Market Research Futures - Two Faces
Two recent experiences with Market Research stuck in my mind - both very different, but suggesting possible future avenues our industry might take.
The one was a customer satisfaction survey which I filled in (participation is an overstatement) which was un-engaging, repetitive, promised to "only take a few minutes" and then took over 10, and asked me lots of questions about things I had no opinion about. The invitation to "participate" was highly personal - the survey itself was not. Sun shining on the nothing new....to misquote Mr. S. Beckett.
If experiences like this shape perceptions about MR, we have a problem.
The other was a mailshot from the UK AQR (https://www.aqr.org.uk/) listing its Contemporary Thinking events from July - September 2017. I can't share a link as it's only available to members, but it was inspirational in the breadth of topics that it saw as relevant to contemporary qual research. Here a selection from one month:
"Rediscovering play for adults"
"Invisible grief"
"Radicals: Outsiders Changing the World"
Inspiring stuff.There were many many such events, dispersed across the UK. Full disclosure here - I am an AQR member, but in my defense by training I am a quant researcher, from the Mass Observation stable no less ;)
In contrast to the Customer Satisfaction survey, it grabbed my imagination. It also made me think - wow, that's market research, how appealing, cross-disciplinary, intellectually challenging, creatively enriching.
It redefined MR in an instant - as a discipline, a "cost centre" that is extremely relevant in a world that is pushing us to go beyond "insights" delivery and draw inspiration from a broad range of fields to re-conceptualize and provoke. One example of this new challenge to MR is Unilever's new CI mission as described in HBR 2016 (https://hbr.org/2016/09/building-an-insights-engine)
These two "experiences" suggest two very different market research futures:
Route 1 is about automation, standardisation, efficiencies, driven by speed, cost, enriched by lower-cost neuro-scientific methods such as facial coding.
The researcher's task? Making sense of multiple data streams, maybe being a valued data-consultant. Maybe....
Route 2 is about people understanding, culture, emotions; is interpretative, interactive, with a creative remit and output.
The researcher's role? Using evidence to re-imagine, inspire, provoke, suggest new brand narratives.
The implications for professional futures are stark, contrasting.
The first route is about finding a place in the role of algorithmic-driven analytics, AI and more - researchers will play a part, but no more unless they outflank the abilities of an IBM Watson-style programme.
The second route is potentially much smaller, but a more closer fit to the view many of us (OK, me) have gained over the last 30 - 50 years of "Research", one driven by psychology, empiricism and curiosity, aiming to get to the bottom of what makes people tick. Evidence as a platform for something innovative, growth if you like.
The two routes have one thing in common: the fight for funding, the budgetary challenge, which begins with the very simple task of making sure our voices our heard. And that the message is enticing - to students, policy makers, and yes, General Managers deciding on next year's budget allocation.
That begins with resonance, capturing imaginations, however commercial.
Which means shaping our own cogent, business-focussed 2.0 narrative: that we're essential to growth agendas, add value, deserve resourcing, and not just something that could be "scaled", done cheaper, faster, and ultimately by a machine. That's not Next Gen MR, that's Zero Gen.
"Voicing up" is something we all have to make happen - there are plenty of other players out there from start-ups to global consultancies who are eager for a slice of our cake.
So kudos to the folk at the AQR doing their fabulous stuff - take a bow, guys.
To wrap up: market research is an exciting, absorbing activity - or rather it can be, if that's where we take it. Let's not drift too much into the machines' robotic arms and frustrate our participants to boot.
Curious, as ever, as to others' views