3. Contents
Table of
03 Introduction
04 Executive Summary (Infographic)
06 Methodology and Sample
07 In-depth Interviews with Client-Side
Researchers
08 The Basics: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Usage
10 Qualitative Research
12 Quantitative Research
14 The Drivers of Supplier Selection
18 Understanding Client Views on
Supplier Selection
20 How Do Research Pros Get Information?
24 The Drivers of Change in the Industry
28 Adaptation to Change
Contacts
Leonard F. Murphy
Chief Editor & Principal Consultant
(770) 985-4904
lmurphy@greenbook.org
Lukas Pospichal
Managing Director
(212) 849-2753
lpospichal@greenbook.org
Kevin Mulhare
Sales Director, GreenBook
(602) 319-2778
kmulhare@greenbook.org
GreenBook
New York AMA Communication Services Inc.
116 East 27th Street, Floor 6
New York, NY 10016
GRITReport.org
30
30
33
34
36
36
42
42
46
47
50
52
54
60
Adoption of New Research Methods
Communities, Mobile Surveys, Analytics
Adoption by Clients vs. Suppliers
Barriers to Adopting New Methods
Reasons for Not Using Techniques
Understanding Client Views on New Research Tools
The Future Research Agency
Top Choices for Specialization
The Perfect Research Agency
The 50 Most Innovative Companies
in Market Research
What Makes a Company Innovative?
Expectations of Change
How Do Researchers REALLY Feel About Change?
Acknowledgments
Commentary
09 Quality and Innovation for Long
Term Success by Beth Surowiec,
Clear Seas Research
11 Research Is Now a Global Village
by Rebecca West, Civicom, Inc.
17 Supplier: Time, Cost and Quality…
Pick any Two. Client: I need all
three. by Matt Warta, GutCheck
27 To where and how fast? by David
Brudenell, pureprofile
31 The Drivers of change aren’t going
away – it’s time to go mobile by
Wale Omiyale, Confirmit
35 MR’s Hopeful But Cautious
Approach to Mobile, Online
Communities and Social Analytics
by Robert Clancy, uSamp
37 The Pendulum is Returning by
Brett Watkins, L&E Research
39 The Customer Contribution
Continuum: Should customers
be part of your team? by Kevin
Lonnie, KL Communications
45 Adopting Innovation by Andrew
Leary, Ipsos SMX
53 2014: Smart Automation.
Technology Without Compromising
Quality by George Terhanian,
Toluna
59 What does it all mean? by
Lynnette Cooke, CASRO
68 Final Thoughts by the Editor by
Leonard Murphy, GreenBook
Go to www.GreenBook.org/GRIT to read the GRIT Report online or to access all GRIT
data and charts via an interactive dashboard which you can use for your own analysis.
Winter 2014
1
4. At Communispace, we believe there is a better way
of doing business. As the leading consumer collaboration
agency, for more than 12 years we have been committed to helping
brands collaborate with — and get inspiration from — their consumers
to drive business growth. Using a variety of innovative methods, from
online communities to a range of face-to-face workshops and executive
events, we’ve partnered with some of the world’s most admired
brands to help them innovate faster and enjoy breakthrough results.
ARE YOU READY TO
COLLABORATE?
communispace.com | #collaborate
5. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Introduction
Welcome to the 14th edition of the GreenBook Research
Industry Trends Report, using data collected in Q4 of 2013.
2013 was a pivotal year for our industry as the long-predicted
wave of change finally began to hit and we are cautiously
adapting to the pressures of our environment. We use the
GRIT Report to quantify these trends and share the findings
with the global research community.
GRIT explores the beliefs held by those who know the
industry best, the sentiment around those beliefs, and
the impact of change. GRIT continues to track trends that
it has historically focused on, including the adoption of
emerging technologies and methods. We showcase the
GRIT Top 50 companies perceived to be most innovative
and dive deeper into what makes a company innovative.
For the first time we use cognitive neuroscience to
understand the views of GRIT respondents.
Also new in this edition is a series of thought-provoking
commentaries, providing a deeper context for the report’s
findings. Rather than expand advertising to make publication
of the GRIT Report possible, leading research organizations
sponsored these commentaries and we believe that you will
find them both insightful and intriguing.
GreenBook is working with a variety of international entities
to make GRIT ever more representative of the industry on
a worldwide level. We believe that this latest edition offers
the most comprehensive global view of the research industry
from the practitioner perspective ever achieved.
Our sample partners include ACEI, AIM, ANDA, AVAI, BAQMaR,
CEIM, ESTIME, Insight Innovation Forum, International Market
Research Society, Michigan State University, MRIA-ARIM,
NewMR, NGMR, NMSBA, NYAMA, Principles of Mobile Market
Research & MRII, QRCA, Research & Results, SAIMO, The Nielsen
School at Wisconsin School of Business, The Research Club, and
The University of Texas Arlington.
Our research partners include Averbach Transcriptions, Bottom
Line Analytics, Dapresy, Decooda, Forbes Consulting, Gen2
Advisors, GMI Interactive, Grey Matter Research, Q Research
Software, Researchscape and Vision Critical University.
All partners have contributed significant time, energy, and
resources to the GRIT effort and deserve a big THANK YOU for
their support.
We’d like to dedicate this Winter 2014 edition of GRIT in loving
memory to William (Bill) Weylock. For seven years, Bill played
an essential part in producing the GRIT report. Bill passed away
in August of 2013 and is sorely missed.
As always I think you’ll find the report informative, provocative,
and useful. Enjoy!
Leonard F. Murphy
Chief Editor & Principal Consultant | GreenBook
Go to www.GreenBook.org/GRIT to read the GRIT Report online or to access all GRIT
data and charts via an interactive dashboard which you can use for your own analysis.
GRITReport.org
Winter 2014
3
6. OF SUPPLIER SELECTION
SUPPLIER SELECTION
tionship
/supplier
y with
ds
85%
92%
Executive Summary
Good relationship
with client/supplier
Familiarity with
client needs
85%
92%
85%
92%
85%
92%
81%
89%
81%
DRIVERS OF SUPPLIER SELECTION
81%
89%
DRIVERS OF SUPPLIER SELECTION
81%
83%
89%
89% SUPPLIER SELECTION
88%
DRIVERS OF OF SUPPLIER SELECTION
DRIVERS 83%
Completes research
on time
s research
83%
88%
Previous experience
Good relationship
85%
83%
67%
88%
with client/supplier
with client/supplier
Good relationship
92%
85%
The
experience recipe for earning
67%
88%
84%
with client/supplier
92%
/supplier business is straight out of
67% Good relationship 84%
Familiarity with
Good relationship
85%
81%
85%
Business 101: It’s all about
with client/supplier
clientclient/supplier
with
67%needs
92%
Good reputation
73%
Familiarity with
84%
92%
89%
81%
relationships. Know the client,
client needs
in the industry
89%
84% Familiarity with
utation deliver on their needs and do
73%
84%
81%
Completes with
83%
Familiarity research
81%
ustry
client needs
it with the highest quality.
on time
73%
89%
84%
client needs
Completes research
83%
88%
89%
Clients
on time
73%
Provides highest
84%
84%
88%
Completes research
83%
Previous experience
data quality
Clients 88% Suppliers
67%
Completes research
83%
84% on time
highest
84%
with client/supplier
74%
on time
Previous experience
84%
67%88%
Clients
ity
with client/supplier 84%
Suppliers
Previous experience
67%
74%
84%
with client/supplier
Clients
84%
Previous experience
Good reputation 74%
73%
Suppliers
84%
67%
with client/supplier
in the industry
Good
73%
84% 73%
Suppliers
74% reputation Good reputation
in the industry
84% 84%
73% 84%
74% 84% 84% 84%
74% 74%
84%
74%
in the industry
Provides highest
Good reputation
data quality
in the industry
Provides highest Provides highest
data quality
data quality
Clients
Clients
Clients
Suppliers
FUTURE OF RESEARCH
UTURE RESEARCH
OF RESEARCH
URE OF
EOFOFRESEARCH METHODS SPECIALIZATIONOFTHE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY
NEW RESEARCH FUTURE OF RESEARCH
FUTURE OF RESEARCH
Provides highest
data quality
Suppliers
Suppliers
Clients
Suppliers
FUTURE OF RESEARCH
FUTURE OF RESEARCH
SEARCH METHODS
SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY
39%
METHODS
SPECIALIZATION OF NEW RESEARCH METHODS
OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY
Online
ADOPTION
SPECIALIZATION OF
ADOPTION OF NEW RESEARCH METHODS
SPECIALIZATION OF THE39%
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY
shifted. 32%
41%
Online Communities
0%
ODS The Paradigm has38%
SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY
Online
ADOPTION
SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY
Adoption of Communities & OF NEW RESEARCH METHODS
39%
39% Online 41%
nities
38%
32%
39%
Mobile as insight gathering Online
41%
Online
Online Communities
27%
Mobile 39%
41% 39%
44%
38%
32%
41%
32% tools and ADOPTION50% Online Communities
OF
SPECIALIZATION OF THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENCY
analyzing Text NEW RESEARCH METHODS
Online
Online
41%
33% 27%
50%
32%
Surveys 41% 27% Mobile
Mobile
& Social Media in Big 44%
Data 40% Online Communities 38%
27%
Mobile Surveys
5%
46%
Mobile
33%
Surveys
39%
Mobile
27% Surveys
Mobile Surveys Surveys
frameworks are the paths to
Online
27%
33%
Mobile33%
41%
eys
40%
46%
Online Communities
44%
50%
38%
32%
30%
Mobile Surveys
28%
40%
45%
46%
30%
Big
Big Data
growth.
