Is "New Market Research" in danger of losing its MR soul?
Market Research is in the middle of a transformation process - moving away from a traditional reliance on the survey towards a data-rich, insights-challenged environment.
Many new players are encroaching on the traditional territory of Market Researchers - Google, Twitter, IBM, text analytics companies (to name a few) on the Agency side, whilst Clientside Researchers are having to keep pace with the 24/7 world of insights emanating from all areas of the Corporation.
We're reinventing ourselves, no doubt.
But are we losing what we stand for - our Essence, so to speak?
I was reading the October 2012 issue of Research Live recently, and was irritated by the abundance of Marketing cliches in a Marketing Research trade magazine
Some examples: "customer-centric" "game-changing results" "...we think there's an opportunity...." - my eyes automatically glaze over when I read these type of phrases.
The authors probably wanted to show their commercial savvy, their enthusiasm, deliberately avoiding the more cautious, qualifying tones of a Market Research professional, instead adopting the phrases they have read and heard perhaps in Marketing circles.
I applaud the effort to understand the context - and language - of Marketing, PR, Internet Marketing, Finance. But we shouldn't try to speak or write like them, as our efforts will likely be embarrassing.
Market Research has a very clear DNA, which we are in danger of losing if we're not careful.
Here's my take:
1. Market Researchers need to build on our strengths rather than wildly attempt to reposition ourselves.
I think it's unwise to imitate the behaviours and language of related professions (Marketing folk, IT Consultants, PR professionals....just to name a few) even if we feel they are are selling themselves more effectively - we'll end up a curious hybrid species that doesn't really know where it's spiritual home is.
2. We should always aim for simplicity and authenticity in the way we express ourselves - it resonates - and avoid jargon. Insights is all about clarity - jargon automatically suggests lazy thinking, at worst obfuscation.
3. Research language needs to be concise, cogent, relevent. It needs to ring true.
4. As we strive to reposition ourselves to move up the value chain, we need to delicately underline our methodological credentials, not ditch them.
This needs to be done carefully, as methodology isn't a popular topic clientside outside of the MR department, but we should demonstrate our ability to understand where results simply aren't robust, or what the respective strengths and weaknesses of a broad array of insight options are.
In summary: the desire to reposition MR as more foreward-leaning has its dangers, just like any repositioning exercise.
Language plays a central role.
There are likely many people better than MR professionals at crafting and selling a narrative, being bold at pitching an idea, making a point strongly in a meeting. We need to accept this, and play to our strengths - a robust source of unbiased insights, drawing from across a whole range of data sources.
Yes, we need to liven things up, visualise as best we can, create a compelling narrative. But whatever we do to spruce ourselves up, we should respect our DNA - not negate it.
Curious, as ever, as to others' views.