Business first, Insights Second - Really?
MR values need protecting - ensuring the industry's ongoing reputational basis.
Market research is changing so fast it’s scary - quicker, cheaper, more accessible, more action-oriented. Exciting times for sure.
But there’s a downside: efficiency drives, as well as pressures exerted by evolving client needs and new competitors result in us revisiting and modifying legacy behaviours - including things which were good. Sampling theory, for example - who needs it now? Piloting an approach - no time.
The danger: we lose our nimbus as the “quality folk”… who if needed can give the lowdown on a methodology, as sticklers for detail, in-depth understanding.
And central to this - core research values, not the least of which being quality.
Or our willingness to speak out - to be bold.
Or our non-tolerance of dishonesty - respondent fakery, claiming to be what they’re not, for example - during a weekend MROC, where it seems that someone claiming to be from say France seems to be using a software translation tool, and so is likely from somewhere else. But nobody is around to make a decision, and a top-line is due on Monday evening.
But quality also counts on a strategic level - in reputational management for example.
I today looked over the programme of an upcoming innovation MR conference - lots of the talks had the tag “sponsored”.
Hmmm…what about quality - and for that matter, the notion of level playing fields? Or transparency on submission selection processes. Very often there is none.
A submission can be rejected politely - but you are informed that there is room to squeeze in something from sponsors.
This sits uneasily in an age where diversity, inclusion and yes equity are key principles - private equity backing, for example, shouldn’t run counter to that.
Defenders of High Standards
Market research is a values-driven industry. We are respected more than say a sales person because we don’t actively embrace biases - we try to avoid them.
Truthfulness and transparency are core MR principles - and if you or your company are a member of an industry association, you’ve probably signed up for a whole set of values in the form of a code of conduct.
Maybe we don’t read these very often - ever? So as a reminder, here’s the first two principles from the UK MRS’ Members’ Code of Conduct
Ensure that their professional activities can be understood in a transparent manner.
Be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships.
As our industry consolidates, and ownership changes, with more stress on commercial acumen and a downweighting of the “academic”, research fundamentals still need nourshing.
Our evidence-based industry survives on a chain of trusting relationships - we trust participants to engage honestly with us, clients trust agencies to present evidence that is robust, valid, can be replicated.
Sense-makers have to be respected as truth-seekers.
Insights First - Business Second!
And as we are not a “protected industry” such as law or medicine, it’s hugely important that as newcomers join the melee, they know about and adhere to our codes of conduct. UX may be huge and growing - but some of these practitioners are perhaps not aware of the standards expected of research agencies signing up to say the MRS in the UK, or ESOMAR.
So what about this as a mantra: Insights first - business second. Likely an increasingly unpopular view, but one I think needs saying loud and clear.
If we don’t, many of the brightest and innovative of our MR thinkers and practitioners may well become disillusioned and create new, less visible networks - or re-direct their energy elsewhere.
Curious, as ever, as to others’ views .
(Picture - Photo by Alex Shute on Unsplash)
Dear Edward
I like your mantra. But for me an insight is only an insight if it is clearly linked to an opportunity and revenue for a business. Without that context an insight is a 'good to know' but no more. So maybe it should be 'insight first for business' or insight to put business first? Or, given so much work is in social and political sphere, 'insight for good'?
On your point about conferences, I think there is a clear distinction between the 'pay to play' commercial conferences and the peer reviewed ones in which content gets through on merit. As long as that advertorial/editorial distinction is clear, then I do think the commercial approach helps a lot of new, interesting companies get their stories out - which might then lead to them winning exposure on merit. If someone who has paid to present at a conference then goes on to attempt to 'sell' then they are fools and have wasted their investment.
Thank you for sharing.
Best wishes
Lucy