27%
Mobile
33%
33%Surveys Data
Surveys Surveys 46% 40%
30%
Analytics
Mobile
28%
45%
40%
30% 30%
27%
Analytics Big Data 30%
Mobile
Big Data Analytics
33%
Surveys
Social Media
30% 30%
Big Social
AnalyticsData Media
26%
33%
Surveys 30%
30%
4% Social Media Analytics 35%
41%
Analytics41%
Mobile Surveys
28%
40%
45%Big Data
46%
30%
47%
34% Social Media Analytics 35%
25%
Analytics
Analytics
26% 26%
Social Media 30% Media
30%
Social Data
nalytics 35%
41% Big Data 34% Social Media Analytics 35%
47% Analytics
41%
30%
Big
Text Analytics
26%
Social Media Online 25% 25% 30% 24%
Analytics
26%
Analytics Analytics
30%
Social Media
41%
Analytics
25%
Communities
25%
Analytics
Social Media Analytics 35%
47%
Text Analytics
35%
30%
34%
26%
25%
Social Media
Analytics 41%
24%
Text Analytics
35%
35%
4%
Clients
26%
28%
Social Online
Media
Big Data Analytics
Focus 24% 25%
35%
35%
30%
26%Online
24%
Clients Clients
Social Media 34% Text Analytics
25% Analytics
Online
Communities
Suppliers
Analytics
25%
24%
Groups
cs
35%
35%
25%
25%
24%
Significantly
Suppliers
Communities Communities
Suppliers Up
Analytics BigText Analytics Online38% 25%
Clients
28%
35%
35%
30%
34%
Data Analytics
40%
29%
35%
Focus
35%
24%
Online
Significantly Down Up
25%
Clients Significantly
24%
Online Analytics 35% 38%
Suppliers
28%Significantly Up
24%
Big Data
40%
29% Communities
Focus
Groups Clients
25%
Communities
Significantly Down
Suppliers
28%
Big Data Analytics
9%
35%
24% Focus Clients Groups
25%
24%
Online38%
Communities
SignificantlyUp
Down
Significantly Up
Suppliers
Significantly
24%
ytics
35%
38%
40%
29%
35%
Focus Significantly UpSignificantly28%
Communities Big Data Analytics Focus38% 25%Groups Suppliers 28%
Significantly Down
Down
24%
28% Groups
24%
38%
Focus Groups
Significantly Up
Significantly Down
28% 24%
FocusGroups
Significantly Down
4
24%
Winter 2014 Groups
GRITReport.org
IN USE
IN USE
IN USE IN USE
47%
34%
30%
34%
40%
29%
46%
40%
35%
41%
35%
35%
35%
UNDER CONSIDERATION
45%
32%
UNDER CONSIDERATION
28%
38%
UNDER CONSIDERATION
UNDER CONSIDERATION
50%
UNDER CONSIDERATION
UNDER CONSIDERATION
UNDER CONSIDERATION
UNDER CONSIDERATION
44%
Clients
Suppliers
Significantly Up
38%
Significantly Down
7. BrainJuicer
Mentions (400)
(142)
Ipsos
TNS
le
Mentions (142)
Mentions (400)
Ipsos
Google
Mentions (202)
Mentions (126)
TNS
TNS
Mentions (126)
Google
As in years past, we’ve decided to forgo the usual text-based InSites Consulting
InSites Consulting
Mentions InSites Consult
(74)
Mentions (74)
Mentions (74)
executive summary and give our readers an infographic summary.
Research Now
Research Now
Mentions (72)
Mentions (72)
Here are the highlights of the current report.
33)
w
Mentions (126)
Mentions (202)
Mentions (133)
Mentions (133)
�THE DYNAM�ICS OF CHANGE
�THE DYNAM�ICS OF CHANGE
CHANGE
CTIONS TO CHANGE
DRIVERS OF CHANGE
REACTIONS TO CHANGE
REACTIONS TO CHANGE
Shrinking budgets and a DRIVERS OF CHANGE
thodologies
Client
Exploring
rapidly changing technology
Client budgetary constraints budgetary constraints
Exploring new methodologies new methodologies
58%
28%
58%
28%
58%
landscape are driving change.
58%
31%
58%
31%
58%
The solution is a combination
hnologies of rethinking business
Increased use of non-traditional techniques and technologies
Exploring new technologies
Increased use of non-traditional techniques and technologies
Exploring new technologies
41%
22%
41%
processes and exploring how
22%
41%
52%
30%
52%
to harness new tech and
30%
52%
ame resources
Supplier Budgetary constraints
Doing more with same resources
methods to deliver more
Supplier Budgetary constraints
38%
Doing more with same resources
38%
31%
impact.
38%
31%
33%
26%
Client demands for innovation
mple resources
6%
30%
21%
30%
33%
Exploring new sample resources
Exploring new sample resources
27%
26%
30%
26%
30%
Investing in more in in-house technology
Visualization by
27%
Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones
20%
24%
Investing in more in in-house technology
Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones
Suppliers
30%
27%
20%
24%
n in-house technology
%
21%
Client demands for innovation
33%
26%
Clients
Supplier
Suppliers
30%
27%
Clients
Clients
Visualization by
INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
Innovation may be a
buzzword, but it’s also a
vital brand attribute in a
changing industry. Companies
that leverage it across all
communications channels
reap the benefits, those that
don’t risk being overlooked.
TOP 10 WITHOUT ROLLUPS
INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
TOP 10 WITHOUT ROLLUPS
Millward
Vision Critical
Mentions (400)
Millward Brown
Nielsen
Mentions (203)
Mentions (80)
Vision Critical
GFK
BrainJuicer
Mentions (102)
Mentions (203) (142)
Mentions
Mentions (102)
Mentions (142)
Ipsos
Mentions (202)
Google
TNS
Mentions (126)
Ipsos (133)
Mentions
Google
Mentions (202)
Mentions (133)
Research Now
GRITReport.org
Nielsen
GFK
BrainJuicer
Mentions (400)
Visualization by
Brown
Mentions (80)
Mentions (72)
Research
Mentions (72)
TNS
Mentions (126)
InSites Consulting
Mentions (74)
InSites Consulting
Now
Mentions (74)
Winter 2014
5
8. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Methodology and Sample
GRIT respondents are recruited by email from lists of research
providers and clients contributed by GRIT partners and by
invitations delivered via social media channels. The sample
size for this latest wave was larger than for any previous
study (by almost 1000 completes). The global composition
of the sample was also broader than ever before, with much
more robust subsets from Europe and Latin America.
The percentage of completes by sample source:
GreenBook (direct email)
934
42%
Research & Results
328
15%
GreenBook Blog
167
7%
New MR
166
7%
International MR Society (LinkedIn)
109
5%
The Research Club
109
5%
NGMR (LinkedIn)
104
5%
Insight Innovation Forum (LinkedIn)
96
4%
MRIA
94
4%
MSU
42
2%
ANDA
24
1%
QRCA
22
1%
All Others
34
2%
2,229
100%
TOTAL
the sample size for this latest wave was larger than for
any previous study
While the more globally representative sample yielded many
benefits for this wave of GRIT, it also forced us to look at
ways to effectively compare results from the previous waves
of the study.
To enhance comparability of results between waves, data has
been weighted within each year to match the 2013/2014
distribution by geography and client/supplier status. Note
that statistical tests all employ Taylor series linearization to
address the weighting (i.e., the weighted sample size is not an
input into the computation of statistical significance).
The weighted sample size is referred to as the Population in
all tables and charts.
For this report, the analysis is based on 2,229 completed
interviews, although for some questions base sizes may be
higher or lower due to skip patterns, rotations, routing, and
other factors. The mix of respondents has varied over the 12
years of the study, but within fairly narrow bands. We hold
relatively steady at 80% of respondents being suppliers and
20% being clients, broadly consistent with the last several
waves of the study. That corresponds to 1,786 Suppliers and
443 Clients, sample sizes large enough to be meaningful
during analysis for both groups.
Despite the robust sample size, the GRIT Report is not meant
to be a census or representative sample (if such a feat is even
possible in our fragmented industry!), but rather a snapshot
of the widest swath of insights professionals we can achieve.
With that in mind, we consider it “strongly directional” and
recommend that you view it the same way.
The respondent revenue profile skews notably toward midrange and small firms at the expense of larger organizations
with annual revenue above $15M, although 18% of
Supplier-side respondents do identify themselves as working
for larger organizations. This is consistent with previous
waves of the study.
We hold relatively steady at 80% of respondents being
suppliers and 20% being clients
6
Winter 2014
GRITReport.org
9. What is the range of your company’s annual market research billings/
budget for primary market research (in USD)?
$15
,00
0,0
00
2013/14
e
or
rm
o
45%
2012/13
18%
s than
Les
With increased international participation, the percentage
of respondents from North America is 45%, the next
largest segment is Europe at 38%, Asia comprise 9%, Latin
America makes up 4%, and all other geographies combined
contributed less than 4% of the sample.
Due to the relatively small base sizes outside of North
America and Europe, we have opted not to show regional
breaks consistently other than where we think it ads
comparative value, although as always we encourage all
readers to make use of the interactive online GRIT dashboard
to conduct additional analysis.
44%
17%
$1,000,000
39%
0
,0
$1
0,
00
0
–$
14
,99
9,99
9
Where is your market research organization based or headquartered?
Column %
37%
2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
NET
North America
45%
51%
65%
51%
Europe
38%
29%
21%
32%
Asia and Oceania
9%
12%
8%
9%
South America
4%
2%
2%
3%
International or Missing
2%
4%
3%
3%
Middle East and Africa
2%
3%
1%
2%
NET
100%
100%
100%
100%
Column n
2,229
1,374
818
4,421
In-depth Interviews with Client-Side Researchers
As a new component of GRIT this year, Ron
Sellers of Grey Matter Research conducted a
series of in-depth interviews by telephone with
client-side researchers to explore their views on
vendor selection and adoption of new tools and
techniques. The participants included:
• Brian Cain, Merck
• Jill Capps, Gorton’s
• Sylvia Choe, Marriott
GRITReport.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tom Morder, Chick-fil-A
Kyle Nel, Lowe’s Home Improvement
Kelley Peters, Post Foods
Edwin Roman, ESPN
Stacey Symonds, Orbitz
Bill Tamulonis, Erickson Senior Living
Marc Philippe Witham, Schneider Electric
Dan Womack, Aflac
Five participants were interviewed about
research vendor marketing – how suppliers
market and promote their services, how clients
learn about new vendors, etc. The other six were
interviewed about “NextGen” insights techniques
ranging from mobile research to biometrics.
We’ve woven these in depth interviews into the
sections “The Drivers of Supplier Selection” and
“Adoption of New Research Methods” within the
report to add nuance and context to the overall
findings.
Winter 2014
7
10. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Basics: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Usage
Call it the “Revenge of Qual”! After quantitative research
methods outgrew qualitative methods in 2012, in 2013
respondents reported that qualitative techniques including
Online Communities and traditional qual saw slight or strong
growth year over year. In fact, Online Communities enjoyed
the strongest growth.
Subtracting respondents reporting decline from those reporting
growth revealed net growth of 30% for Online Communities
and 24% for Social Media Analytics. Despite the increasing
press attention Big Data received in 2013, it somewhat lagged
the other techniques, beating only Ethnography.
How has your use of any of these types of research changed?
