The Future of Feedback NetGain 2017 Andrew Grenville for MRIA
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
1 gostou•188 visualizações
Andrew Grenville's presentation at MRIA's NetGain Conference
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (16)
Semelhante a The Future of Feedback NetGain 2017 Andrew Grenville for MRIA
Semelhante a The Future of Feedback NetGain 2017 Andrew Grenville for MRIA (20)
Mais de Arundati Dandapani, CMRP
Mais de Arundati Dandapani, CMRP (10)
Último
Último (20)
The Future of Feedback NetGain 2017 Andrew Grenville for MRIA
- 2. HOW WE INTERACT KEEPS EVOLVING
- 7. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 TOTAL 18-34 35-54 55+ Text Invites % of yes CANADA US “Would you be willing to receive text message invitations to surveys on your mobile phone?”
- 10. 1/3 NOT WILLING IF THERE IS AN APP REQUIRED 21% join community 14% join if app required
- 11. 5% join and use app 21% join community 14% join if app required APP IS A DETERENT 14% join if app required
- 12. LISTENING & TALKING 15% PREFER ASKED BY VOICE PREFER TALK TO ANSWER 18%
- 13. VOICE TO TEXT 69% 43% SUCCESSFULLY USED VOICE TO TEXT PREFER TYPING
- 14. OPEN END VIDEO 64% 22% ABLE TO DO VIDEO WILLING TO DO VIDEO
- 15. AI POWERED QUALITATIVE LIKE 45% 62% PREFER VIRTUAL VOICE 30% 39%
- 16. VIRTUAL ASSISTANT 52% have virtual assistant 38% have used it 25% would try surveys on it
- 17. VIRTUAL ASSISTANT AMONG MILLENNIALS 73% have virtual assistant 54% have used it 40% would try surveys on it
- 18. CHANGE IS COMING
- 19. THE FUTURE WILL BE FRAGMENTED
- 20. WE NEED DEVICE AGNOSTIC DESIGN
- 21. WHAT IF WE DRAG OUR FEET?
- 23. AS THE FUTURE RACES AT US, WHAT WILL YOU DO? ANDREW GRENVILLE Andrew.Grenville@marumatchbox.com
Notas do Editor
- Maru/Matchbox is a technology enabled market research consultancy. We used to be the research division of Vision Critical, and before that we were known as Angus Reid Strategies. My role involves a lot of research on research and keeping an eye on where research is headed: hence our interest in the future of feedback. At a very basic level, we in market research are in the communication business. The foundation of what we do is communicating with people. We ask questions and collect answers. The value of the insights we generate are completely dependant upon the representativeness of the people we talk to. And that comes down to something so common we rarely think about it: the way we communicate.
- Until relatively recently, cultures in a number of places around the world used log drums to communicate messages over multiple miles. In North America indigenous people on the prairies used smoke signals. But technology changed all that. Suddenly we had people tapping Morse code over telegraph lines. And then we had telephones and then fax machines and then email and texts and IM. And who knows what’s next…. Being old, I started out when we were still doing a lot of face to face interviews—in my case, with physicians. Then we moved to all telephone interviewing, because physicians became willing to do that. Then we moved online, because that’s were everyone was. Then we had to change to put mobile first in survey design because that’s how so many people interact. As a result, I am acutely attuned to the fact that how we interact keeps changing, and that it has implications for how we do research. There has to be some advantage to getting old.
- Research is, by its nature, a conservative industry. We tend to lag trends, rather than lead them. Companies had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into moving from telephone to online. There are still surveys that are done that are not mobile enabled, let alone mobile friendly. This is despite that—when you give people a choice—at least 30% of gen pop surveys are done on mobile phones or tablets. That can be considerably higher, depending upon who you are targeting. What is mobile unfriendliness doing to the representativeness of the data? It is distorting it quite a bit. People want to do surveys the way they want, when they want. They will not switch devices for you.
- But mobile, while important, is relatively old. Technology is marching on, faster and faster. And it will keep advancing and changing. If we don’t move on it now, we will be left behind—and risk becoming irrelevant, because data and insights are coming from everywhere. At the ESOMAR Big Data conference in Brooklyn earlier this week, there was an amazing presentation about public health research that was used to combat the Zika virus. It involved gathering data through surveys that collected data, including photographs. While they contacted 300,000 people through email. They also connected with 400,000 through text, that was dwarfed by the 750,000 people they contacted through Whatsapp, which is popular in many countries outside North America. Whatsapp facilitated the collection of photos, in addition to the survey data. Those photos included geographic information. By using multiple modalities to connect with people they were able to identify areas where there was standing water near where people lived. By surveying millions of people they were actually able to generate maps that guided the health department in eradicating breeding grounds for mosquitos, and largely eliminate the spread of Zica. But imagine if they only used email to survey people. Would that have worked?
- We need to think about the ways we collect data too. While whatsapp is not very popular here, as there other data collection approaches we should consider? What about virtual assistants? What about video open ends? What about app-based research? What about AI driven interviewing? Voice to text? What will change how we communicate with people for research purposes, if not today, soon? The faster you drive, the more important it is to look farther ahead—because everything comes at you so quickly. Changes in technology are coming fast and only will get faster. At Maru/Matchbox we think it’s essential to keep our eyes focused far ahead. That’s why we’ve been studying how people want to respond. So we tested reaction to an array of approaches in Canada and the US, and that’s what we want to share with you today. As an industry, we need to work together to adapt and adopt. Because if the insights industry does not keep up with how people communicate, we all suffer.
