mria vue magazine - december 2014

the magazine of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

DECEMBER 2014

the magazine of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

DECEMBER 2014vuevueAN INTRODUCTION TO MAXDIFF SCALING

WHO DOESN’T FOCUS ON THE CUSTOMER?THOUGHTS ON THE SELFISH SIDE OF RESEARCH

GAMIFICATION IN MARKETING RESEARCH: INTEREST, CURIOSITY AND MISCONCEPTION

GOOGLE AND IBM GET IT. DO YOU?

www.ipsos.ca • 1.888.210.7425 • Vancouver • Calgary • Winnipeg • Guelph • Toronto • Ottawa • Montreal

http://www.ipsos.ca

vueDECEMBER 2014

VUE MAGAZINE IS PUBLISHED BY THE MARKETING RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE

ASSOCIATION TEN TIMES A YEAR

ADDRESSThe Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

L’association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

94 Cumberland Street, Suite 601Toronto, ON M5R 1A3Tel: (416) 642-9793

Toll Free: 1-888-602-MRIA (6742)Fax: (416) 644-9793

Email: [email protected] Website: www.mria-arim.ca

PRODUCTION: LAYOUT/DESIGNLS Graphics Inc.

Tel: (905) 743-0402, Toll Free: 1-800-400-8253

Fax: (905) 728-3931Email: [email protected]

CONTACTS CHAIR OF PUBLICATIONS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Annie Pettit, PhD, Chief Research Officer, Peanut Labs(416) 273-9395

[email protected]

MANAGING EDITORAnne Marie Gabriel, CAE, MRIA

[email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITORJeff Hecker

[email protected]

COPY EDITORDiane Peters

[email protected]

Interested in joining the Vue editorial team? Contact us at [email protected]

2014 ADVERTISING RATESFrequent advertisers receive discounts. Details can be

found by going to: www.mria-arim.ca/advertising/vue.asp

Please email [email protected] to book your ad. The deadline for notice of advertising is the first of

the previous month. All advertising material must be at the MRIA office

on the 5th of the month.

Original articles and Letters to the Editor are welcome. Materials will be reviewed by the Vue Editorial Team. If accepted for publication, they may be edited for length or clarity and placed in the electronic archives on

the MRIA website.

The opinions and conclusions expressed in Vue are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the

Marketing Research and Intelligence Association.

Publishing Date: December © 2014. All rights reserved. Copyright rests with the Marketing Research and

Intelligence Association or the author.

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the

Marketing Research and Intelligence Association or the author. All requests for permission for reproduction must be submitted

to MRIA at [email protected].

RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TOThe Marketing Research and Intelligence Association

L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

94 Cumberland Street, Suite 601Toronto, ON M5R 1A3

Canadian Publications Mail Agreement #40033932

ISSN 1488-7320

Commentary4 Editor’s Vue

6 Letter from the Chair

8 Letter from the CEO

SPECIAL FEATURE10 GOOGLE AND IBM GET IT. DO YOU? John Willis, CMRP

Features16 AN INTRODUCTION TO MAXDIFF SCALING

Phil Straforelli, CMRP

19 WHO DOESN’T FOCUS ON THE CUSTOMER? THOUGHTS ON THE SELFISH SIDE OF RESEARCH

Megann Willson

22 GAMIFICATION IN MARKETING RESEARCH: INTEREST, CURIOSITY AND MISCONCEPTION David Wiszniowski

Industry News21 Events Calendar

25 Research Registration System (RRS)

27 Qualitative Research Registry (QRR)

29 Net Gain 2015

30 Council Updates

Columnists31 Ask Dr. Ruth

31 It’s a Qual World

32 ‘Good Enough’ is not OK

MRIA Institute for Professional DevelopmentInsert: back cover 2014-2015 Course Offerings

ADVERTISERS2 IPSOS

5 NLOGIC (FORMERLY BBM ANALYTICS)

14 SM RESEARCH

26 ELEMENTAL

4 vue | DECEMBER 2014

COMMENTARY / COMMENTAIRE

Annie Pettit PhD, Chief Research Officer / Directrice de la recherche, Peanut LabsEditor-in-Chief, Vue / Rédactrice en chef, Vue • Email: [email protected] • (416) 273-9395 • t @LoveStats

Please share your opinions about Vue articles and columns, or submit your cartoons and infographics to the Editor. La rédactrice vous invite à lui faire parvenir directement vos commentaires, opinions, caricatures ou infographies.