Stable
57.9
Use change this year: % difference
Online Community
Online Community
6.3 1.5 4.8
27.7
8.1
35.8
Qual
53.7
12.4 .7
1
10.7
28.6
5.4 34
Social Media Analytics
62.4
6.7 1.5 5.2
10.7 0.8
24.8
6.1
30.9
9.9
25
5.3
5.7 1.2 4.5
9.9 2.3
30.3
19.6
Data Mining or “Big Data” Analytics
19.9
5.1 25
Ethnography
67.7
21.7
Quant
Data Mining or “Big Data” Analytics
69.3
24.3
Qual
Quant
59
29.5
Social Media Analytics
19.3
Ethnography
7.6
19.2
3.1 22.3
12.4
Base n = 2229
Serious decline
Strong decline
Serious growth
Strong growth
Base n = 2229
0
10
20
30
Use change this year: Client vs. Supplier
Online Community
The biggest disconnects between suppliers and clients
were in Online Communities and Social Media Analytics.
Suppliers reported net growth of 33% in Online Communities,
compared to 21% of clients. Clients, meanwhile, were
reaching outside traditional market research suppliers for
Social Media Analytics; 37% of clients reported net growth
in Social Media Analytics, compared to 26% of suppliers. This
same disparity is in evidence with Big Data, with a 27% vs.
18% disparity between Client and Supplier.
21.4
32.6
Social Media Analytics
37.1
26.4
Qual
21.1
24.5
Quant
24.8
22.8
Net growth across all categories except Big Data was highest
in South America. Big Data’s largest growth was in Asia and
Oceania.
Data Mining or “Big Data” Analytics
26.5
17.8
Ethnography
15.8
15.3
Suppliers reported net growth of 33% in Online
Communities, compared to 21% of clients
Client
Supplier
0
10
20
30
40
Base n = from 2330 to 2740; total n = 4421
8
Winter 2014
GRITReport.org
11. GRIT Commentary
Quality and Innovation for Long Term Success
For many years research suppliers have been adapting and
modifying solutions to meet client information, budgetary and
deliverable expectations. Today we call our efforts to apply
“better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated
needs, or existing market needs” innovation (REF: Wikipedia
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/innovation). The innovation
occurring today is exciting and presents new alternatives to
both active and passive data collection techniques. With being
innovative comes a responsibility to pay close attention to
the quality of the research being conducted and integration
of different methods of data collection to communicate the
complete story. An innovative solution, stretching the limits
of technology, is of little value if the information gathered
and reported are not sufficient quality to facilitate strategic
decision making. Focus must be placed on how the innovative
tool/technology is enabling high quality data collection to
occur in the most effective manner.
Beth Surowiec
Executive Director, Clear Seas Research
Email:
LinkedIn:
Website:
surowiecb@clearseasresearch.com
www.linkedin.com/pub/beth-surowiec/b/353/7b9/
www.clearseasresearch.com
using the appropriate data collection technology. Active
data
collection techniques present huge opportunities for
unique insight if the information is closely monitored
and results validated to ensure the data used for analysis
accurately represents the view of the target audience.
Unqualified participants, straight liners, or those providing
illogical or inconsistent responses must be removed from
the final data set.
5. Communicating the findings. All research starts with the
question “What decision(s) do I have to make?” Successful
active and passive data collection techniques must
address this most basic question. Once the methodology
is developed, the fieldwork is conducted and the data
is analyzed, the information must be reported in a
straightforward, easy to understand manner that is
immediately usable to strategic decision makers. Results
today may need to be provided using more interactive
methods including video and/or interactive apps or
social interactive CRM tools (like Salesforce Chatter). It is
important to consider the end users of the research and
provide the most appropriate tools for them to access
and interpret the information for strategic decision
making. Tools using the most up-to-date communication
technologies may lack appeal or be under-utilized by
individuals that are not comfortable with technology.
data collection methods must address the research
objectives with questions designed to achieve an unbiased
response regardless of data collection method. Passive
data collection needs to consider the context of the
feedback collected as well as the frequency of similar
experiences from the target audience.
While data quality and customer relationship management
will likely always be important in supplier selection, a research
supplier’s ability to be and remain innovative by keeping up
with changing technology will ultimately differentiate them
from competitors.
Focus must be placed on how the
innovative technology enables high quality
data collection
As research suppliers we need to continually focus on:
1. Seeking out new data collection technologies. As digital
communication methods continue to evolve, the research
supplier community must continually adapt to new ways
of capturing respondent feedback.
2. Being mindful of target audience identification and access.
When capturing respondent experiences in passive and
active ways we must be sure to correctly identify the
individual providing feedback and determine if they are
the target audience or part of the general population.
3. Posing the right questions for the research objectives &
GRITReport.org
4. Ensuring data quality and integrity. Innovative
Winter 2014
9
12. Qualitative Research
While many Focus Group facilities are expanding their
support for other activities, including mock trials and product
testing, researchers still value this technique more than any
other qualitative approach, with 59% of respondents using
the technique in 2013, virtually unchanged from the year
before. Likewise, IDIs (In Depth Interviews) still maintain their
strong appeal.
The proportion of overall projects using a particular
qualitative technique is directly proportional to the percent
of respondents using that technique (correlation coefficient
of 0.962). The top 8 most widely used techniques are also
the top 8 techniques as a proportion of projects, in the exact
same order. (Please keep in mind that these proportions are
a respondent average not an industry average; a respondent
who conducted 100 qualitative projects was not weighted
differently than a respondent who conducted 10 projects.)
No emergent qualitative technique dramatically increased in
2013. However, Chat (text-based) Online Focus Groups fell from
25% usage last year to 10% usage this year (arguably that was
over reporting in 2012 rather than any significant shift).
No emergent qualitative technique dramatically
increased in 2013
Types of qualitative research used: 2012/13 vs. 2013/14
How often have you used these qualitative methods this
year?
Traditional (In Person) Focus Groups
Traditional (In Person)
Focus Groups
59%
60%
Traditional (In Person)
IDIs
46%
45%
Telephone IDIs
30%
34%
Interviews/Groups Using Online Communities
21%
21%
In-Store/Shopping Observations
Interviews/Groups Using
Online Communities
32.4
Traditional (In Person) IDIs
17.8
Telephone IDIs
10.2
7.8
6.2
Bulletin Board Studies
In-Store/Shopping
Observations
20%
24%
Mobile (diaries, image collection, etc…)
Bulletin Board Studies
19%
21%
Online Focus Groups with webcams
Mobile (diaries, image
collection, etc…)
19%
17%
Online Focus Groups with
webcams
14%
15%
I haven’t used any qual
techniques
5
4.2
3.2
Other
3
Chat (text-based) Online Focus Groups
2.9
Monitoring Blogs
2.2
13%
Online IDIs with webcams
Monitoring Blogs
11%
2
12%
Chat (text-based) Online
Focus Groups
Online IDIs with
webcams
Telephone Focus Groups
1.8
10%
Chat (text-based) Online IDIs
25%
1.4
10%
Base n = 626
11%
Other
5%
9%
Chat (text-based) Online
IDIs
3%
11%
2013/14
2012/13
0
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
In-Store/Shopping Observations made up twice the
proportion of qualitative projects in South America and the
Middle East/Africa (~12%) as they did in North America,
Europe, and Asia/Oceania (~6%). Focus Groups and In-Person
IDIs were the number 1 and number 2 techniques regardless
of region.
7%
Telephone Focus Groups
0
50
60
Base n = from 2229 to 3600; total n = 4421
10
Winter 2014
GRITReport.org
13. GRIT Commentary
Research Is Now a Global Village
In 1858, Queen Victoria sent a telegram via the Atlantic
Cable to United States President James Buchanan. The
transmission took 16� hours. Without the cable, such a
dispatch in one direction alone would have taken twelve
days. This was the birth of the death of global distance.
Today, technology enables marketing researchers to envision
almost any scenario for conducting research around
the world in real time or asynchronous time, without
researchers, clients, or respondents ever having to leave
their offices or homes. Online bulletin boards, web room
technology, and mobile applications are changing the
structure of how research is conducted.
For example, for an interview project that might encompass
75 financial directors in 25 countries, reporting on experience
with a new software modelling tool, those interviews are
done in real time via telephone and web room technology.
Research with a specialist physician group evaluating
proposed packaging and advertising would almost certainly
be done using telephone, web rooms, and webcams. The
same technology allows researchers to meet in real time with
homebound patients who can visually share their experience
with medical hardware by panning the webcam our using a
mobile device to show how they are using medical equipment
in their personal environment. For a study on smoking habits,
smokers can record their struggles to quit using audio diaries
that are transcribed and posted on a bulletin board for
researcher review.
A global food chain can easily deploy 1,000 respondents in
multiple countries simultaneously, to audio record impressions
in their native languages, which are then translated and
posted in an online bulletin board for researcher analysis.
Difficult to reach respondents in the Middle East can
participate in research via online chat rooms anonymously to
protect their identities. Respondents can create visual diaries
that record the inside of medicine cabinets, drawers, closets,
how a laundry product is poured into a washing machine, or
how they are using a power tool – all now possible through
two-way mobile ethnography. These technologies open the
door for a more collaborative process with respondents, with
more researchers and clients able to participate in a real time
interview or focus group experience.
GRITReport.org
Rebecca West
Innovative Technology Solutions
Marketing Research Support Worldwide
Vice President, Marketing Research Services, Civicom, Inc.
Email:
LinkedIn:
Twitter:
Website:
rebecca.west@civi.com
www.linkedin.com/pub/rebecca-west/9/499/11b
civicom
www.civi.com/marketingresearch
Creative thinkers are able to figure out ways to adapt almost
anything to an online focus group experience – even group
brainstorming sessions using online flip charts, whiteboards, and
multiple breakout rooms. In short, almost any project, locally
or globally, can now be done exclusively with communications
technology. In short, with the right support system in place for
conducting research, location doesn’t really matter anymore.
Research is now a global village. The broader trends are all in
this direction, as researchers adapt to consumer and business
lifestyles that embrace online as the only way of life. As
Millennials mature into managerial roles, these trends will only
gain even further traction.
With the right support system in place for conducting research,
location doesn’t really matter anymore
Visual collaboration solutions now closely replicate the
brain’s innate preferences for interpersonal communications.
Researchers understand that leveraging online tools is
an essential component in building a franchise in the
global marketing research economy. As with any structure
for conducting market research, embracing the global
possibilities of research using communications technology
requires reliance on experts and technicians that understand
the multiple issues of bandwidth, mobile providers, satellite
technology, audio networks, time zones, individual country
requirements, privacy and security issues, and who can
work in multiple languages simultaneously. Marketing
researchers, already being continuously interested in how
people think, can leave the technical details in the hands of
communications technology experts while they concentrate
on content and insights.
