Don't shoot the messenger...

Market researchers interview hundreds of thousands people across the country every year on every topic, from health and happiness to ageing and anti-social behaviour. In very timely fashion we even interviewed over a hundred young people in London, just before this summer’s riots, on life and consumer culture. We found a jealous disparity between what young people aspired to (designer brands, being close to celebrity culture, entrepreneurial spirit) and what they derided (‘posh’ people, living to work). Their frustration between what they expected from life and the reality of a recession-hit country was palpable; all the pre-requisites for social unrest. Our findings cut to the heart of the issue.

And yet it didn’t make the news. Instead, a broadcast journalist interviewed two drunk girls in Croydon who said they “want stuff rich people have got” and that sent shockwaves through the nation. Our story about how the dream hadn’t delivered was not considered interesting. So why, given our robust and analytical procedures, do researchers often go unheard?

A lot can be explained from recent research we conducted for UNICEF on child well-being in the UK, Sweden and Spain. The research combined methodological expertise with academic rigour to see what the UK could learn from the European countries, with the results designed to act as a springboard to lobby government about how to improve children’s lives.

The press saw the research as commentary for what is happening with today’s children, seizing upon the ‘compulsive consumerism’ we identified that is gripping parents and children alike. It was mentioned in all the broadsheets, featured on all the main news channels, with numerous commentators wading in to offer their opinion. The Times put the story on four of the first five pages, showing the importance of child well-being. Fittingly, page three was dedicated to the opening of the new Westfield shopping mall; the sexiest new pin up of today’s ‘compulsive consumerism’.

Yet the purist in me was not happy that they had misquoted the research. What we found was that consumerism is more likely a product of increasing inequality rather than a cause of it, and that to suffocate this unhealthy obsession we need to address rising inequality. This can be combated through the introduction of a living wage so that parents can spend more time at home, rather than buying stuff to compensate for the lack of time spent together. And most importantly, the research is certainly not a ‘guilt trip to parents’ – as some commentators described it – but a call to protect parents from unfettered advertising to children.

But the reports of the research struck such a chord with the nation that it started widespread debate about whether to blame the government, advertisers or parents; even Mumsnet got involved. A mother that took part in the research wrote to thank us, and to say that other mothers had congratulated her at the school gate for taking a stand against an issue they all felt was important. In the end, it didn’t matter that people had cherry-picked the findings – what really mattered was that the research was making a difference. Our findings were for policy makers; journalists had translated them for the public.

While researchers often think they should be writing the news, journalists are much better at it. They might not be armed with statistics and analysis models but they understand how to deliver messages. Researchers are in a great position to understand the convoluted lives of consumers but we don’t always translate that into a simple, clear message. If we expect our clients to act on our findings we need to learn a few hard truths from journalists on how to simplify the message.

Oliver Sweet is head of the ethnography unit at Ipsos Mori