Annie Pettit

EDITOR’S Vue

As I write this, Thanksgiving has just passed and Remembrance Day is right around the corner. These important days are reminders carved in stone around the world of how much Canadians have to be thankful for. Words cannot begin to describe how thankful I personally am for the sacrifices that millions of people made to get me, my loved ones and friends to where we are today.

Thanks are sometimes difficult to come by but when they come from the heart, they are always worthwhile.

Thank you to the project managers who often take the brunt of every internal and external client’s bad day, every error, every misunderstanding, and provide solutions to problems both large and small with a smile on their face.

Thank you to the survey programmers who puzzle through the survey drafts researchers give them and find logic errors and typos, and places where they can make huge improvements to the flow, design, and engagement of surveys.

Thank you to the people at the computer help desk who eliminate the spam we downloaded that keeps wiping out our project plans and survey drafts.

Thank you to the survey testers who answer the same boring survey 15 times in 15 different ways to find survey skips that inadvertently lead no one down the most important path.

Thank you to the mysterious office elves who pick up the paper you dropped beside the photocopier, washed the dishes you left in the sink, and moved your pop can from the garbage to the recycling bin.

And lastly, a hearty thanks to our research participants without whom none of this would be possible.

Now look at the person on your left and the person on your right, and say Thank You to each of them. This Vue is for you.

Je vous écris quelques jours après l’Action de grâces et autant de jours avant le jour du Souvenir, deux occasions incontournables pour les Canadiens d’exprimer leur profonde reconnaissance. Personnellement, je peine à trouver les mots qui traduiraient mon intense reconnaissance aux millions de personnes qui ont tant sacrifié, jusqu’à leur vie, pour que moi et mes êtres chers puissent vivre comme nous le faisons.

Le remerciement est une denrée rare, des plus appréciés quand il est sincère et jaillit du coeur. J’en profite donc pour remercier sincèrement tous les chefs de projet qui doivent composer avec les sautes d’humeur de leurs clients, internes comme externes, et qui doivent présenter avec sourire – toujours ! – des solutions à des problèmes des plus bénins aux très graves.

Je remercie aussi les programmeurs de sondages qui décryptent les ébauches de sondage des chercheurs, corrigent les coquilles et erreurs de logique, et proposent des modifications qui rehaussent la trame du sondage de même que le degré d’engagement des participants.

Merci également aux spécialistes de l’informatique qui dépistent et éliminent les pourriels que nous avons téléchargés par négligence et qui effacent nos projets en cours et brouillons de sondage.

Merci, toujours, aux testeurs de sondages qui répondent 15 fois à la même question ennuyante — de 15 façons différentes afin de déceler toute erreur ou carence qui compromettrait la validité du sondage.

Je suis aussi reconnaissante aux mystérieux lutins qui ramassent la feuille de papier ratatinée qui a échoué à côté de la corbeille, qui lavent la tasse laissée sale dans l’évier, ou qui transfèrent les canettes de la poubelle au bac de recyclage.

Enfin, merci mille fois aux participants à nos sondages, sans qui nous serions tous au chômage.

Maintenant, regardez à votre droite et votre gauche et dites merci à toutes ces personnes qui vous entourent. Ce numéro deVue leur est dédié avec reconnaissance.

BBM Analytics is now NLogic — we’re a trusted source for audience intelligence to help you make smarter decisions.

Discover more at nlogic.ca

We have a new name and a new approach to analyzing data.

With traditional ways of thinking being challenged, how do

you make sense of it all? For radio and television audience

insights we have the tools and expertise to help.

nLogic-MRIA-ad-v1.indd 1 14-10-31 5:24 PM

http://www.nlogic.ca


Shane Skillen, CMRP

The BIG issues and ideas that were raised include:

1) Bad polls are a problem that hurt the credibility of the profession. In particular, IVR as it’s not accurate and is viewed by the public as harassment. Further, as the poll predictions are off, people are skeptical about the accuracy of ALL research. This has to stop and the MRIA is exploring solutions including an aggressive media outreach campaign ahead of the next federal election.