Winter 2014
11
14. Quantitative Research
Mobile Surveys
increased by 4%,
reaching 27% usage
in 2013
Online Surveys continued their growth, rising from 78% of
respondents using Online Surveys in the prior year to 82% in
2013. Mobile Surveys showed also increased by 4%, reaching
27% usage in 2013. Both techniques are cannibalizing CATI
(Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing), Face-to-Face
interviews, CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing),
and Mail Surveys. Biometrics and Neuromarketing, despite
the attention received by industry thought leaders, were only
used by 5% of respondents.
Similarly to qualitative methods, the proportion of overall
projects using a particular technique is directly proportional
to the percent of respondents using that technique
(correlation coefficient of 0.958). Online and Mobile Surveys
make up nearly half (49%) of all quantitative projects
worldwide, representing 61% of projects in North America
but only 28% of projects in South America and 23% in the
Middle East and Africa.
Types of quantitative research used: 2012/13 vs. 2013/14
How often have you used these quantative
methods this year?
Online Surveys
Online Surveys
82%
44.4
78%
CATI
11.8
CATI
41%
Face-to-Face
45%
9.6
Face-to-Face
CAPI
30%
5.4
39%
Mobile Surveys
4.6
Mobile Surveys
27%
Other
23%
1.9
CAPI
Mail
22%
1.8
25%
Biometrics/Neuromarketing
0.9
Mail
11%
Automated Measures/People Meters
16%
0.8
I haven’t used any quant techniques
IVR
7%
0.4
Biometrics/Neuromarketing
Base n = 626
5%
4%
0
10
20
30
40
50
For clients, Online Surveys represent 52% of their projects
compared to 43% of suppliers’ projects, reflecting the ease
of bringing such research in house with the range of EFM
(Enterprise Feedback Management) systems available today.
Other
5%
Automated Measures/People Meters
4%
5%
2013/14
IVR
2012/13
4%
7%
Base n = from 2229 to 3600; total n = 4421
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
For clients, Online Surveys represent 52% of their
projects compared to 43% of suppliers’ projects
12
Winter 2014
GRITReport.org
15. “Intelligence: Not because you think
you know everything, but rather because you
question everything you think you know.”
-Anonymous
Gongos is changing the
conversation from market
research to decision intelligence,
challenging conventional wisdom
to find what lies beyond.
INFORM.
INNOVATE.
INSPIRE.
Gongos Research
O2 Integrated
+1.248.239.2300 | gongos.com
16. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Drivers Of Supplier Selection
Supplier selection importance to clients: Supplier Viewpoint
Listens well and understands
client needs
92%
94%
93%
Good relationship with client/
supplier
92%
92%
93%
Has knowledgeable staff
90%
91%
89%
Familiarity with client needs
89%
92%
91%
Completes research in an agreedupon time
88%
90%
89%
High quality analysis
87%
84%
79%
Previous experience with client/
supplier
84%
85%
92%
Rapid response to requests
84%
89%
88%
Good reputation in the industry
84%
83%
84%
Familiarity with the industry or
category
81%
82%
82%
Flexibility on changing project
parameters
78%
74%
76%
Provides highest data quality
74%
74%
72%
Breadth of experience in the
target segment
74%
79%
75%
Consultation on best practices
and methodology effectiveness
73%
74%
67%
Length of experience/time in
business
62%
61%
62%
Understands new consumer
communication channels &
technologies
61%
61%
52%
Provides data analysis services
60%
66%
64%
Offers unique methodology or
approach
55%
53%
48%
Uses sophisticated research
technology/strategies
55%
52%
46%
Company is financially stable
48%
49%
43%
Uses the latest data collection
technology
43%
42%
39%
Uses the latest statistical/
analytical packages
33%
31%
27%
2013/14
Lowest price
48%
56%
56%
2011/12
Base n = from 2172 to 2246; total n = 3603
14
Winter 2014
We asked survey respondents to indicate what was important
to clients when they were selecting suppliers for their
market research needs. For clients, this was a straightforward
exercise, as they simply indicated what they felt was
important. For suppliers, the exercise required that they
estimate the importance ratings that their client counterparts
would give.
The chart on this page shows the results from the research
supplier perspective, for the 2012 and 2013 GRIT Reports. The
bars reflect top two-box percentages (out of five), and they
are ordered from highest to lowest by 2013 numbers.
We see that, once again, research suppliers anticipate that
their clients value service and relationship aspects in the
marketplace. Listening, understanding client needs and
building good relationships are at the top of the ratings,
with upwards of 90% giving ratings in the top two-box
range. These results have been remarkably consistent since
the inception of GRIT. It is also informative to look at the
ratings that have, in fact, changed. For example, “High
quality analysis” has increased in importance from year to
year, perhaps reflecting the emergence of Big Data as a focal
point in the industry. Conversely, we see a trend of declining
importance for “Previous experience with client/supplier.”
This suggests that suppliers believe clients are becoming
more open to working with new suppliers, looking for novel
approaches to get meaningful insights. That interpretation
is certainly supported by the fact that a similar attribute,
“Offers unique methodology or approach”, has trended up in
this same time period.
We see the same attribute importance ratings from the
perspective of clients, and it is clear that the consistency across
the years with suppliers is not as strong as it is with clients.
we see a trend of declining importance for “Previous
experience with client/supplier”
2012/13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRITReport.org
17. “High quality analysis” rose from 76% top-box to 88%,
reflecting a renewed focus on analytic quality
Supplier selection importance to clients: Client Viewpoint
Listens well and understands
client needs
93%
89%
96%
Good relationship with client/
supplier
85%
85%
89%
Has knowledgeable staff
91%
90%
92%
Familiarity with client needs
81%
77%
82%
Completes research in an agreedupon time
83%
86%
90%
High quality analysis
88%
76%
84%
Previous experience with client/
supplier
67%
79%
74%
Rapid response to requests
83%
86%
85%
Good reputation in the industry
73%
82%
75%
It is also interesting to compare ratings from the perspectives
of suppliers and clients, that is, looking across the previous
charts. What are the areas in which suppliers’ perceptions
of what their clients want is different from what the clients
actually say?
Familiarity with the industry or
category
79%
80%
79%
Flexibility on changing project
parameters
73%
70%
81%
Provides highest data quality
84%
86%
90%
First, we should note that, by and large, suppliers have a
very good sense of their clients’ needs. The same attributes
tend to float to the top or bottom of both. There are notable
differences, however. The chart on the following page
shows attribute ratings that differ by 5% or more between
supplier and client respondents. The top portion includes
those attributes for which suppliers overestimated client
preferences, and the lower portion those attributes where
suppliers underestimated client preferences.
Breadth of experience in the
target segment
74%
65%
73%
Consultation on best practices
and methodology effectiveness
76%
76%
70%
Length of experience/time in
business
59%
58%
59%
Understands new consumer
communication channels &
technologies
65%
69%
57%
Provides data analysis services
59%
63%
67%
Offers unique methodology or
approach
52%
52%
45%
Uses sophisticated research
technology/strategies
50%
57%
52%
Company is financially stable
49%
55%
56%
Uses the latest data collection
technology
51%
53%
46%
Uses the latest analytical
packages
43%
36%
41%
2013/14
Lowest price
34%
35%
32%
2011/12
From the client perspective, several attributes sizeably shifted
this year. “High quality analysis” rose from 76% top-box in
previous waves to 88% in the latest, reflecting a renewed
focus on analytic quality. New and emerging statistical
modelling techniques, and algorithms for managing the
burgeoning volume of Big Data may be driving this trend.
And, as we observed with the supplier data, clients also placed
lower emphasis on “Previous experience with client/supplier.”
Clients and suppliers alike are noticing the shift here.
One trend, while not statistically significant, is nonetheless
intriguing. Clients indicated a continued erosion in the
demand for on-time delivery from their research suppliers. It
may be that deadlines have been shortened to the point that
over-runs are becoming more commonplace out of necessity.
Or alternately, it may simply be considered table stakes and is
no longer a primary driver of differentiation.
Base n = from 498 to 542; total n = 818
GRITReport.org
2012/13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Winter 2014
100
15
18. Two disparities are particularly noteworthy. First, we see
that suppliers felt clients would give higher ratings than
the suppliers actually provided to “Previous experience with
client/supplier.” Earlier in the report, we noted that both
groups acknowledged a decline in this attribute, but it is
apparent that suppliers did not anticipate the magnitude of
this decline. The message is clear.
Suppliers overstate the importance of “Lowest price”
among their client populations
Good relationship with client/supplier
92%
85%
Familiarity with client needs
The second disparity is one that appears consistently in GRIT
Reports. Suppliers overstate the importance of “Lowest price”
among their client populations. There are several possible
explanations for this disparity. Price may not be particularly
important in getting on the “short list,” but more crucial in
final selection and therefore more salient to suppliers. Suppliers
have to engage with Procurement in the RFP process, and
these agents may be much more focused on price. Or it could
simply be that clients are more likely to report that price is a
determinant, just to avoid having to inform a candidate that
their firm’s offering was of inferior quality.
89%
81%
Completes research in an agreed-upon time
88%
83%
Previous experience with client/supplier
84%
67%
Good reputation in the industry
84%
73%
Flexibility on changing project parameters
It is also interesting to note that the two areas in which
suppliers underestimated the importance that clients
gave: data quality and statistical analytics. In fact, data
quality ranked fifth among the 23 attributes for clients,
but suppliers perceived it only as 13th in their list. Given the
proliferation of new data sources in today’s market research
environment (website analytics, social media data, global
positioning information), savvy researchers will be alert to
the needs for careful vetting of the information they are
using to drive insights.
78%
73%
Uses sophisticated research technology/strategies
55%
50%
Lowest price
48%
34%
Provides highest data quality
74%
84%
Uses the latest statistical/analytical packages
33%
43%
Supplier
Client
0
16
Winter 2014
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRITReport.org
19. GRIT Commentary
Supplier: Time, Cost and Quality…Pick any Two
Client: I need all three.
Matt Warta
CEO, GutCheck
Email:
LinkedIn:
Twitter:
Website:
“More insights in less time with less money.”
How often has this request (or mandate) been delivered to you,
either explicitly or implicitly? The answer is it has probably
become more common over the last few years. When GutCheck
was started in 2010, it wasn’t uncommon for market research
providers to pan the idea of delivering insights in quicker
timeframes. Clients don’t mind waiting a few weeks for the
answer was a refrain we heard often. Well, that has changed
dramatically in just the last couple of years. And not only do
clients want information quicker, they want it for less and with
good quality. Whether you are a big established brand or an
emerging scrappy competitor, winning in today’s market hinges
on your ability to innovate and differentiate faster and more
efficiently than the competition.
This year’s GRIT report shows abundant and growing evidence
of this reality. For instance:
GRIT respondents were asked to rank the importance of eight
key criteria in selecting methodologies.
