Welcome back to Market Research Optimized! After an hiatus, Dr. Bob returns. A quick one, today, to be sure. And a little macabre humor about market research. When yours truly began his career in the industry, MR was still pretty much a corporate backwater. Slightly suspicious. Since those days, MR has gone from shady to necessity. When I started hearing managers say let’s run that past some focus groups, I knew the trouble was finally starting. Not really; I jest. Interesting though that as the market research industry is evolving into an internet/social media-driven space, “old” MR is finally square in the public eye, both the the ad from Domino’s of late and the spot below developed by BBDO. Hope you enjoy it. I’m still laughing. (Hey, I think I’ve been in that facility!)

Regards, Dr. Bob

The big game has come and gone. I’m reading and hearing more about the advertising in the postmortem than about the game itself.

Seems that the auto ads were the big hits, along with the Budweiser singing cowboys.

And seems that the Groupon ad with Timothy Hutton was the big loser.

Mr. Hutton opens with a soliloquy about the suffering people of Tibet. Then, as the camera pulls back, he says, “but they still make an amazing fish curry.” (Fish curry? Tibet? Who knew?) He then tells how Groupon members are saving big at a Tibetan restaurant.

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

When I heard the line about the fish curry, I winced. From suffering people to fish curry? Pretty improbable leap.

The outcry about the commercial has been intense.

And, it appears, that Groupon had no intention to offend.  A visit to Groupon’s site relating to the ad (www.savethemoney.groupon.com) suggests that Groupon meant the ad to be humorous. Indeed, Groupon is supporting social causes as indicated on their site.

My guess is that the ad aired with no real-world testing. I’ve seen it happen over and over. The ad agency comes up with a “great idea”. They pitch it to their client’s leadership. They’re convinced. The campaign is commissioned and aired. Test it with the target audience? No! It’s brilliant. We get it, therefore they’ll get it.

Besides, it takes time and money to test.

Let’s see:

$5-$6 million to air the commercial (once).

$3-$4 million (or more) to make the commercial.

$100,000 to test the ad.

Yes, great idea. Let’s skip the test.

In the end, damage done–priceless!

Test, Test, Test! No excuses.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

J. Scott Armstrong on Advertising PrinciplesContinuing our discussion of market research reporting:

In the last post, I suggested the idea of evolving toward reporting with a point-of-view rather than a summary and explication of all research findings.

In his recently published Persuasive Advertising: Evidence-based Principles, J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School offers a 45 point checklist to effective management report writing where the objective is to support a recommended course of action. Market research results are usually one input to decision-making and therefore might limit itself to possible recommendations or courses of action that are supported by the research findings.

The point I am reaching for is that market research reporting could be much more compelling (and interesting) if structured with a point-of-view.

Armstrong recommends building a report around the recommendations. Moreover, the more specific and operational the recommendations are, the better. He also suggests offering options and guidance of how to select more appropriately from the options based on the findings.

I highly recommend Dr. Armstrong’s book, Persuasive Advertising, to market researchers. It is the result of years of study of both original research on advertising and reviews of thousands of sources including hundreds of published studies. Essentially Dr. Armstrong has shown what works in persuasion and what does not. Of the hundreds of business books I have read over my career, this is clearly one of the best.

More to follow.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

Sometimes management is insistent on working to turn around very dissatisfied customers as an organizational imperative.

“Well,” I have heard, “they are satisfied and they are staying as customers. Why spend money to make them more satisfied?”

Good question.

Here is why: companies need to build positive satisfaction bank accounts, so to speak, with customers. With a positive account, a customer will be more likely to forgive (but not forget) the next time they encounter a curt customer service rep, or have to wait twenty minutes to talk to one (while listening to a recording telling me there is heavy call volume and they really value my business [wouldn’t valuing my business really translate into putting more resource into answering my call more rapidly?]).

Here’s a personal story to this effect. I was a customer of one of the satellite television providers. I was reasonably satisfied with them. If they had ever asked, I would have given them a four on the one to five scale.

But, their standing with me was constantly based on the next encounter. They had flunked the installation test at the beginning of our relationship by both failing to show up as promised (they did not show at all) and then I had to call them to complain and reschedule.

The service had been okay. The few times I had technical problems, their reps were helpful.

Then I received a flyer from them in the mail, pitching me an introductory offer to start service (I am already a customer!) at less than half the price I was paying after being subscribed for more than five years. That certainly made me feel warm and fuzzy toward them. Moreover, they would not make the same offer to the existing customers.

My conclusion: they valued a new customer more than they valued me, a long-standing customer. My satisfaction is decreasing……………………………..

The kicker came when I was moving. I called to transfer the service from myself to my significant other who did not have an account and was not on my account.

So I made a phone call to their customer service center. The rep I spoke with confrontational, rude, and insistent that I would have to pay to cancel my contract (which had expired after two years of service; I was on month to month).

What did I do? I called their competitor and established service with them. They were more than happy to help, as you might imagine (and are continuing to provide good service three months later—right now, I would say they are a five).

The first provider had no reservoir of good will with me.  And I left when the opportunity (and timing) presented itself.

