World Cup Webbers
Future predictions
In my last blog I mentioned Paul ‘the oracle’ Octopus. His amazing predictions of the outcomes of World Cup games continued for both the third and fourth place playoff, as well as the final, giving him a complete success rate for predictions.
It got me thinking about whether we could use this miracle worker in the realm of market research. Lets face it; Paul would probably give a more sensible answer than some of the respondents we deal with. Paul, tell me, which of these creative routes will increase brand awareness the most? Whether he can work on more than two items at once is, as yet, unknown, but it could be worth a try.
What’s all this got to do with our World Cup researchers? Well, as people across the world commented on Paul-mania, our forum created their own thread investigating his worldwide fame. Sure, they digressed from the real purpose of the project – but that is the point: they took the forums in their own directions, and ultimately took some ownership of the entire project. With some careful prompting, much in the same way you would in a group, the conversation can be steered, but our project took on a life of its own.
Rather than us prompting people to tell us what interested them about the World Cup and how they were interacting with it, our respondents took over the responsibility. We had forums started on the topics ranging from the Jabulani ball, whether they offer ear plugs in stadiums to combat the Vuvuzela, the difficulties of watching day games across time zones and the top adverts around the globe, to name but a few. Some of this is fascinating stuff, some of it is jibber jabber (for the kids reading this – go watch the A-Team movie), but the point is, it’s all respondent gold, created by themselves.
Within the normal group discussion we are limited in our time, and digressing off topic is more often than not a luxury that can’t be afforded. The online forum, running over a number of weeks, enables a level of freedom to be developed in discussions and posts to uncover further insights. Yes, topics are posted by the team aiming to draw out detail in certain areas, but the creation of those off topic contributions can also bring in so much further (unexpected) insight. Being able to extend our time with respondents, whether face-to-face or online, helps increase our learning and understanding of consumer actions and reactions. It might not be ideal for all research types, but it certainly has a role to play.
And with that, it’s back to the day job. Thank you all for reading my World Cup blog, and to our respondents, thank you for taking part. Congratulations to Spain on winning the trophy. Until next time…
Keeping interest
As the World Cup comes to a close we can reflect on the performance of various countries and the disappointment of an early bath for all but a few. With such an international hodge podge of participants contributing in our World Cup study, we can turn our attention to the performance of individuals (in participation) and see whether we can draw similarities from respondent involvement and countries performances in the World Cup. Did the French disintegrate among internal arguing? Have the Germans continued with usual ruthless efficiency? Were the Kiwi’s simply happy to be part in a research study that would have been completed via fax machines the last time they were in the World Cup? Finally, did the English fail to turn up altogether?
As is always the way, there are those who have done more than others. It’s not that some haven’t contributed, more that a few have gone above and beyond what was asked of them. So how does our current performance chart compare to their country’s standing? Going by effort and contribution (how I wish matches could be judged in this way as opposed to goals scored) then our semi-finalists would have comprised Greece V Portugal and England v Italy (not even Paul the octopus would have predicted that), with the sad elimination of Mexico, Slovakia, the Netherlands and Germany in the last round. Proof, if you would, that the performance of a country does not necessarily replicate respondent contribution.
Which brings me onto the question, what is it that really gets respondents engaged with the tasks we ask of them?
Firstly, variety is the spice of life. Respondents get out of the research what they put in, so ensuring participation is encouraged is vital. Our respondents can upload diary notes, send photos and videos, and chat to one another in forums. Indeed, the active participation of many has created a number of wide ranging forum topics, leading to a sense of self moderation. Although it could be argued this is to be expected with a sample comprising researchers, it is certainly not the first instance in which this has happened.
Building a relationship with the respondent also proves fruitful. The power of online is the ability to view who has done what in real time, meaning that those contributing a lot can be congratulated for their hard work, whilst others can be given a gentle prod to get the input flowing. Engagement throughout, particularly in a project that falls over a number of weeks, is critical. In the same way relationships can be built (rightly or wrongly) over protracted ethnographic pieces, so to can they online. When asking for time and effort to be put in, a greater willingness is seen from respondent’s when hard work is acknowledged.