• Timeliness of Results ranked #3
• Cost came next at #4
• Most interesting is that time and cost significantly closed
the gap on the top two criteria of Data Quality and
Effectiveness / Impact.
Corporations must be faster, more innovative, and
differentiated than their competitors in order to win in the
marketplace. Keen, timely customer insights lie at the heart
of a company’s ability to meet this competitive pressure.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Procter & Gamble’s
move to bring back A.J. Lafley as their CEO. Lafley gained a
reputation for pushing innovation at P&G, telling employees
to get their ideas directly from consumers. In a nod to GRIT’s
findings above, he kept in place a move by his predecessor,
Bob McDonald, that brought together teams of marketers,
researchers, and executives so they could move together more
quickly in their attempt to bring blockbuster new products to
the market.
GRITReport.org
matt@gutcheckit.com
linkedin.com/company/gutcheck
gutcheckit
www.gutcheckit.com
To remain relevant, consumer insights teams must become more
nimble and cost-efficient
To remain relevant in this type of environment, consumer
insights teams must become much more nimble and costefficient: in short, they need to become agile. Becoming more
agile is one reason why online research communities have grown
so much over the last few years. This year’s GRIT report shows
online communities continuing to be the #1 fastest growing
methodology overall because they provide insights significantly
faster and in a more flexible way than traditional methodologies.
Online community platforms continue to innovate and in some
cases have shrunk timelines to days and driven down costs to
new levels. These new solutions now allow researchers to “turn
on a dime.”
Leveraging agile practices and methodologies like online research
communities to drive immediacy and intimacy is potentially
transformative for research departments. Alice Fawver, Director
of Global Insights for Logitech and recent adopter of agile
techniques, recently commented that her group “has moved from
big, expensive and late to flexible, inventive and responsive. And
we can do more research for the same budget.” Agile is enabling
Logitech to do more research for the same budget and in less
time, and arrive at a better result.
So, the next time you need an answer, be Agile and pick all three.
Winter 2014
17
20. Understanding Client Views on Supplier Selection
Ron Sellers of Grey Matter Research conducted a series of five
in-depth interviews by telephone with client-side researchers
to explore their views on supplier selection.
for clients, the
preferred way of
finding out about
new vendors is
word of mouth
personal
relationships are
critical for most
clients
There is very
little feeling that
research vendors
have differentiated
brands
18
Winter 2014
Although obviously there is no quantitative projectability
involved, it is still interesting to note how much agreement
there was. Participants report being inundated by vendor
marketing, promotional and sales attempts. Unsolicited email
is the most common, followed by phone calls. However, for
clients, the preferred way of finding out about new vendors is
word of mouth.
• “Everybody says they do great work. I’ll listen to somebody
whose opinion I trust, so it’s mostly word of mouth.”
• “I’d say past knowledge and experience would be the
number one way.”
The second way that clients learn about new vendors is at
conferences, particularly if the vendor is actually presenting.
At the same time, some clients did note that conferences
could be frustrating, because so many vendors target them
during that short time.
• “People that we see at a conference or a seminar. That’s
how we ended up with our online software vendor. I had
known a little bit about them in the past, but I went to a
conference or workshop on online research, and they were
there giving the presentation. ”
• “I think it’s finding the right events and probably finding
the right ways (to approach people). Because the thing
that I find terribly frustrating at conferences is people
just out of the blue showing up, or literally bugging you
to death when you have that two or three days out of
the office that you rarely get to do something other than
work for a few minutes.”
Networking and personal relationships are critical for most of
these clients.
• “I’ll be honest; the [people] that I generally meet and wind
up doing business with are the ones who aren’t trying to
sell anything. They are doing something to give back to
the industry or contribute to the work we do as a whole.
And I get to know them through that, and over time I
get to know their business, and we find a way to work
together.”
• “I would emphasize the social media aspect of it. If I have
seen a good comment (on LinkedIn), I have contacted the
person. That was an element in choosing somebody for an
Ethnography study that we just completed.”
• “It’s hard to differentiate between vendors. I think that’s
why, at least for me, it comes down to the personal
connection. If I am at a seminar and sitting at a table with
somebody , in my mind, that’s going to give them a plus
over someone else I don’t know. Meet me in person.”
• “Get to know me first and worry about the sale after that.”
Clients reported that the is the people behind a company or a
methodology are key.
• “I’m convinced that the individuals behind are the most
critical part.”
There is very little feeling that research vendors have
differentiated brands. Some clients tended to differentiate a
few vendors by size or by methodology or specialty, but the
brands themselves generally had little real meaning to clients.
This is particularly true with services such as qualitative
recruiters, field centers, and other established methods
where there’s not much that’s revolutionary in terms of the
approach offered – clients really couldn’t name many brands
that stand out to them in any way or have any equity.
• “If I were to think of a good brand of automobiles, I
can immediately think of a Mercedes. When it comes to
market research vendors, no, I don’t think there are really
strong brands out there. ”
• “Very undifferentiated. It always surprises me, given the
work that we all do – you would think that we would
understand [brand differentiation] as well or better than
anybody. ”
• “I’d say by and large it leans more toward the commodity
market.”
The perception that research brands are largely undifferentiated
goes hand-in-hand with the perception that research vendors
too often see potential clients as undifferentiated. These clients
complained strongly about how many times vendors approach
them in an entirely impersonal way, knowing nothing about
them or their needs (and yet still promising to solve whatever
those needs may be).
• “They don’t even know if I’m sales or marketing or market
research. ”
• “[Their biggest mistake is] not asking me what I’m looking
for first. They start talking about what they do and what
they offer without knowing what is on my plate or what’s
keeping me up at night first.”
• “Understand what my needs are a little bit better instead
of one size fits all. The target group is all heads or VPs of
insights, but we may not all have the same needs.”
Similarly, clients reported strongly feeling that too many
vendors don’t treat them as people, but as potential accounts.
In short, there was a pervasive sense that too much vendor
marketing focuses squarely on solving the needs of the
vendor (for more sales), rather than caring at all about
actually learning and solving the needs of the client.
GRITReport.org
21. • “If on the rare occasion I am able to answer a call or get
on the phone with someone, and then I learn that they
are only trying to set up an appointment for me with
someone else, because they don’t know crap about this
industry, that is incredibly frustrating.”
• “It’s very generic. They don’t really mention any specifics,
a specific need or a specific project. It’s just very general.
You can tell they’re just kind of fishing. ”
• “I am talked to as though my needs are the same as
everybody else’s. And it’s all about the vendor and not
about me. Get to know me. If you’re in the market
research and insights industry, isn’t that your job? Isn’t
that what you’re helping us do? So why aren’t you doing
it yourself?”
• “Just try to be a normal person. Forget you’re trying to sell
me something. Use normal interpersonal skills to keep the
relationship open. Don’t come to me and say, ‘What’s the
next project for us?’ Treat me as a person as opposed to
the next client that they can check off.”
An extension of this problem is when vendors try to
circumvent the research department and reach out to other
people in the company, or just blanket as many people as
they can in the company. This really leaves a bad taste in
clients’ mouths.
• “We’ve had a few potential suppliers become nonpotential suppliers when they didn’t reach the insights
team and they started branching out to every other part
of the organization. That only generates more phone calls
for me, because people internally will forward stuff or call
me, and we don’t want a lot of research going on outside
the insights team. And here a company is trying to sell
just that.”
• “It does not do a research company any good to blanket
our corporate e-mail system with cold e-mails! In our
organization, people will forward those to me, and then I
get to chuckle at the duplicated ‘personal touch.’ It tends
to give me a feeling of the kind of attention my project
might get.”
There were also complaints about vendors that promise to
do everything. Specializing in everything usually creates the
impression that the vendor really specializes in nothing.
• “Pick a niche and just become known as a specialist or
an expert in a particular industry or market segment or
methodology. I guess those might be the three ways you
could differentiate yourself.”
• “[The most overdone message] for me it’s that they’ll do
anything and everything, it’ll be a top-quality job, and
they haven’t asked me what kind of work I might need. ”
GRITReport.org
These clients also largely dismissed vendor advertising as
bland, undifferentiated, and ineffective.
• “I don’t think much of it. In maybe ten years of looking
at Quirk’s and other ones, I can remember one ad that I
really liked.”
• “It’s not very effective. They all usually have a picture of a
person that’s either the company president or supposed to
be like a respondent’ that kind of thing. ”
The balance between vendors managing to keep their name
in front of potential clients and becoming an annoyance is
delicate. These clients acknowledged that unless a vendor
stays in their view, they’ll forget about that vendor, so they
recommended persistence. At the same time, they didn’t want
to be constantly bothered. A substantial distinction between
“staying in touch” and “annoying me” is whether even a
modicum of a relationship exists. If the client has even a
slight personal connection to the vendor, “staying in touch”
can actually mean “staying in touch.” If the client is being
treated as the next number the vendor is calling, “staying in
touch” can quickly fall over the edge into “annoying me.”
• “If I have a relationship with them or I know them, of
course I’m going to respond to them.”
too much vendor
marketing focuses
squarely on solving
the needs of the
vendor
clients also largely
dismissed vendor
advertising
as bland, and
ineffective
content marketing
has value for clients
In terms of contacting potential clients with something of
value rather than just a sales call, content marketing also has
value for these clients.
• “Send me a little something every once in a while with
an interesting article you’ve read or an interesting white
paper you’ve written. Send me a story like that that sticks
in my mind or gives me something to remember you by.”
• “[Content marketing] gives them a lot of credibility.
It gives me a sense of expertise, particularly when I’m
thinking about whitepapers. I like blog posts because
that shows me they’re active in the dialogue of what’s
happening out there.”
• “The next best thing [to conferences] would be if they
publish things in industry publications. If they’re sort of
out there as experts, then that sticks with me as well.”
In short, these clients roundly criticized many of the attempts
at vendor sales, marketing, and branding as undifferentiated,
impersonal, and focused on what the vendor is selling rather
than on what the client may need. Some marketing messages
might get through, but primarily when fortune dictates that
the message comes at a time when they just happen to need
that service. The personal touch is critical, through highvisibility activities such as participating in industry functions,
presenting at conferences, or being part of the social media
conversation, but also through the simple act of treating
the potential client as a human being rather than the next
potential sale. In an industry of relationships, clients want to
buy from and work with people rather than just companies.
Winter 2014
19
22. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How Do Research Pros Get Information?
Staying abreast of developments: Client vs. Supplier
At GreenBook we are always curious about the channels that
market researchers find to be most effective for information
access. To that end, we asked two questions related to
information sources: one regarding the channels used to stay
abreast of changes in the industry, and a follow-up related to
what is most important in their selection of industry events.
