of their speaker database.
- Review the speaker lists of other conferences.
- Maybe you don’t need an experienced speaker. Maybe you need to give opportunity to a brand new speaker.
- In addition, you can use the GenderAvenger toolkit to nominate conferences that are succeeding, take the GA Pledge, or call out conferences that need improvement.
Gender Ratios of Years Past:
This list shows the gender ratio of speakers at marketing research and related conferences during 2017.
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.
Please contribute: Some conferences remove their information immediately afterwards. If you have a PDF or image of a conference program, email it to me so I can include it in this list. If you have a paper program, mail it me or do the counts and simply send me the final numbers.
- ESOMAR Global Qual, Porto, November: 25 female, 17 male=60% female
- MRS Driving Transformation Through Insight, London, October: 15 female, 12 male= 56% female
- ⭐️ AMSRS, Sydney, September: 3 female keynotes, 3 male keynotes, 1 female invited, 1 male invited, 28 female speakers, 19 male speakers=53% female
- ⭐️ MRS, Financial, London, November: 11 female, 12 male=48% female
- ⭐️ Qual360 APAC, Singapore, October: 16 female, 17 male=48% female
- ⭐️ TMRE, Orlando, October, 79 female, 88 male=47% female
- ⭐️ MR and CI Exchange, St Louis, May: 13 female, 16 male speakers=45% female
- MRIA, Toronto, May: 25 female speakers, 33 male speakers, 6 female panelists, 4 male panelists, 1 female keynote, 4 male keynotes=44% female
- CRC, Chicago, October: 37 female, 55 male=40% female
- Market Research Summit, London, May, 22 female, 29 male=43% female
- ESOMAR Congress, Amsterdam, September: 62 female speakers, 83 male speakers =43% female
- MRS, Customer Summit 2017, November, London: 6 female, 8 male=43 % female
- MRMW Europe, Berlin, November: female, male=43% female
- IIEX, Amsterdam, February: 52 female, 76 male=41% female
- MRS, Methodology in Context, London, November: 40 female, 6 male=40% female
- Customer Experience Strategies Summit, April, Toronto: 12 female, 18 male=40% female
- Sysomos Summit, February, North Carolina: 16 female, 25 male=39% female
- Sysomos Summit, September , NYC: 6 female, 10 male=38% female
- MRIA Net Gain, November, Toronto: 6 female, 10 male=38% female
- ILC Insights Leadership Conference (Insights Association) Chicago, September, 13 female, 24 male=35% female
- IIEX, Atlanta, June: 58 female, 108 male speakers=35% female
- 👎🏻ESOMAR Big Data World, New York, November: 10 female, 24 male=29%female
- 👎🏻Sentiment Analysis Symposium, New York, June, 14 female, 35 male=29% female
- 👎🏻Omnishopper International, Spain, November, 4 female, 13 male =24% female
- 👎🏻CX Talks, Atlanta, October: 7 female, 25 male=22 % female
- 👎🏻Big Data & Analytics for Retail Summit, Chicago, June: 5 female, 19 male=21% female
- 👎🏻 Sysomos Summit, June, London: 3 female, 14 male=18% female
- 👎🏻 Insights50 (Insights Association), Chicago, October: 1 female, 7 male=13% female
- 👎🏻 AMAART Forum, Seattle, June: 4 female, 32 male=11% female
- 👎🏻Sentiment, Emotional & Behavioral Analytics, July, San Francisco: 4 female, 36 male=10% female
- PMRC Speakers not available online
Gender Ratios of Years Past:
- The gender split in #MRX conferences: 2016 edition
- The gender split in #MRX conferences: 2015 edition
- Note: 2014 ratios were done in individual posts
I’m behind on conference tallies this year but I think this is a better way to do it anyways. I’ll continue to add all conferences to this page as the year progresses. Do note that I mainly attend quantitative research conferences so other types of conferences may have different results. Also note that, for the most part, quantitative research conferences don’t generally have a gender bias in terms of attendance – men and women are about equally likely to go.
