Is Influencer Marketing changing MR without us realising it?
Do we underestimate or misunderstand the role of Influencer Marketing in Market Research? I'd say yes.
In a world where economic forces are disrupting traditional structures via the panacea of digital - including publishing, trade organizations and much besides - it's time perhaps to reflect on not just change in MR, but strategic intent, and economically focused narratives.
The FB/ Cambridge Analytics fiasco is a prompt towards full disclosure and transparency.
Two examples.
First up: I recently read an article on a leading industry online portal, written by the CEO no less of a leading sample provider.
I won't name names. Google in combination with your imagination might help.
Its headline was provocative, talking about how insights on demand is transforming our industry. The article announced the company’s intent to create a new eponymous category: insights on demand. Yes. Deep intake of breath.
The article is full of intent, lots of business school jargon, but there are no case studies or evidence presented of exactly what is meant by “insights on demand”, how it works, or anything on effectiveness. In a phrase - a sales pitch, thinly disguised.
And yet it achieved prominent presence on this platform – automatically generating high reach and to a degree, credibility.
Was this article published because the content was so compelling?
Secondly: I received an invitation to attend a conference in London aiming to help certain companies better market their skills. Good topic.
A quick review of the progam showed the same company names popping up - and if you looked extremely closely, you could the read the words "supported by" somewhere unobtrusive on the website.
Quality is king? Hmm...
Are we as an industry 100% free from pay to play? Sometimes ownership structures and strategic intent are simply kept in the background, possibly to enable PR to work more effectively.
Take the role of private equity companies in MR. The newly merged Research Now/SSI is majority owned by private equity company HGGC and Court Square Capital Partners. Wikipedia describes the latter as “focused on leveraged buy-out transactions” – google that at your leisure. I wanted to check the ownership of another major sample supplier – the ownership link was broken, sadly.
I’m all for maximizing economic value – but we shouldn’t forget the multiple downsides of wanton digital disruption based on a very patchy sense of good MR practice. Algorithms can scale poor practice. New insight jobs may arise – we will see. But will they be more valued, commanding higher fees?
On a broader societal level there’s plenty to be concerned about: digital companies pay 9% corporate tax in Europe, according to sources from the Deutsche Bank – half that of traditional bricks-and-mortar companies.
And from a PR perspective – those with the megaphones, with multiplying power should clearly state their strategic intent. Perhaps they have a different perspective from private equity – maybe not.
As someone that believes in value creation through insights, I would suggest it’s time we called out bad practices, over-claims, flagging up on comments sections, fighting back.
Quality, as I suggested in an earlier blog post this year, is a valuable area – we need to defend it fiercely, and resist being overrun by those with categorically disruptive ambitions but ultimately narrow interests in mind.
Curious, as ever, as to others' views. #qualitycounts