Seminars, Conferences or Tradeshows
66%
61%
Webinars or Virtual Events
60%
59%
Consistent with previous GRIT waves, conferences &
tradeshows, webinars, and online information portals remain
the most popular among suppliers and clients, with conferences
being somewhat more popular with clients.
Industry Websites
55%
55%
Technology Websites or Publications
49%
On the supplier side, technology-specific websites and business
networking platforms like LinkedIn are popular, most likely due
to the supplier imperative to keep abreast of innovation and
make connections with colleagues and prospects.
54%
Business Networking Communities like LinkedIn
45%
52%
White Papers
Interestingly, less than one third of GRIT respondents
consider blog subscriptions, more general social networking
sites or Twitter to be important, perhaps reflecting the time
commitment necessary to fully utilize them or the “information
overload” aspect of the stream of information coming in at all
times via those channels. More curated content approaches
seem to have wider acceptance as means of delivering focused
content relevant to market research professionals.
51%
48%
Trade Organization Events
47%
45%
Blogs
39%
40%
Industry Print Journals
There were significant differences when we compared this wave
of data with previous waves, although these differences could
be artefacts of sample changes rather than growing awareness
of, or engagement with, different information channels.
42%
39%
E-mail delivery of Blog Subscriptions
30%
33%
Social Networking Sites like Facebook & Google+
24%
28%
Twitter
19%
22%
Client
Supplier
Base n = 2229
0
20
Winter 2014
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
GRITReport.org
24. Considering the consistent importance GRIT respondents
give to events, we asked a new question in this year’s edition
of GRIT about what they consider most important when
selecting events to attend. Content proves to be king for
event selection, with the agenda’s relevance to the business,
exploration of “cutting edge” topics, and overall quality of
speakers being most important attributes.
Content proves to
be king for event
selection
In what may be surprising for many event producers, cost,
location and brand of the producing entity were not major
drivers of consideration. Perhaps we will see fewer events in
major tourist destinations and a greater focus on delivering
impactful content as the lure for events.
Both clients and suppliers were aligned across all attributes,
with one exception – opportunities to network with peers are
much more important to suppliers.
Staying abreast of developments: Top 2
What is most important to you in selecting the events you
participate in?
Seminars, Conferences or Tradeshows
Focuses on issues important to my business
62%
63%
59%
44%
Webinars or Virtual Events
Explores “cutting edge” topics
59%
49%
51%
43%
Industry Websites
Quality of speakers
55%
51%
47%
47%
Technology Websites or Publications
Networking opportunities with peers
53%
29%
40%
40%
Business Networking Communities like LinkedIn
Cost
51%
49%
33%
35%
White Papers
Interest in speakers
49%
22%
22%
35%
Trade Organization Events
Location
45%
19%
21%
32%
Blogs
Organization producing the event
40%
11%
29%
7%
Industry Print Journals
Supplier or partner vetting
40%
4%
6%
30%
E-mail delivery of Blog Subscriptions
Possibility of educational credits
32%
33%
4%
3%
Social Networking Sites like Facebook & Google+
Client
Other option
27%
Supplier
2%
1%
18%
Twitter
2013/14
21%
Base n = 2229
2012/13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
16%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Base n = from 3348 to 3387; total n = 4421
22
Winter 2014
GRITReport.org
25.
26. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Drivers of Change in the Industry
What steps is your organization taking to address these issues? Client vs. Supplier
Exploring new methodologies
56%
56%
Clients and suppliers cite similar issues as drivers of change;
however, the focus of those drivers highlights a fundamental
difference in the mindset that exists between client and
supply side researchers.
Exploring new technologies
41%
52%
Doing more with same resources
Supplier side researchers reported being highly invested in
new technologies in 2013 (52%), while client researchers
(41%) actually are less focused on technology, although
interest in new methodologies (56%) was very similar among
both groups. Given that budgetary constraints, increased
mobile usage, and reduced outsourcing impacted insights
delivery and workloads, it’s not surprising that client
researchers are more focused on newer methodologies than
new technologies, which often require both a proof of
concept and internal testing in order to gain acceptance.
The concept of doing more with the same resources (38%)
resonated strongly among client researchers.
38%
33%
Exploring new sample resources
26%
30%
Investing in more in-house technology
24%
30%
Spending/charging less for the same services
13%
19%
Close partnering with quality access panels
16%
19%
Client demand for innovation was reported to be lower
in 2013 than in 2012 (21%) while supplier interest rose in
2013 to 27%. As the chart on the next page indicates, client
researchers are very consistent in their needs while suppliers
tend to underestimate the impact of internal workloads and
financial pressures, while overestimating external factors and
the impact of new research technology.
Working longer hours with less staff
18%
17%
Negotiating discounts or shorter timelines with vendors
19%
15%
Changing ratio of insourcing vs. outsourcing of research functions
In established markets, clients and suppliers alike noted that
budgetary issues are critically affecting data collection. While
mobile communication (14%) was cited most often as a
primary driver of change, client budgets (13%) and budgetary
restraints (12%) collectively comprise 25% of the mentions
noted as influential in the choice of data collection methods.
20%
12%
Opening direct channels of communications with customers
17%
12%
More diligent validation
10%
12%
Asking for sacrifices from vendors
client researchers are more focused on newer
methodologies than new technologies
14%
10%
Asking for sacrifices from employees
10%
10%
Recommending higher respondent incentives
8%
10%
Client
Supplier
Other
Base n = 2188; total n = 2229
6%
5%
10
24
Winter 2014
20
30
40
50
60
GRITReport.org
27. Issue prompting major changes in data collection:
Client vs. Supplier
Issue prompting major changes in data collection
Client budgetary constraints
Increased use of mobile communications
28%
31%
14%
Client budgetary constraints
13%
Increased use of non-traditional techniques and technologies
22%
Budgetary constraints
30%
12%
Budgetary constraints
Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones
31%
9%
26%
Client demands for innovation
8%
Client demands for innovation
21%
Quality of sample
27%
8%
Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones
The economy, business growth/slowdown
20%
6%
27%
Desire for a more collaborative process with respondents
6%
The economy, business growth/slowdown
20%
Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors
25%
4%
Desire for a more collaborative process with respondents
Changes in response rates
15%
4%
20%
Availability of US sample
4%
Quality of sample
15%
17%
Availability of non-US sample
3%
Increased reliance of alternative data sources
Other issues
17%
16%
3%
Changes in sample costs
3%
Changes in response rates
12%
15%
Changes in staffing or layoffs
2%
Changes in sample costs
Changes in salaries/wages/costs
13%
15%
1%
Availability of US sample
0%
More insourcing of research process
25%
Availability of non-US sample
14%
0%
Desire to avoid limitations of self-reported attitudes/behaviors
13%
14%
Increased use of mobile communications
0%
Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors
0%
Changes in staffing or layoffs
14%
13%
0
5
10
15
Base n = 2188; total n = 2229
Changes in salaries/wages/costs
10%
10%
Client
Supplier
Other issues
Base n = from 2229 to
6%
4%
2631; total n = 4421
0
GRITReport.org
10
20
30
In emerging markets (primarily South America and the Middle
East/Africa), mobile technologies clearly played a significant
role in the expansion of data collection and were the primary
drivers of growth. While budgets played a significant role in data
collection in these markets, the impact was more likely associated
with an expansion of services (new allocation dollars) rather than
contraction of existing budget allocations.
Winter 2014
25
28. In more established regions, clients and suppliers alike
realize that shifts toward more customer centric marketing
and declines in response rates are driving a need for
more interactive platforms. While there are many reasons
associated with these shifts, clients and researchers agree
(56% respectively) that new methodologies are needed.
However, there is a strong divergence among the clients
(41%) and suppliers (52%) on the need for new technology.
Clients (17%) are also emphasizing a more direct relationship
with customers while only twelve percent (12%) of suppliers
see this as a priority.
In established markets, clients and suppliers alike
noted that budgetary issues are critically affecting data
collection
Issue prompting major changes in data collection: Geographic Location
North America
Europe
Asia and
Oceania
South America
International or Middle East and
Missing
Africa
Increased use of mobile communications
13%
13%
14%
22%
12%
17%
Client budgetary constraints
13%
15%
12%
13%
8%
9%
Budgetary constraints
12%
13%
10%
8%
8%
9%
Increased use of tablet computers and smart phones
10%
8%
10%
8%
14%
13%
Client demands for innovation
8%
8%
7%
10%
8%
7%
Quality of sample
8%
7%
11%
7%
10%
7%
The economy, business growth/slowdown
6%
6%
10%
3%
6%
9%
Desire for a more collaborative process with respondents
7%
5%
6%
10%
6%
2%
Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors
4%
4%
4%
0%
10%
0%
Changes in response rates
5%
3%
5%
2%
6%
4%
Availability of US sample
3%
5%
2%
2%
4%
4%
Availability of non-US sample
3%
3%
2%
2%
4%
2%
Other issues
3%
3%
2%
2%
0%
2%
Changes in sample costs
1%
4%
3%
5%
0%
11%
Changes in staffing or layoffs
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Changes in salaries/wages/costs
1%
1%
2%
1%
0%
2%
Availability of US sample
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Availability of non-US sample
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Increased use of mobile communications
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Desire to avoid limitations of self reported attitudes/behaviors
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Base n = 2188; total n = 2229
26
Winter 2014
GRITReport.org
29. GRIT Commentary
To where and how fast?
For me, it’s always refreshing to begin the start of each
calendar year with a stack of information that will help or
substantiate decision-making for the business. For me, GRIT
is one of those trusted information sources for a number of
years now.
GRIT illustrates the changing behaviors of
an industry whose conservative core has,
and continues to be transported to a new,
progressive destination
GRIT does not maintain Delphic proportions in the industry
yet; the Marketing Research industry has never been more
complex. But it has over the past years built an open
information platform that illustrates the changing behaviors
of an industry whose conservative core has, and continues to
be transported to a new, progressive destination. Whether this
stop is temporary and a U-turn is around the bend remains
to be seen, but certainly the impact of technology, the rise
of consumer participation, privacy and ever-increasing
budgetary pressures show that the velocity of change in
industry continues to increase significantly.
Understanding the velocity of change is a powerful
predicative tool for business leaders. News cycles hungry
for new fodder focus on the latest disruptive products or
services, but these are typically not aligned with the pace of
business adoption. To stay progressive it’s important to keep
a keen eye on the latest in wearable technology, drones and
nanotechnology, but to stay competitive one can look to the
current platforms that have impacted Marketing Research for
the last 3-5 years. Mobile, CRM, Social, Online Communities
and panel sample are where finite budgets are most in flux.
