The dangers of DIY research

The advent of social media has done several things: it has driven up demand for such content (which is good) and it has enabled market researchers to see a wider variety of research from other companies (also good as it stretches us as an industry). However, it is also fuelling a growing trend for the creation and sharing of poor quality ‘research’, ‘studies’ and ‘reports’.

Before social media, to varying degrees, journalists were the gatekeepers, deciding which research ended up entering the public domain and which was consigned to the bin. They were mindful of quality. This was a good thing. It put a stop to the ‘around-the-office’ surveys which allegedly took place in the early 1990s. Now with the ease of self-publishing provided by blogging and social media, the flood gates seem to be wide open again. Lots of companies and their marketing agencies are shunning well-executed, insightful research conducted by market research companies in favour of cheaper alternatives. I have seen numerous examples. In fact, this type of ‘research’ is more common than good quality research from reputable sources. The six deadly sins include:

1. DIY surveys: conducted by the client or one of their marketing agencies, with no involvement from any market research professionals
2. Inadequate sampling: inappropriate respondents for the topic and / or not enough respondents
3. Misinterpretation: any researcher who has helped clients prepare research data for the public domain will know that it is so very easy for non-research professionals to get this element wrong. I dread to think what errors exist within the DIY reports
4. Poor reporting: an example recently showed a pie chart with one set of numbers, but the text described a completely different set. We all know how this comes about, but clearly the authors didn’t even notice
5. Borrowed research: usually displayed as an infographic with a long list of different sources (some of which are questionable, like another dodgy, ‘borrowed’ infographic), which means they often compare apples and pears in terms of sample bases
6. Lack of proper reference: some articles are based on very good independent market research, but the client / author fails to properly acknowledge the source

To me, this situation is ludicrous. There is a growing body of research indicating that B2B buyers are inclined to trust third-party content more than vendor-branded content. It seems expert opinion counts for a lot and people’s appetite for research-backed posts is high. This positions research very well to be used as content. But we must not forget that for the client, the whole point of creating content is to make their company look good, add value, educate and engage.

The approaches listed above are surely counterproductive to this aim. Even the client who has commissioned a reputable market research company but does not acknowledge this fact in their sharing of the research findings is missing the point. These approaches also completely sideline us as market research professionals and as a market researcher, I feel I cannot sit back and let this continue without passing comment.

Cherry Taylor is MD at Dynamic Markets.