Finally, we have to accept that if we want respondents to actively participate in online forums there needs to be a level of commitment from the researcher as well. Simply sitting back and hoping for the best will quickly lead to stagnation.
As we roll onto the World Cup final which will bring to a close a month of (few) highs and (many) lows I take solace in the fact that our participants are still going strong, proving that there are those in the USA that have a passion for football, that a country’s performance does not necessarily impact on willingness to contribute, and that – unlike the real thing – our research hasn’t seen a complete domination by Europe.
A comedy of errors
Not using goal mouth technology. Using that Adidas ‘Jabulani’ ball. Not banning the vuvuzela trumpets, and half the national teams not turning up. The early signs are that we have more to criticise than compliment at this World Cup.
I wonder if Fifa regret ruling out the use of goal mouth technology now that England and Mexico feel so aggrieved about goals that, respectively, were and never were, but which the referees called the other way round. There aren’t many players either, who have come out and said they love playing with Adidas’ new Jabulani ball. The ball that seems to fly and bounce around like no other ball that has gone before, keeping strikers and goal keepers alike on their toes, guessing as to what it is going to do next. What about the vuvuzela trumpet? It started as a novelty and quickly evolved into a monotonous drone that has blocked out the chanting and singing from the loyal fans that paid to be inside the stadium and get behind their team. And let us not forget the lacklustre Italy, France and now England – big teams not turning up to entertain us on the big stage.
Am I going to complain for the entire blog? Well you weren’t really expecting an upbeat entry when we’ve just been dumped out 4-1 by Germany were you!?
Well actually I’m not. In spite of all this we’re all still very optimistic on the World Cup Panel and in the words of Portugal (one of our happier panellists), “We will forget the negative detail in the future and instead remember those moments, or games, of brilliance that WILL happen. That’s the bigger picture.” With a 7-0 result in the bag the Portuguese can afford to be optimistic.
Are we able to put the detail to one side and see the bigger picture when we’re so close to the topic? Can we really put our objectivity to one side and see the wood from the trees? Well as researchers that’s exactly what we are paid to do; we can’t get bogged down in internal politics, let personal agendas get in the way of the bigger research story, or let that one strange statistic guide us away from the bigger headline.
So it’s no surprise that whilst representing their home nations, wearing their hearts on their sleeves, our panel are indeed able to don that subjective hat and offer impartial observations that help us understand the World Cup on a global scale. OK, OK, stating that England are rubbish is hardly new insight, and backing Brazil to win the tournament is not really putting anyone’s neck on the line, but we’ve all been able to see past our own country’s shortcomings and offer advice and feedback on some of the more, wider-reaching issues at hand: What’s the best food to eat whilst watching the World Cup?
You see, even the Germans have accepted that their sausage is just too long and can obscure the TV view. The Mexicans love nachos but make a mess of it when not concentrating; the salsa goes everywhere. And the English accept that a diet of only beer just isn’t a long term strategy; you always end up hungry.So I’m proud to present the World Cup food of choice: an Italian buffet of pizza and assorted breads. Would an objective panel have allowed one nation to rise above the international cuisine competition? I think not. That’s why we’re so special.
Is anyone not in the dog house?
Everywhere you look there is trouble, and it’s mostly off the pitch (I’m excluding all the Australian red cards in that); footballers, pundits and fans… nobody is safe.
We’ve got France’s Nicolas Anelka sent home with his tail between his legs and England’s John Terry making a “big mistake” in questioning the team’s training and tactics (just you wait until manager Fabio Capello gets you home, young man). Then there’s pundit Robbie Earle departing ITV nice and early for allegedly giving away his complimentary tickets that somehow ended up in the hands of some Dutch women in small dresses, and Emmanuel Adebayor failing to keep his phone on silent in the BBC studio. Finally we’ve got those Dutch women being dragged out the stadium by the scruff of their necks for ambush marketing, and our England fan Pavlos Joseph who just wanted to use the toilet but ended up in front of a South African judge for trespassing in the English team’s changing room.