The underlying drivers affecting how fast budgets are being
put into which of these areas will have the greatest effect on
competitiveness in 2014.
If 2013 could be summarized in a term, outside of the year
of Gangam Style (unfortunately), it would be ‘Data’. Data
supply has never been higher and the demand for it follows
a similar trajectory.
GRITReport.org
David Brudenell
Executive Vice President, pureprofile
Email:
LinkedIn:
Twitter:
Website:
dbrudenell@pureprofile.com
www.linkedin.com/in/davidbrudenell/
davidbrudenell
www.pureprofile.com
Data collection is one of the key pillars for Marketing
Research practice; it’s impact on design, cost, speed and
insight arguably has the greatest impact on decisionmaking. So to look to understanding the velocity of change
in industry, this is a great spot to look at. Below are some
interesting insights from this years report:
• First, and not surprisingly, is that the increased use of
mobile communications on data collection continues to
be the leading issue in industry. The rising penetration
of mobile technologies shows continued investment
in mobile data collection, participation platforms and
question-design is paramount.
• At the top level, attitudes on the impact of the economy
on data collection appear to be trending up. But on
deeper analysis, Clients in 2013 were less inclined to mark
economic factors as being impactful as Suppliers. This
could illustrate the growing investment by Marketing in
data from other budgetary divisions (1) that trickles into
Marketing Research budgets.
• Clients want more and better ways to collaborate with
respondents. This is interesting as when viewing the
use change within industry: online community growth
as a technique is slowing, however the overall growth
is significant. This could possibly show that adoption
of online communities has reached saturation and as
Clients become more comfortable using this medium,
expectations of new and better engagement techniques
have risen. A similar pattern in the use of mobile
technologies could also be found in this report.
These are a few interesting highlights from a report deeply
saturated with insight. I encourage you to dive into to GRIT
and view some of the changing behaviors and sentiments of
industry. If you’re reading this commentary you are on the
journey with the rest of us. Perhaps you might be the one to
see the destination and time of arrival.
Winter 2014
27
30. Adaptation To Change
Locked into current
approach
Research provider's
lack of imagination
Too hard to organize
Old fashioned
research supplier
Logistical reasons
Budgetary
constraints
It’s boring
Time constraints
Too expensive
Not fashionable
Reasons for not using types of research
Social Media Monitoring
0
2.1
4.9
0.3
4.5
3.4
3.1
4.3
1.3
1.8
Research Gamification
0
3.5
3.6
0.6
5.2
2.8
2.5
3.4
2
2.3
0.4
2.1
2.6
0.5
4
3
2.7
6.1
1.3
3.2
0
0.6
2.9
0.3
2
8.1
3.3
3.4
1.8
6.4
Text Analytics
0.4
5.6
2.7
1.6
5.3
2.7
1.1
3.3
0.6
0.5
Mobile Surveys
0.4
3.6
2.3
0.4
3.8
8.8
2.3
4.8
2.4
3
Online Focus Groups
0.3
3.3
2.5
1.4
3.2
7.7
1.7
6.1
2
4
Online Communities
1
4.9
5
1.1
9.1
5.2
1.9
4.1
1.4
2
0.3
8
8.5
0.5
12.9
6
0.7
1.9
0.9
2
4.3
16
9.9
2.7
17.8
7.5
4.7
4.8
3.1
3.3
Telephone
9.8
19.9
8
5.6
11.2
9.6
2.1
2.8
2.8
1.6
Mail
9.6
6.2
17.8
7.4
4.6
14.3
6.6
4.2
0.3
0.6
4.1
26.7
12.1
2.2
16.7
7.8
1.4
8.5
1.4
1.6
Crowdsourcing
Online
Other techniques
Focus Groups
Face to Face
Base n = from 43 to 198; total n = 2229
many client
organizations have
transitioned a
significant amount
of data collection to
in-house platforms
Notably, there is a common theme among suppliers (33%)
that clients are spending more on in-house technologies,
while clients (38%) see themselves doing more with the
same resources. Only about a fourth of clients (24%) plan
to invest in new technology while 30% of suppliers plan on
significant investments in the near future. This may be due in
part to the relatively slow conversion of suppliers to mobilebased platforms.
While clients have become more adept and efficient within
smaller budgets and smaller staffs in 2013, they also continue
to manage more chronic issues such as declining response
rates, limitations with self-reporting, and the need for faster
execution. As a result, many client organizations have chosen
to exert more control and have transitioned a significant
amount of data collection to in-house platforms. Although
the capabilities of these platforms are growing, significant
limitations still exist in data extraction and management.
28
Winter 2014
As previously discussed, technology was not a huge driver for
client researchers; however as respondents tire of existing
technologies, it is likely that next generation methodologies
will increase researchers’ dependence on technology. While
client researchers have displayed a strong preference for
customer centric research, the role of behavioural insights
is potentially the most significant factor in their decision
process. As researchers become more accustomed to benefits
and limitations of communities, new techniques will likely
enhance the learnings associated with interactive response,
data analytics, and community dynamics rather than new
methods of stated data extraction. This may be represented
through a commitment to more interactive platforms and/or
a process that is more focused on data synthesis.
The following table represents a series of techniques and
reasons why each of the techniques are not currently within
the tool set of most researchers. In many cases, the lack of
familiarity with the technique and its application were cited
as primary reasons for non-incorporation as well as a need
for proof of the concept.
GRITReport.org
31. Lack of knowledge
Ignorance
Unproven
Fear of trying
something new
Lack of proof it
works
No suppliers have an
adequate offering
Technological
limitations
We are not capable
of doing it
Client's lack of
imagination
Old fashioned clients
Too many risks
involved
Blockers within the
company
2.6
2.4
4.2
2.9
6.8
8.4
5.1
12.6
3.6
8.3
4.5
13
2.8
2.9
4.7
5.7
5.7
4.7
4
10.4
4.6
6.6
6.8
15.3
3.9
5
3.7
4
4.2
2.5
2.2
10.2
4.1
5.6
8.9
19.9
2.5
6.2
7.3
2.6
3.7
9.2
4.1
10.7
3.8
7.8
5
8.3
2.9
2
3.4
3.2
7
11.2
7.7
8.9
4.6
5.4
7.4
12.8
2.9
3.7
6.1
4.8
4.6
15.1
3.4
8
4
5.2
2.7
7.6
2.5
6.3
5
3.9
5.2
9.5
4.6
9.1
4.9
4.7
3.7
8.7
2.5
6.2
6.5
3.3
7
5.5
3.1
7.3
5.2
4.5
3.6
9.6
4.3
2.7
1.4
5.4
3.3
10
1.9
7.7
6.4
7.4
2.9
5
1.6
0.2
3.3
6.3
2.7
0.4
0
3.9
2
0.8
1.3
3.5
1.2
5.5
1.7
0.3
1.6
6.3
0.9
5.9
0.6
0.8
0
1.9
2.3
3.8
3.7
1
0.9
6.1
1.1
6.5
0.7
1.1
0.3
1
2.6
2.8
2.1
2.2
2.6
1
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.8
1.5
0
On a final note, the primary drivers, as would be expected,
are based on a combination of financial need, insight
development, quality control, user experience, and leveraging
of mobile technology. For those in emerging markets, drivers
were more consistent with usage of the data while in more
established markets the transition to more agile platforms
that increase both survey efficiency and insights delivery
are key areas of focus. While mobile/digital technology is
the single most transformative factor in most organizations,
researchers often struggle with optimal survey content within
the platform from both a content and display perspective.
The most consistent finding was the gap that exists between
client and supplier goals. The ability to produce stronger
insights through hybrid methodologies incorporating multiple
data streams is increasingly important to organizations as
“real time” feedback. Client researchers are open to new
methodologies that enhance their current operations and
most recognize that mobile technology is currently on track
to dominate customer interactions; however, current research
GRITReport.org
solutions are limited in their ability to adapt to the platform
and offer little more than directional guidance. While there
is an interest in new technology, the primary interest remains
with their ability to develop a more efficient process that
increases insight while reducing the overhead associated with
internal research. Suppliers who align their services to support
those goals are likely to have a higher rate of success than
those who attempt to introduce new technologies designed
around data collection.
The most consistent finding was the gap that exists
between client and supplier goals
Winter 2014
29
32. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Adoption of New Research Methods
This section looks at the adoption, by clients and suppliers,
of new research methods, and the barriers to adopting new
approaches. In evaluating the current picture and changes
from the previous year it should be noted that two new
research methods have been added to the survey this year:
Big Data Analytics and Micro-Surveys.
The data suggest that not much has changed over the last
12 months. The same four techniques head up the list, with
Online Communities being number one. However, there are
some interesting insights when we look at the detailed data,
such as the way that clients seem to be adopting Social
Media Analytics and Big Data Analytics more widely than
suppliers are, and these nuances are explored in this section.
This section also looks at the why approaches are not used.
The data remind us that no approach is right for every
situation, and that barriers can range from not understanding
a new technology through to finding an older approach too
slow and too expensive.
Communities, Mobile Surveys, Analytics
Techniques of the future: 2012/13 vs. 2013/14
In use
Under consideration
2013/14
2012/13
2013/14
2012/13
Online Communities
49%
45%
33%
38%
Mobile Surveys
41%
41%
41%
45%
Social Media Analytics
36%
36%
40%
42%
Text Analytics
33%
31%
35%
37%
Big Data Analytics
31%
0%
38%
0%
Webcam-Based Interviews
27%
25%
30%
39%
Eye Tracking
26%
23%
25%
21%
Mobile Qualitative
22%
23%
39%
41%
Mobile Ethnography
21%
20%
38%
39%
Micro-surveys
19%
0%
32%
0%
Prediction Markets
17%
17%
27%
30%
Research gamification
16%
15%
38%
33%
Crowdsourcing
14%
13%
33%
30%
Virtual Environments
14%
17%
28%
30%
Facial analysis
13%
9%
23%
20%
Neuromarketing
11%
9%
25%
22%
Biometric Response
8%
7%
19%
21%
Bases 2012/13= 1,375, 2013/14=2,229
30
The data show very few changes between waves, and
continue to show that Online Communities is the new
technique with the largest reported adoption, with 49% of
respondents claiming to be currently using them, and 82%
either using or considering them.
Winter 2014
Significantly up
Given that the differences between the two most recent
waves are few, the interest lies in where the two new items
in the list have been placed. Micro-Surveys have entered the
table at just under halfway up, with 19% saying they already
use them, and 38% considering them. Micro-Surveys are an
essential element of the new type of market research that
many are predicting, so it will be interesting to see if their
ranking is even higher next year.
