I like #3. And #8. In fact, most of them ring true for me.
And, Oh my! The first part of #6 in particular (the parenthese-ed part not so much, because after reading your paper, I think you really *do* have a very good grip on it).
SusanSweet
· 2 months ago
Numbers 2 & 3 had me nodding my head in agreement.
I'm not surprised by #7, as almost all of the qualitative "specialist" techniques come from inside a magical, black box that requires a PhD. If it results in an interpretation that is meaningful and helps a client take positive action, then I suppose the magic worked!
Thanks for posting these, Tom.
Katie Harris
· 2 months ago
Oh and #9. I *really* like that one. : )
virtualMR
· 2 months ago
Well done as always Tom but I bet breaking the blog into two separate postings Part 1: Market Research and Part 2: Social Media would have had more impact. This is a hot topic - make it last! I'll respond to the market research part. :)
One of my biggest gripes with market research is often too much is crammed into one study. I'm not referring to where I am now because they are top notch but it is epidemic in the MR industry. Having been on the client side, I understand the temptation to ask as much as one can 'as long as we have them' or because there are budget constraints, but it's just a bad idea. The questionnaire becomes too fatiguing for the respondent and the quality of the resulting data suffers. The worst torture is when this mountain of data becomes a muddled, disjointed PowerPoint dump that brings tears of boredom to the audience and leaves little in the way of information decision-makers can take away and apply. How often have you been to a presentation that contained so much information the presenter was unable to finish on time and there was no time for questions/discussion?
My other biggest gripe is around qual vs. quant, phone vs. online, etc. but I've tweeted about that enough so I'll save that rant for another day.
Thanks for keeping things lively Tom - you're our Rory Sutherland.
Bettina Wagner
· 2 months ago
Dear Tom, you are living proof for the correctness of your statement No. 3: "Making two different pieces of information talk to one another is the most important skill a researcher (or almost anyone) can have" :)
I especially liked statement No. 2 because it verbalizes an implicit practise of good researchers that is sometimes mistaken for uncertainty.
And I think that has to do with 4. + 5. the lacking charisma of market researches - we are the types that look into things thoroughly, we are not the kind to blare out our findings into the world.
Thinking about this it looks rather sad, that advertising & market research never found the way to symbiosis - would have been perfect: Thorough analysis and the capability to make the world stop & stare :)
Alison
· 2 months ago
(7) So far ethnography and semiotics - in practice - have been a bit of a disappointment to me: I expected the Holy Grail and it turns out to be a few photos.
I'm intrigued by (9) as I only vaguely follow the trust/influence discussions.
We probably eat the same canapes.
(10) has been happening in MR since I was a wee trainee and it's BORING NOW.
AJ
· 2 months ago
I feel some of the powerful and persuasive essays I wrote during my undergraduate years about, amongst other things, Britney, Battleship Potemkin and Foucault are being unfairly belittled in point 7.
All Comments
And, Oh my! The first part of #6 in particular (the parenthese-ed part not so much, because after reading your paper, I think you really *do* have a very good grip on it).
I'm not surprised by #7, as almost all of the qualitative "specialist" techniques come from inside a magical, black box that requires a PhD. If it results in an interpretation that is meaningful and helps a client take positive action, then I suppose the magic worked!
Thanks for posting these, Tom.
: )
One of my biggest gripes with market research is often too much is crammed into one study. I'm not referring to where I am now because they are top notch but it is epidemic in the MR industry. Having been on the client side, I understand the temptation to ask as much as one can 'as long as we have them' or because there are budget constraints, but it's just a bad idea. The questionnaire becomes too fatiguing for the respondent and the quality of the resulting data suffers. The worst torture is when this mountain of data becomes a muddled, disjointed PowerPoint dump that brings tears of boredom to the audience and leaves little in the way of information decision-makers can take away and apply. How often have you been to a presentation that contained so much information the presenter was unable to finish on time and there was no time for questions/discussion?
My other biggest gripe is around qual vs. quant, phone vs. online, etc. but I've tweeted about that enough so I'll save that rant for another day.
Thanks for keeping things lively Tom - you're our Rory Sutherland.
I especially liked statement No. 2 because it verbalizes an implicit practise of good researchers that is sometimes mistaken for uncertainty.
And I think that has to do with 4. + 5. the lacking charisma of market researches - we are the types that look into things thoroughly, we are not the kind to blare out our findings into the world.
Thinking about this it looks rather sad, that advertising & market research never found the way to symbiosis - would have been perfect: Thorough analysis and the capability to make the world stop & stare :)
I'm intrigued by (9) as I only vaguely follow the trust/influence discussions.
We probably eat the same canapes.
(10) has been happening in MR since I was a wee trainee and it's BORING NOW.
Otherwise, I am generally in agreement.