What could they have done? In the case of the final straw, probably nothing short of free service for the grief they gave me. I am a realist: that was not (and did not) happen.

But if their management was less focused on shoveling new customers into the pipeline and more focused on retaining customers who had proved their value, the distasteful encounters I had with them might not have happened and I would still be their customer.

More to follow.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob

My issue with focusing on turning very dissatisfied customers into satisfied one is this: psychology tells us, and qualitative (and I would argue quantitative) market research confirms that there are some people, some small percentage of the customer/consumer base, that simply is never going to be satisfied. No matter what you do for them, they are never going to be happy with you. The damage is done.

Now I am not a psychologist (but I do play one on tv, ……er, no!). But as an experienced focus group moderator, I have observed over the course of thousands of groups that there are people who are simply unhappy. Why? It is not for me to say or speculate. But they are. You have probably observed this as well if you have set in enough focus groups or in-depth interviews.

This small group (the two to three percent) walk around with thunderclouds over their heads perpetually……and it’s raining!

Most of us have bad days where something happens and we are upset. We may snarl at the dog or get upset that the checker at the grocery counter is not enforcing the ten item rule (that guy has got eleven items!!!). But we get over it.

I suspect that the two to three percent do not.

That may be one reason why the dissatisfaction level in customer satisfaction surveys is so relentlessly stubborn.

But then what about the issue of motivating the organization to higher levels of achievement?

Your observer postulates that this lies in moving customers up in satisfaction level, from somewhat dissatisfied to neutral, from neutral to somewhat satisfied and from somewhat satisfied to very satisfied.

In my experience, many companies who have a solid customer satisfaction measurement (and improvement) system in place report satisfaction as top 2 box and bottom two box (assuming a five or seven point scale).  Maybe it is time to revisit this practice.

Rather than focus on eliminating the “1”’s (very dissatisfied), a more potentially productive path might be to focus on implementing change that will make the satisfied even more so.

More to follow.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob

I have yet to see any definitive research to indicate either the continuing validity or the abrogation of prior market research findings that for every customer with a problem another nine or ten have the same problem but are silent and that an unhappy customer will tell five other people while a happy customer is generally quiet.

But let’s speculate a little.

First, we might ask if consumers or customers are more unhappy than in yesterday. Probably not. Customer satisfaction market research suggests that consumers are generally getting happier with products and services as quality controls, technological advancements, and more rapid distribution networks have evolved.

But there is a lingering cloud of discontent that is consistently measured in customer satisfaction. For companies using one to five scales, very dissatisfied to very satisfied, many continue to see the very dissatisfied percentage of customers remaining stubbornly in the two or three percent range, with the somewhat dissatisfied range slightly higher, typically three to four percent.

What is going on here? If customers are that dissatisfied, why don’t they vote with their feet? (Or are they, and then are simply being replaced with equally dissatisfied customers.)

A few years ago, your observer ran a customer satisfaction measurement process for a major company. The client was the Quality Assurance group. The director of the group (a Board level position) and I would often speculate on what was so upsetting these very dissatisfied customers. He was pushing hard to continually up the bar.

This organization was one of the pioneers of driving a portion of employee bonus pay (all employees) based on the customer satisfaction results. The director wanted the employees to constantly work toward improving their performance and a logical way to measure their improvement was to look at increasing satisfaction scores (or decreasing dissatisfaction scores).

He and I had some interesting debates on this topic. My observation, then as now, is that it is a Sisyphean task to set a compensation-based goal of continually increasing customer satisfaction scores by reducing the percentage in the very dissatisfied category. Now, that might seem odd coming from a strong believer that businesses must measure and act on customer satisfaction market research to up their game and continue to be successful.

More to follow.

Comments welcome.

Dr. Bob

Ever heard the old saying in that for every disgruntled, dissatisfied customer who lets you know of their unhappiness with your product or service, that there are nine or ten other customers who are upset but don’t bother to express it? Moreover, these discontented customers would tell five or so other people. On the other hand, happy customers do not necessary tell anyone unless that are particularly happy or if they are asked directly about the business they are patrons of.

Common wisdom had it that several, if not most of the unsatisfied customers would vote with their feet, that is, they would move their business to one of the competitors and unless the company in question is  conducting attrition surveys, the organization would never know why they left. (Or worse, it might not even notice.)

Much of the above is supported by research conducted in the 1980s. But is it still valid today?

Probably not.

Yesterday, a consumer had to be ardent to express a complaint. The consumer would have to physically visit a location, or be willing to make multiple phone calls to find someone, anyone, who would listen, or write, address and mail letters. Moreover, an unhappy customer had little recourse if their complaint was not answered. They had little or no market power to express their discontent in a public forum.

A few hardy souls would, for example, paint their cars lemon-yellow as a expression of outrage against either a manufacturer who refused (or couldn’t fix a problem with a new vehicle) or a dealer who they felt ignored their problem(s). But except for an appeal to the consumer watchdog reporter from a local television news show, usually a complaint or an incident would not gain the attention of the public (and for those of us who remember those days, wasn’t there some sense that the complainers where just cranky kooks?).