The other new entrant is Big Data Analytics, with 31% saying
they already use it and 38% having it under consideration.
The table suggests that there may be a drop in organizations
that have Online Communities ‘under consideration’. However,
combining ‘use’ and ‘consideration’, the figures are 83% last
year and 82% this year, so no real change, and a massive
endorsement for the proposition that communities have
become mainstream.
Online Communities is the new technique with the
largest reported adoption
Significantly down
GRITReport.org
33. GRIT Commentary
The Drivers of change aren’t going away – it’s
time to go mobile
Looking through the results from the GRIT questionnaire, I
found myself going back to the Drivers of Change section.
It’s not only the results that caught my eye (though they did,
but more of that later), but I’m always interested in what
people in our industry feel is driving us all forward. And more
importantly, what the actual impact of those drivers has been.
MR is an industry with enormous potential for evolution – even
disruptive evolutions – which, for a well-established, mature
sector is something we should all be pretty excited about.
But I’m not sure we’re living up to the opportunities. At least,
not all of them.
Here, I’m mostly talking about mobile, which tops the
list of drivers for change. Hardly a huge surprise, more a
confirmation of a fact that surveys like this have been telling
us for some time now. But are we really making the changes
we need to?
The lack of progress in the optimization of surveys for mobile
has – in 2013 – been a disappointment. For several years now,
the proportion of respondents opening surveys on a mobile
has increased (it now stands at around 20%) but much of
the MR industry has steadfastly failed to make progress in
accommodating this development. This is frustrating, given
the technology is there, effective and ready to use, and this
inertia will only service to frustrate respondents and drive
down response rates.
There are two areas to consider for those MR agencies
who are adding mobile to their data collection repertoire:
accidental and purposeful. Accidental, like those situations
referenced above, are those respondents who’ve been sent an
online survey, but who open it on a mobile device. If these
people are not provided with a good survey experience (for
example, thought Responsive Web Rendering), they’ll simply
abandon the survey and never return to it. The resulting
lack of engagement and reduced response rates simply
isn’t something we, as MR practitioners, can accommodate.
The technology is there to ensure that web surveys open
automatically to take advantage of the native characteristics
and components of the device in question so there’s no
excuse not to use it.
GRITReport.org
Wale Omiyale
SVP, Confirmit
Email:
LinkedIn:
Twitter:
Website:
wale.omiyale@confirmit.com
www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1621999
wale100 / confirmit
www.confirmit.com
Purposeful mobile is increasingly becoming an area that we
need to consider, though in many respects there’s less urgency
than there is for capturing the accidental mobile audience.
However, purposeful mobile – which includes Apps that
capture mobile diaries, rich media and GPS data – provides an
incredible opportunity for those businesses who are prepared
to get stuck in. Apps can enable respondents to provide data
while offline, and lend themselves extremely well to providing
extensions of other CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal
Interviewing) programs.
Think about mobile research as a way to
converse with respondents in the way that
they prefer to communicate
Think about mobile research as a way to converse with
respondents in the way that they prefer to communicate, or
in some cases, the only way in which they can be reached.
From an industry that’s been dealing with declining response
rates and (from some sources) threats of complete extinction
– it’s a short-sighted decision to opt out of mobile entirely.
And not one I’d recommend.
Winter 2014
31
34. NA
The world of consumer
insights is changing fast.
» 11 forward-looking tracks
» Over 100 speakers
» 80+ presentations
» Hands-on workshops
» Networking events
2014
Atlanta
June 16-18
Corporate Partners
Learn more at
www.iiex-na.org
35. Regional Differences
More Qual or More Quant?
The data show relatively modest differences by region, but
once again there are interesting nuances.
About half the respondents expected their balance between
qual and quant to remain about the same over the next two
years, with just over 20% reporting that they will be doing
more quant, and just over 20% reporting that they will do
more qual. This consistency is in line with the picture reported
by the last few ESOMAR industry studies, which have shown
little change in the balance between qual and quant over the
last few years.
North America has a lead in the largest number of methods,
with significantly high scores for Mobile Surveys, Text
Analytics, Big Data Analytics, Webcam-Based Interviews,
Mobile Qual, and Mobile Ethnography.
Europe is significantly strong in Online Communities and Eye
Tracking, whilst Latin America is significantly strong in Social
Media Analytics and Micro-Surveys.
Clients and suppliers share a similar view about the balance of
qual and quant over the next two years, neither predicting a
big change. The regional data also suggests no change as the
main picture, with the data from Latin America suggesting a
small shift to qual and the data from Asia suggesting a small
shift to quant.
Adoption by Clients vs. Suppliers
The overall pattern between clients and suppliers (what
clients are buying and what suppliers are selling), is broadly
similar (particularly when the ‘in use’ numbers are combined
with the ‘plan to use’ numbers) – which is hardly surprising.
However, there are some interesting differences, as shown in
this chart.
Techniques of the future: Client vs. Supplier
In use
Client
Under consideration
Supplier
Client
Supplier
38%
32%
Mobile Surveys
28%
45%
46%
40%
Social Media Analytics
47%
34%
35%
41%
Text Analytics
30%
34%
35%
35%
Big Data Analytics
40%
29%
35%
38%
Webcam-Based Interviews
19%
29%
27%
30%
Eye Tracking
25%
26%
25%
25%
Mobile Qualitative
13%
24%
38%
40%
13%
23%
37%
39%
Micro-surveys
16%
20%
31%
32%
Prediction Markets
18%
16%
29%
27%
Research gamification
9%
18%
36%
38%
13%
14%
34%
33%
Virtual Environments
11%
14%
25%
29%
Facial analysis
the mobile revolution is going to be more ‘supplierdriven’ than ‘client-pulled’
50%
Crowdsourcing
Another interesting difference between the client and supplier
responses is in the area of Social Media Analytics and Big Data
Analytics, both of which are currently stronger amongst the
client respondents. It is possible that this reflects involvement
by people outside of traditional market research.
44%
Mobile Ethnography
The single biggest difference between the client and supplier
values was for Mobile Surveys. This may suggest that suppliers
are more aware that something like 20% to 30% of ‘offline’
surveys are already being conducted via mobile devices – a
phenomenon that is sometimes referred to as ‘accidental
mobile’. However, the fact that both Mobile Qualitative and
Mobile Ethnography are stronger amongst suppliers than
clients might suggest that the mobile revolution that many
are forecasting is going to be more ‘supplier-driven’ than
‘client-pulled’, with a growing range of options being offered.
Online Communities
9%
14%
20%
24%
Neuromarketing
11%
12%
27%
25%
Biometric Response
7%
8%
18%
19%
Base: Client=443, Supplier=1786
GRITReport.org
Significantly up
Significantly down
Winter 2014
33
36. Inside many client organizations, the insights team does not
conduct the purchasing of Social Media Analytics and Big
Data solutions. The insights team may be working with the
information generated from these tools, often to add context
or depth, but they may not ‘own’ the process. If the finance
department, IT, COOs, CTOs and the like, are making purchasing
decisions, they may not be looking to market research
companies to find their suppliers. The second connected factor
is that many of the providers of Social Media Analytics and
Big Data solutions are not from the market research industry;
even when the purchasing is conducted by client-side insights
teams, the work may go to a non-MR organisation, or be
completed in-house using a DIY tool.
Inside many client organizations, the insights team does not conduct the
purchasing of Social Media Analytics and Big Data solutions
Barriers to Adopting New Approaches
The other side of looking at what is being adopted is to assess
why new approaches such as Biometrics, Neuromarketing, Facial
Analysis, and Virtual Environments are not gaining in adoption.
The study asked respondents whether they ever felt inhibited
from using some types of research methodologies or
approaches. In total, about two-thirds (66%) said they had
felt inhibited, up from 58% last year. Clients and suppliers
were almost equally likely to say they were sometimes
inhibited. Respondents from the Middle East and Africa and
from Asia were the most likely to say they had felt inhibited
(74% and 71%, respectively). Respondents in companies with
3 or fewer employees were the most likely to report feeling
inhibited, but even the larger and largest companies reported
60+% rates for inhibition.
37. GRIT Commentary
MR’s Hopeful But Cautious Approach to Mobile,
Online Communities and Social Analytics
Robert Clancy
Vice President of Insights and Strategy, uSamp
Email:
LinkedIn:
Website:
The saying, “all or nothing” does not typically apply to Market
Researchers. As pioneers, we’re certainly excited and dazzled
by new technology, but as researchers, we are methodical in
approach, and as a consequence, not always the earliest of
adopters until a case has been proven – or budgets allow for
this kind of exploration. This year’s GRIT Dashboard revealed
the tension between progress and pushback.
As researchers, we are methodical in
approach, and as a consequence, not always
the earliest of adopters
Two-thirds of all respondents report feeling inhibited from
using certain methodologies such as gamification, online
communities, mobile, social analytics and crowdsourcing.
At the same time, respondents indicate that the top three
methodologies of the future are online communities, mobile,
and social analytics. This contradiction indicates definite
interest, but hesitation to go “all in” until clients and suppliers
presumably see more proof of how insights produced through
these methods can impact business and/or until their
companies are willing to commit more dollars.
The report reveals a few things that have impacted the
way data are collected: One, the increased use of mobile
technologies and non-traditional research techniques, and
two, client budget constraints. Given the latter point, it’s not
surprising that clients admit to taking more of the research
in-house, especially as it applies to social media analytics.
This is a technique that is more easily in-sourced than, for
example, creating and managing an online community –
another popular methodology amongst suppliers.
GRITReport.org
robert@usamp.com
www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-clancy/48/838/ba6
www.usamp.com
Overall, the dashboard revealed increased usage of online and
mobile methodologies in the quant space and a decrease in
face-to-face interviewing – with respondents naming mobile
among their top three methodologies to leverage in the near
future. But while it’s arguable that the future belongs to
mobile research, it still remains an underutilized platform,
only accounting for about five percent of total research
conducted. Why the gap?
The majority said they feel inhibited from using this new
technology. At the same time, “technology limitations” are
the primary reason respondents cite for not using mobile. The
data suggest that suppliers and clients simply do not believe
or do not realize how far the technology has already been
developed. Alternatively, they might not have seen enough
clear proof that mobile works. Either they have not fully
investigated mobile options, or we need to do a better job of
educating them about the feasibility of mobile.
There is obviously interest in mobile and people recognize
it as an important methodology for the future, but several
factors, like those described above, are holding researchers
back. Once the technology is completely proven and
researchers start to see the power of the insights mobile can
provide, then we should start to see mobile acceleration.
It won’t happen overnight, though. It takes time for a new
methodology to gain universal acceptance, and online is still,
by far, the most trusted and utilized research methodology.
Winter 2014
35