Maybe this is just a case of sour grapes at not being included in the discussion. But when I hear that market research is about to be transformed by listening to the “naturally occurring conversations” that take place online, my hackles rise. What on earth are market researchers doing if not listening to consumers?
First, let’s put this comment in context. I am reacting to a post by Joel Rubinson, the chief research office for the ARF, on his blog, CRO-ing About Research. The post is titled, “Transforming Research: Are You Listening?”
The main purpose of this post is to promote two ARF-sponsored events devoted to listening. But by way of introduction, Joel says this:
“On July 15th at The ARF, we caught lightning in a bottle. A dozen industry leaders met to discuss how to listen to the naturally occurring conversations of consumers via blogs, search, etc. and wound up beginning a journey that will transform the research function and the marketing organizations they serve. Researchers becoming the new rock stars?! If we inspire the organization based on a willingness to hear the unexpected from consumers, absolutely!”
And that’s what set me off – the implication that research is going to be transformed by listening to online conversations. I don’t think this is what Joel really meant to say, but I am afraid that some research customers may jump to that conclusion.
Now, don’t get me wrong. We should always be striving to improve the techniques we use to listen to consumers. Using the best techniques will enable us to provide the best possible guidance to our clients. But that is not what is going to turn us into rock stars.
No, the key to what could turn researchers into rock stars lies in two words in Joel’s last sentence, two words that have gone MIA from recent market research practice.
Here’s that last sentence again: “If we inspire the organization based on a willingness to hear the unexpected from consumers, absolutely!”
The two keys words are “inspire” and “unexpected.” Let’s think about “unexpected” first. The use of the word “unexpected” in this context implies that what most research does is confirm the expected. If that’s the case, then what’s the point of doing it, unless it’s to cover someone’s proverbial ass or to prove a point? Surely the whole point of research is to identify the unexpected, isn’t it? That requires listening to people – not just online, but offline as well.
But it means more than that. It means conversing. Listening only gets you to first base. To go further, you need to engage in conversation. You need to make enquiries, propose ideas, clarify the responses and then interpret them. Passive listening, no matter how high-tech, will never transform the process of market research on its own.
The problem with uncovering the unexpected is that your findings may not be well received. That’s where the word “inspire” comes in. When people don’t want to accept research findings because they contradict an existing strategy, require significant rework, or undermine someone’s personal agenda, that’s when a researcher needs to stand up and inspire people. The researcher who can explain the implications, overcome the resistance, and persuade people to take the right actions—that researcher will be a rock star.
So why is the simple act of listening being held up as the means to transform the research industry?
Is it simply the lure of getting more insight for less money in a time of shrinking research budgets? Do people really believe that they will learn more from online chatter than they would from standing in the checkout line or chatting to people at a ballgame or at the airport?
Or is it a failure of training? Are we not taught to look for the unexpected? Are we taught how to ask questions but not listen to the answers? Do we recognize the need to inspire not just inform?
Please let me know your thoughts. Is listening going to make us rock stars or fading stars?
(6 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
September 12th, 2008 at 5:04 am
Hi Nigel, nice perspective. I would like to suggest an alternate interpretation of the concept of “unexpected.” Specifically, I believe there are doubts within the marketing community that consumers are more “honest” when voicing opinions that are not solicited, than when researchers ask the questions. The Heisenberg principle, if you will.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Nigel
in my limited experience most research is designed to quantify/qualify an expected landscape and so surprises are …well surprises. And rightly so, when a surprise does surface it should be validated to ensure its not a remote outlier.
I have been thinking about listening for some time now and coming closer to the conclusion that listening will become a key business differentiator and major determinant in the war for share of wallet.That listening requires authenticity and is an inherent quality of trust.
Most companies are proficient at doing things TO Buyers, many are proficient at doing things FOR Customers, but few are prepared to make the investment to enable them to do things WITH Partners. The ability to instill a genuine belief that as a customer the provider is actually listening and responding to my needs will enable those companies to excel. Part of this is the ability to create a customized ‘experience’/product, another part is communicating some greater narrative rather than continually selling me the price point.
I leave you with an apropos Rockstar closing
by quoting the refrain from David Essex’s ROCK ON
“and where do we go from here…which is the way that’s clear…
Cheers
Miro
Hey kid, rock and roll
Rock on, ooh, my soul
Hey kid, boogey too, did ya
Hey shout, summertime blues
Jump up and down in my blue suede shoes
Hey kid, rock and roll, rock on
And where do we go from here
Which is the way that’s clear
September 13th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Thanks for the comments.