Ah, how the worm has turned!

Today, a disgruntled customer has but to turn to the Internet to potentially create a firestorm of adverse publicity for the company that is the (alleged) source of their pain. A consumer can post a negative review of a product (or vendor) on a shopping site (Amazon?), or make a video to post on YouTube and a hundred other sites, or express their anger on a blog, or even put up a website dedicated to”I hate [such and such a company].” Maybe, with some cleverness and a little bit of luck, their Internet efforts will go viral and thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in the online community would view their missives. Examples are rife.

What to make of all of this?

Have the research findings of yesterday been displaced?

Maybe.

More to follow.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob

The old cartoon of a dog tapping on a keyboard with the caption, on the Internet no one knows you’re a dog still applies. Market researchers have to take careful, considered steps to ensure that in Internet surveying they are really talking to the population they think they are talking to.

For businesses that use other communication and distribution channels, relying solely on the Internet for market research, despite “black box” solutions to the sampling challenge, is a recipe that must be carefully brewed.

Bottom line? Fundamentals are fundamental.

Some years ago, I attended the ART (Advanced Research Techniques) conference of the AMA (American Marketing Association). One of the presentations was about the analytic power of a new statistical modeling technique that one of the big guns in academic market research had developed. It happened that another big gun, and one who had a competing model, was in attendance. The two almost came to blows about which model was more accurate and relevant. I set in the session, fascinated with the altercation. I was very tempted to add fuel to the fire by pointing out a fundamental flaw in both of their models: they were developed and tested using N sizes of under 100 respondents. (I didn’t.)

Now I’m not a Ph.D. in statistics. I work exclusively in applied, or practical market research. But even a student in Statistics 101 knows that a sample of less than 100 yields qualitative data only (unless, of course, the population being sampled is less than 1000). End of story.

I’m sure these gurus had a jargon-laden explanation of why, in their cases, it was acceptable and reasonable to break the fundamental rules of quality market research.

But there are no excuses.

If the fundamentals are not met, the results are fallacious.

It’s the same for market research 2.0 as with market research 1.0. Do the fundamentals according to correct statistical practice.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob

Web 2.0 is changing everything about market research, or is it?

In some ways, the market research community (or industry if you will) is in crisis.

The bulwark of surveying, telephone interviews, is in a sea change: according to the Economist, about 25% of Americans rely solely on a cell phone for telecommunications. This is up from just 7% in 2005. At current rates of decline, the last lineline will be disconnected in 2025.

Meanwhile, only 62% of Americans have internet access at home as of 2007, according to the U.S. Census. While this number has undoubtedly increased as of 2010, it is still nowhere near the ubiquity that landline phones once held.

Both these trends are making reliable national probability sampling a major difficulty.

And the Internet and Internet marketing (and Internet market research) are all the rage as the answer to the problem.

Looking out over this landscape I am struck by one overwhelming observation: Web 2.0 market research (communities of users, Facebook fans, etc.) and even probability sampling studies on the Web are often convenience samples and therefore strictly qualitative in nature.

Useful? Certainly! Web 2.0 provides immediate feedback from highly motivated and involved customers and potential customers. You can quickly, easily and inexpensively float new ideas, new concepts, and trial balloons and get a quick brush on viability.

But in the rush to Web 2.0, market research 2.0 should tread carefully.

Market research is build upon the hard math of probability theory. And a fundamental truth about market research is that it is only as good as the sampling from which results are drawn.

Businesses that are exclusively or primarily Internet marketers certainly have an easier time insuring that they have solid customer (or population) samples. Easier, but caution is the watchword still.

More to follow.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob

My guess is that the healthcare polling has been conducted somewhere in the middle between pejoratively-worded unbalanced questions and a balanced, rational approach. Moreover, the challenge is how to find the balanced, rational approach in the midst of so much opprobrium and contention about healthcare itself.

One aspect that is missing in the polling is the absence of a clear action point for the respondent.

In straight political polling, as in who is leading in a particular race, pollsters can control for likelihood to vote and respondents have clear choices about their actions: they can vote for a particular candidate or not.

In the healthcare debate, there is no single, clear and specific action for the respondent to take. (Although I hear that Rush Limbaugh has threatened to decamp the good old USA now that Congress has passed the healthcare bill–most of us, and most Americans, don’t have that option.)

All the folderal about healthcare polling strikes me as both ludicrious and hilarious. It’s somewhat akin to the (in)famous polls in which sections are read from the Declaration of Independence (not identified as such, mind you) and Americans disagree with the document overwhelmingly. Okay, so we’re proved that ignorance is rampant. WOW! What an insight! And did you know that chicken soup really is good for you when you have a cold?

My take-away is that in professional market research circles, the basics and fundamentals always, always apply. Yes, we rely heavily on both science and math (but let us remember that probability theory was originated by frustrated gamblers). Ultimately, however, we must put much care and attention to how we word questions and in what order we ask them.

As a wise old researcher once told me, you get the answers to the question you ask, not to the question you thought you asked.

Comments welcome!

Dr. Bob