- The adoption of technology is a generational story. People who have grown up with technology as part of their life for almost as long as they can remember are, not surprisingly, much more comfortable with new technologies as they emerge. As we look at reaction to all these possible technologies through which to gather survey data, the story is the same: millennials are much more likely to embrace them; those 55+ are much less likely to embrace them and those 35-54 are somewhere in the middle. So rather that show that on every slide, we’ll just show a few examples and you can know that the trend is there for everything we tested
- One of the things we looked into a little while ago was text message invites to surveys. Email is a pretty ancient technology that my kids—in their twenties and teens—rarely look at, except to occasionally communicate with old people like me. A couple of things to note right away: This a standard example of the generational differences. Millennials are much more interested and those 55+ much less so. But the other interesting difference is Canada vs the U.S. For text messaging interest is much higher. For most of the other things we tested, there were no notable differences—so we rolled together the data to represent NA. Where there are notable differences between Canada and the US we call them out. This is one of those differences. Our conclusion: this will soon be an essential choice to give community members, especially in the US.
- Apps are very popular. So some companies have proposed that apps, with text-like notifications, are the way to go for survey research. It’s tough to be an app. Not only are there millions to compete with, the few that get downloaded are typically abandoned within days. 95% are deleted within a few months. People have an average of 27 apps on their phone, a number that appears constant. According to Nielsen, “Despite rapid evolution throughout the marketplace, including new apps, additional device functionality and broadened device capabilities, the number of apps used has remained relatively stable since the end of 2012.” We wanted to look at how asking people to download an app would affect their willingness to participate in an insights community. So we first asked people if they would be willing to join a community. They we asked if they would be willing to join a community if they had to download an app to do so. Then we asked if they thought they would use the app and participate in the community.
- Adding the app crippled recruitment and greatly skewed the type of people who were willing to join the community and use the app. Our conclusion: an app is a community killer.
- We surveyed people and asked “Now we have a question about how you do surveys. Right now everything is written. But with changes in technology, it is possible that we could use a voice that reads the questions to you. The survey questions would not be written, they would be asked by a voice that you could listen to through your computer or mobile device. If you had a choice between a voice reading to you, or you reading text on a screen, would you prefer to…Have the questions read to you or Read the questions, as text, like you do now Changes in voice recognition technology also make it possible for you to answer surveys by speaking to your computer. If you had a choice between answering by voice, or answering by clicking or typing—as you do now, would you prefer to…Answer by voice or Answer by clicking or typing Our conclusion: this is one to watch, but not act on right away
- We also ran an experiment where we asked people with smartphones with voice to text capabilities if they would answer and open-ended question using the voice to text function. We wondered if people might like it and, whether we might get richer answers. We found that most people could not successfully do it. And that, among those who could, that they preferred to answer by typing. There were no difference in the number of words used in the answer, nor were the verbal answers qualitatively any richer. Our conclusion: not yet catching on (despite us repeating the experiment a few times over a few years), but watch and see how greater use of virtual assistants might change that.
- We find video open ended questions to be a great addition to many research exercises. There is nothing like being able to actually see respondents—in reporting you can actually bring the voice of the customer into the boardroom. But we know that not everyone is a) equipped to do it, b) interested in do it and c) able to figure out how to click the right button to make it work. We have worked with a number of different video interviewing suppliers and the results have been very much the same. Our conclusion: great tool, but not necessarily representative of the population. Use wisely.
- We asked about AI powered qualitative. This is often called a chatbot. We said to respondents “Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming part of many aspects of society and business. We’re interested in your thoughts on its possible role in surveys like this. Advances in artificial intelligence will soon make it possible for there to be a virtual interviewer who asks questions based on your answers. For example, it might ask you “what is your favorite fruit”? If you answer “bananas”, the virtual interviewer might follow up by asking “what is it about bananas that you like?” If you answer “I like that bananas have lots of potassium”, the virtual interviewer might ask “What is it that you like about potassium”? If a virtual interviewer could be a part of a survey like this, would that be Something you’d like, or Something you’d dislike If there was a virtual interviewer, would you prefer that it Ask you questions out loud, with a virtual voice, or Ask you the questions as text Overall this is a pretty popular idea. But here we found another significant difference between Canada and the U.S. In the U.S. they were much more open to chatbots. Our conclusion: many people—especially millennials—are open to AI powered qualitative. By the time the technology is ready, people will be ripe for it
- We also asked people about virtual assistants like Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa. We wanted to know who has one, whether they used it and whether they would try surveys using it. We found that while many people have a virtual assistant (most often on their phone (20% have a virtual assistant speaker)) not all of them have ever used it, but about half were willing to try surveys using it.
- The cascade was similar for millennials, but the numbers were, of course, higher. Our conclusion: important to keep an eye on this, especially since Apple is poised to enter the speaker-based virtual assistant space.
- We can see that there is significant interest in a lot of new ways of collecting data. And when we look at the millennials in particular, we can see that change in how we collect data is inevitable and likely coming soon.
- How people will want to answer surveys will continue to fragment. We now have to deal with the differences between how questions render on desktops, tablets and mobile. And that has necessitated changes in how we ask questions. Giant grids don’t work anymore. Long lists that require scrolling on a mobile or tablet are similarly dysfunctional. The list goes on. But that was just a warm up for what is coming.
- When we have to design with a multitude of devices in mind, we will have to be clever. Asking questions in such a way as to get consistent answers across devices will be essential. Otherwise we will just be adding noise and making our data less useful—just as we do today when we don’t adapt to mobile.
- That sounds hard, right? What if we just stick with what we are doing? As people start communicating more often using other methods, we will either need to adapt and absorb those devices into our repertoire or we will end up with unrepresentative samples. That will lead to inaccurate data and, ultimately, bad decisions.
- We have no choice but to move forward. We need to keep a keen eye on what is coming and act accordingly. That’s why we’re monitoring this, and testing new communication methods as they start to gain traction. We’re moving forward.