Phil, I know that there is a belief that consumers are not honest in their replies to surveys. In a minority of cases that is true: when people feel the subject matter is sensitive and their answer may reflect badly on them. But in the vast majority of cases people have no vested interest in their answers. They tell it like they see it (which is a completely different issue). The fundamental issue marketers and researchers need to deal with is the need to anticipate consumer needs and desires, not just react to their stated ones. Great brands lead, they do not follow.
Hi Miro, I totally agree with your suggestion that brands need to create a customized experience and communicate a greater narrative than price point.
The sad thing is that having watched a more TV than normal in the last couple of days I received a barrage of price-focused messages and saw almost nothing that seemed designed to build a brand. No wonder consumers in the U.S. are more price-driven than elsewhere in the world. It is almost all they get to hear about.
Of course, this is a classic result of listening to what consumers say and observing what they do. I am willing to bet that any desirable brand listening to consumers will hear this complaint, “I would love to buy it but it is too expensive.” Brands which interpret that complaint at face value are destined to see their margins erode. Why? Because price perceptions are relative. If a premium brand lowers its price then the competition will too. As a result consumer price expectations ratchet down and long-term nothing is gained.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that listening has little value. It is a pre-requisite. If we can improve our listening skills that will be beneficial. BUT listening alone is not enough. We need to interpret what we hear, clarify what we hear and then propose new, value-adding ideas and get peoples’ reactions to them.
Nigel
September 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Hi Nigel–
I’m glad you commented on my blog posting. I do not mean to imply that survey research is not useful, only that we have this incredibly rich stream of data that comes to us in an unfiltered way. We hear new phrases, we see sensitivity in the change in quality and quantity of comments in response to marketing initiatives and political events…etc, etc. This is useful stuff! HOW it gets integrated into traditional research still needs to be fleshed out and the ARF plans a serious initiative. You are welcome to join us, as you were invited to the meeting on July 15th. it was an amazing meeting. It received comments like Artie Bulgrin (research director at ESPN) saying it changed the way he thinks about the future of research. I know we’re onto something important. You’re an industry innovator, I invite you to help us!
September 16th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Nigel, thanks for the thoughtful post on a topic I’ve been chewing since reading the Ad Age piece on this.
My belief is that online listening done with the tools available today and in the manner typically executed remains powerful for big brands only. Certainly there is someone talking about your product or service somewhere, but without some sort of critical mass the utility of online conversation tracking seems limited. Given that, I simply can’t see online conversation monitoring replacing other research methods for the countless organizations who will end up finding only a small volume of conversations actually available to them. If the tools improve to their their reach and quality, perhaps that can change, but my limited experience with them leaves me skeptical.
To offer a relevant tangent, from the perspective of a smallish organization, we consistently find inspiration and unexpected insights via those who spend the most time actually conversing with customers/consumers - sales and support. These great moments of clarity don’t replace our need for other research tools, but they certainly can initiate our use of them. As you suggest, most often even this modest act of listening must be supported through deeper conversation (whether it be a phone call or email, focus group or survey, ethnography or blog post) to reach a successful outcome.
TG
September 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Hi Joel, glad to hear you are listening. Maybe I was not, if, as you say, I was invited to the meeting. Shame on me!
As I tried to explain in the post, I too believe that listening to what is said online will be a valuable source of feedback, I just do not believe it will be transformative.
Don’t get me wrong, research as we practice it today needs to be re-invented, but listening is just the start. We should be listening anyway, as Tim suggests, online and off. But what we really need are better ways to engage people in a meaningful exchange of ideas.
There are several approaches which begin to do this, combining blogging, polling and other feedback techniques to provide richer, more insightful responses, and I am hopeful that these will really start to add value to the research process.
To return to the topic of listening we do still need to sort the wheat from the chaff. While this can be automated to a degree I doubt any system will replace the need for researchers to identify the unexpected and relevant comments from the simply relevant. And that’s the real challenge. How do we make sure that the unexpected is identified and welcomed rather than dismissed as an exception?
You know I am more than happy to help with any initiative…just don’t expect me to take things at face value!
September 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
[...] There is an interesting debate happening over at the Nigel Hollis blog in his article ‘Why Listening is not enough’ [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
[...] Why listening is not enough Another way to transform the research [...]
October 4th, 2008 at 5:48 am
[...] that’s talking about what research methods to use in the future will like it. They’re talking about it but not much is [...]
October 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Nigel asks:
So why is the simple act of listening being held up as the means to transform the research industry?
We seem to have reached a stage where marketers - our end users - do not know what questions they need to ask. Not just ask consumers but ask themselves.
I honestely do not think the market research industry, given our propensity to wait for instructions, is providing much guidance on this.
Hence the appeal of “listening”. We don’t know what questions we need to ask so let’s just listen and see if we can gain insight from that. The “unexpected” that is sought is not necessarily unexpected answers but unexpected questions.