FEATURE1 September 2010
Ever had an idea that you know is genius, but everyone else thinks is crazy? Here is your chance to share it with the world of research. This month we hear from Rachel SImmons, senior client consultant at Nunwood.
What’s the big idea?
We in the research industry are at times in the habit of screening out plausible respondents who work in market research, PR, advertising or journalism from recruitment questionnaires and questionnaire screeners, but we never really ask ourselves why. It is my belief that researchers and those from a marketing background would make better respondents than the layman.
“I’d like to think researchers would be able to answer in a more effective, articulate and educated way, as we are already engaged in the process”
Isn’t that’s a big no-no?
I’m not so sure. I understand the argument that we’re effectively more biased than the layman as we know how the industry works and what is often required of respondents, but the MRS doesn’t say anything in its Code of Conduct about not interviewing researchers. So where has this myth come from and why do we think using researchers is a bad thing?
What advantages would it bring?
A huge new pool of respondents for us to tap, for starters. The MRS currently estimates that employment in the UK market and social research industry stands at about 15,000 full-time employees, with a similar number of casual or part-time workers, and the Marketing and Sales Standards Setting Body estimates that there are over 600,000 marketing professionals.
What can these people bring to the table that others can’t?
We’d certainly be much more accurate with our responses because we’d know the differences our answers can make to future campaigns, branding and advertising spend. I’d like to think that we’d be able to answer in a more effective, articulate and educated way, as we are already engaged in the process. We may have a useful understanding of the topic in question, making us more discerning, so our input may be more valuable than that of a layman.
When answering surveys we’d actually read the introductions and instructions properly, and in a focus group we’d be more warmed up than general respondents, so there would be no need for the psychological techniques used to elicit information and to relax participants. Interviewing researchers could actually get straight to the point without using the normal ‘cotton wool’ techniques. We certainly wouldn’t be the quiet wallflowers who just turn up for the free tea and cream buns. Rather we would be capable of starting a debate and challenging a theory in a more effective way. Also, we’re more likely to complete the survey as we have a vested interest, which would mean a lower drop-out rate. As a matter of competitive advantage wouldn’t we want to carry on and see how the survey progresses anyway?
But surely researchers would be very biased?
Yes, clearly if you work within a particular sector you are more likely to be biased in your answers as you will have predisposed ideas about that category and be privy to non-public information. But how does this differ from any consumer who will have their own predisposed ideas based on whatever marketing literature they have already read or heard? Surely you have a more valid opinion if your ‘bias’ is based on fact rather than supposition? And if we at least understand what that bias is, it shouldn’t have to be a big deal.
There are obvious issues with client confidentiality and clearly if you work on a competitor account then you might answer in a different way and influence the results. But I’d be surprised if this isn’t happening already – we might as well be honest about it. Aren’t we all looking at ways to find out what our client’s competitors are up to? Aren’t market researchers already filling in surveys to see what others are up to?
What’s that on your computer screen?
Oh, nothing.
Share your vision with us: robertb@researchmagazine.co.uk