So have our World Cup Panel been struggling with the rules or have they been playing ball? Well, they’re all football fanatics, and every fanatic has to have their daytime live football fix. It’s alright for the South Koreans and Australians as it’s all evening and early morning kickoffs, but the rest are up to all sorts. The Portuguese are using discreet office mini TVs to keep up to date, the French are streaming from the internet hidden behind spreadsheets and the Germans are taking extra long lunch breaks in the bar.
But overall we seem to have quite a number of understanding bosses, clients and end-clients (depending on how far along the food chain we are). The French and North Americans have specially converted boardrooms for football viewing – but spend more than 15 consecutive minutes in there at your peril – and the Slovakians are working on flexi-time. The South African’s have the freest reign to watch, as you’d expect, and there are even reports of the odd BBQ on Wednesday afternoon here in England for the Slovenia showdown.
So with all this play, does research slow down in a World Cup? Viewing facility bookings are down as quallies avoid running focus groups when no-one will turn up, but if our panel’s schedules (and mine) are anything to go by the answer is definitely no! It seems the world accelerates as fast as Spain’s David Villa in the last quarter, and like every good defender we need to track those (advertising) runs… it just means more late nights after the final whistle.
In the dog house or not, some of us are certainly working like dogs.
I said, 'did you hear about that sponsor?'
The benefit of a World Cup blog is that you can hear it over the vuvuzela.
Most of us had never heard of the plastic trumpets two weeks ago, and now we hear nothing but them. Bringing the beating heart of African football into our homes or annoying the hell out of us, the English press are divided, and so are our panel of World Cup Watchers.
The big question: Do we embrace everything African in this footballing extravaganza, or do we impose restrictions to allow everyone else to be heard including the Brazilian Samba and the England Supporters Band to mention just two deprived groups?
If you ask our panel they’ll tell you the Slovakians and English are turning the sound down on their TVs, and the Portuguese are buying ear plugs. But, the South Africans and Nigerians are loving every minute of it, and the Greeks are even buying them as souvenirs.
A souvenir? That got me thinking… We’ve embraced ‘The Wave’ from Mexico ’86 and we love a bit of ticatape from Argentina ’74, so why not the vuvuzela? A quick look on eBay later, and I was petrified; they’re not only cheap, but being sold out of Slough and delivered within a few days.
Football fans all over the globe beware; vuvuzelas are coming to a stadium near you. But has anyone got the balls to sponsor them?
TicTac, maybe? They’ve decided that being an official sponsor of Fifa is probably a bit extreme and have instead decided to get on board in an unofficial capacity with the England Supporters Band. Certainly, that’s one way of generating a lot of brand noise. But do World Cup Watchers actually care? Do we wait with anticipation every four years for the final list of World Cup sponsors to be released? Who’s made the cut this time? Who has narrowly missed out?
Nike’s ad launch has been hugely popular (I’ve had it e-mailed to me five times already) – despite disrespecting our monarchy and thus only being shown in an edited version on anything but the internet. And they’re not even official World Cup sponsors. We don’t care if it’s ambush or official… not one iota, as long as it’s entertaining, captures the occasion, and parades our sporting heroes.
Kick off
This week we kicked off our World Cup Panel, which will be the source of my ramblings and anecdotes over the next five weeks. Let me introduce myself: I’m a quallie nicknamed Webbers, and I love football. So what better way to spend these tournament days than to blend my two loves together.
“A panel?!” you say. “How dull!”. It shouldn’t be. We’ve got football fanatics representing their country from the 32 qualifying teams and they’re already fighting over bragging rights for best and worst. The Danish and New Zealanders really aren’t that hopeful, but the Spanish are quietly confident.
Ok, ok, so we haven’t got every qualifying country. North Korea is omitted – they don’t do much market research apparently – and Uruguay was too big an ask, but the rest are there.
I’ll be squeezing these people to share with us every ounce of tournament fun they have in their blood so I can feed it all back to you readers. The difference is, these poor people are all researchers… that’s right, we’ve turned poachers into game keepers for this. We’ve got quallies, quanties, clients and suppliers on board.
So the big question is: do researchers make good respondents? Stick with us as we try to find out. We’ll also begiving a country-by-country view of how the World Cup touches each and every one of us.
