Below is a list of the five posts, on NewMR.org, that in 2013 have been read by the largest number of unique readers, as measured by Google Analytics. Why do companies use market research? This was posted December 30, 2012, and has had 633 unique viewers in 2013. The ITU is 100% wrong on mobile phone penetration, IMHO. Posted 29 June, 2013, viewed by 380 unique people. Is it a bad thing that 80% of new products fail? Posted 7 March, 2013, 353 unique viewers. Notes for a non-researcher conducting qualitative research. This was only posted on 26 August, 2013, so it is probably still on its way up. It has 350 unique viewers. A Short History of Mobile Marketing Research. Posted 1 March, 2013, with 278 unique views. I ran the analysis to see if I could spot any patterns in what made a successful NewMR post. However, so far, no clear pattern is emerging. Any thoughts or suggestions?
The other day I saw a comment that clients have a duty to keep themselves up-to-date with all the latest changes in market research, to make sure that their organisation is getting the benefits that are available. However, as soon as I read the comment, I was troubled. After some thinking about the proposition that clients need to be up-to-date I was able to isolate my concern. It is unreasonable to create a duty or expectation that is not possible. It moves the blame from somewhere else to an unfair location. And, I believe that it is not possible for most clients to be up-to-date, or fully informed, about all that is new in market research – not even all the major trends and changes. Nobody is fully informed The first point is that it is not just clients who are not fully informed; providers and researchers are not fully informed either. No researcher I have ever met or heard of is fully up to speed on: Social media monitoring, mining, and research Neuroscience Discourse analysis Gamification Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Big Data Adaptive discrete choice modelling Smartphone, participative ethnography Predictive markets Behavioural economics Virtual focus groups To name […]
There is a widespread view that people in poverty pay more for their products and services than richer people. This price difference was described by C.K Prahalad and Allen Hammond as the poverty premium, in an article in the Havard Business Review (HBR) in 2002 – which Prahalad expanded on in his book ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’. However, an article by Ethan Kay and Woody Lewenstein in the April 2013 edition of the HBR cast doubt on the theory, and showed results of an experiment that illustrated that the poverty premium is not always present. The implications for this theory being wrong can have major implications for marketers and by implication market researchers. The idea behind the poverty premium is that more affluent shoppers can buy more efficiently, for example by driving to discount stores or by buying in larger pack sizes. At one level we can see this is true, the price paid for a can of Coca-Cola in a convenience store in a poor neighbourhood is likely to cost more than the proportionate costs of one can of Coca-Cola purchased as part of a multi-pack from the local equivalent of a WalMart. Kay and […]
This week’s MRS Conference in London was one of the best events I have been to in the last year, generating lots of material to think about. There was a great mix of thinkers from the industry, ideas from outside market research, discussion, and good networking. The conference was true to its theme of the ‘Shock of the New’. The only weakness that I think is worth mentioning, because it is a reoccurring problem, is that there was too little international content. If the UK is going to command a position as an innovator, it needs more input from outside the UK, IMHO. Key elements, for me, included: The limitations of Big Data The panel discussion, including great contributions from Lucien Bowater from BSkyB and Mark Risley from Google, emphasised the current limitations of big data in terms of the sorts of problems that market research is asked to answer. Big data approaches work best when there is a clearly defined, narrow question, and sufficient resources to find an answer. In many cases, market research is being called on to answer a more general, less well defined problem. Lucien, more than once, made the plea for research to tell him […]
Yes, it is a truism that we want better, cheaper, faster research, and that we have always wanted better, faster, research. However, right now research is becoming redundant to many decision makers because it is not fast enough. This theme was covered in a recent article on Research-Live. A couple of weeks ago I was at the annual conference of the AMI (Australian Marketing Institute) and speaker after speaker highlighted the pace of change and the need to respond quickly. Mark Lollback from McDonald’s showed how his company went from tasting a product at a regular review session to launching it, with TV advertising, in fourteen days. Joanna McCarthy of Kimberley Clark showed how they used scenario planning and ‘war gaming’ to be able to respond to social media stories in real-time (in sensitive areas like product malfunctions in toilet paper and nappies). I was at the AMI Conference as a keynote speaker and to launch my latest (free) book The Quick and the Dead which looks specifically at the need for speed, and suggests a new framework for how organisations can adopt a Built for Speed approach, you can download a copy of it by clicking here.