These counts represent the number of speakers listed in the program not including any changes made after the fact. They are also based purely on my interpretation of people’s first names or their photo. If I didn’t know whether a name was likely male or female, I ignored it. Thus, counts will not accurately reflect reality. If you are able to provide a more accurate tally, I’d be more than happy to correct my numbers.
In addition, these numbers say nothing about the gender split that submitted applications to speak, and the gender split of those who were invited to speak but declined.
AAPOR Hollywood (To come)
MRIA Toronto 33 male, 43 female, 43% male
Given that the entire history of MR has been ridiculously in the other direction, this is a welcome and delightful change. The normal curve dictates that sometimes there are more male speakers and sometimes more female speakers. I do believe this is the FIRST EVER conference on the female side of the normal curve.
IIeX Atlanta 126 male, 53 female, 70% male
Ok folks. What happened here? This is too far from 50% for me to be okay with it. All the round tables were led by men. All the DIVA award judges were men. Here are the options: Skilled women aren’t in digital, tech, and innovation areas of MR. Women are choosing not to speak at this conference. Women weren’t sought out to speak at this conference. Which problem area can YOU address at the next conference.
In other words, if you doubted whether there are enough female speakers in the survey/research/polling niche, I can tell you that there are at least 412 of them. Most of the women I heard speak were good speakers and they knew their material. If you need a speaker, get the speaker list from this conference.
QRCA Orlando 25% male
Well, QRCA is a tough call. Everyone in the research industry knows that qualitative research is dominated by female researchers. But what exactly is the true ratio? Is it 25% male, 5% male, or 35%? If you’ve got those stats, i’d love to put them here so that readers can judge for themselves whether the speaker ratio here is acceptable.
AMSRS Sydney 57% male
CRC St. Louis 23 men, 18 women; 56% male. (Early program)
ESOMAR Dublin 98 men, 59 women; 62% Male. (Early program) We’re still a couple of weeks away from the official event so things may change but as of today, the program is leaning male dominated. Not good Esomar!
Holiday Shopping with All Screens 24/7
Maria Domoslawska and Roddy Knowles, RESEARCH NOW
- multimode starting with online, going to metered PCs, mobile phones, and then mobile diary GPS tracking which adds more engagement and gets us closer to the consumer
- sample sizes of thousands, conducted around Thanksgiving
- partnered with Experian for Hitwise data, tracked the top 20 retailers
- 3% of people used mobile for purchasing but we will see mobile did play a central role
- saw spikes for black friday and cyber monday on PC traffic
- even though people aren’t necessarily shopping on their phone, the phone is with them at all times, they use their phones while they shop a lot more than they used to
- 40% of consumers say they LIKE the huge crowds in the UK, and plan to do this
- 31% of people made only unplanned purchases, impulse
- 26% made planned and unplanned purchases
- purchase planning by store – more unplanned at CJP, Macy’s, Kohl’s – clothing stores
- in the UK, they plan to buy after Christmas, they give gifts on boxing day because they know they can get a better deal
- more planned purchases for bigger ticket items like appliances and electronics
- flowers and small gifts were mostly unplanned
- ask people to take photos of their receipt – would people actually do it? and are panelists buying what they said they bought – did they forget something?
- used the mobile diary to determine if people could actually find what they were looking for
- were able to capture basket spend via diary data and determine average expenditure by store, matched well with responder data so people were able to recall quite accurately
- 74% say gift giving makes them feel good
- Key takeaways:
- multi-country tracking help find subtle changes in your market which can become a big creative idea for your next program
- mobile is in shopper’s lives and will not go away. it is an essential device for shopping even if they aren’t actually purchasing on their device
- getting close to the point of experience yields rich and accurate data on shopping behaviours
- not every datapoint is going to add value but layering survey data with new variables of passive behavioural data can activate your hypothesis