2) In addition to this, we have a public perception problem. A PR problem. Insights professionals are not understood or appreciated as much as we could be. The solution here is for the MRIA to be in the media more often. We will be deploying a PR program in the coming months to get Kara Mitchelmore in the proverbial “out there”. You will see her in the press before the holidays.

3) Standards are critical and I’m sorry to report that we have some bad apples in our midst. This primarily relates to focus group recruiting and online sampling. Non-MRIA members in both areas are breaking our rules and the result is the worst imaginable: misleading insights that lead to bad decisions. We are working to help clients understand the importance

Parmi les GRANDS dossiers et idées dont nous avons traités, relevons :

1) Les sondages électoraux de piètre qualité qui minent la crédibilité du secteur, tout particulièrement ceux réalisés avec la technologie de réponse vocale intercative, qui n’est pas fiable et que le grand public considère comme du harcèlement. Quand les résultats d’un sondage politique s’avèrent inexacts, le public remet en question la justesse de TOUS les résultats de recherche. L’ARIM étudie actuellement un nombre de mesures correctives à ce problème, y compris une campagne publicitaire très dynamique avant le lancement des prochaines élections fédérales.

2) Le secteur n’a pas la faveur du public et fait face à un problème d’image. Ses professionnels sont peu ou pas compris ou appréciés – certainement moins qu’ils le voudraient. L’ARIM doit donc affirmer davantage sa présence dans les médias. À cette effet, il lancera bientôt, avant les Fêtes, un programme de relations publiques qui mettra en vedette Kara Mitchelmore.

3) La question des normes est critique et il me peine de dire que nous comptons des « pommes pourries » dans le secteur, tout particulièrement dans les domaines du recrutement des participants aux groupes de discussion et de l’échantillonnage en ligne. Des cabinets de ces deux sous-secteurs, qui ne sont

LETTER FROM THE CHAIR

I’m fresh off what was one of the most interesting

and inspiring conversations I’ve had while being

involved in the MRIA. Several industry leaders

joined the Board of Directors for a Roundtable

about our Industry’s future. We were pleased

to welcome Steve Levy, Jean-Marc Léger, Steve

Mossop, Don Mills and Rob Berger to share their

opinions and ideas. It was great to see such an

esteemed group come together to discuss the

opportunities that lay ahead.

Je viens tout juste de participer à une

conversation parmi les plus intéressantes et

inspirantes depuis que je suis associé à l’ARIM.

Étaient présents, outre les membres du conseil

d’administration, un nombre des éminences de

notre secteur, notamment Steve Levy, Jean-Marc

Léger, Steve Mossop, Don Mills et Rob Berger.

Ensemble, nous avons discuté de l’avenir du

secteur, des occasions qui se présenteront à lui,

et partagé nos idées et opinions à ce sujet.

vue | DECEMBER 2014 7

of MRIA standards and, in particular, the Gold Seal which demands a high level of adherence to our best practices and codes.

4) Young talent is not finding its way into the research business. Youngsters these days are chasing the money and often that leads the numerically gifted to careers in finance. The MRIA is starting a student outreach program where we communicate better about the wonders and benefits of the many possible careers in research. We also have a new branding initiative underway that will help better communicate the value the Insights profession brings to bear on corporate and government decisions. You will start to see elements of this early in 2015.

5) We are weak in Quebec. This problem already has a good solution with Jean-Marc Léger offering to help and the national conference being in Montreal in 2016. Quebec, we miss you and value your involvement in the MRIA. We are a national organization and we look forward to seeking ways to better support and engage you. I will personally be coming to Quebec in February and hope to meet with you to learn about what your challenges are and how the MRIA can help.

6) And finally, the biggest issue raised was a declining level of volunteerism. The MRIA is about creating an industry for all of us to part of. It bonds us. Protects us against regulations. Educates us. Gives us a purpose greater than our current job title and company. If you haven’t volunteered lately, I hope you will. You will be giving back to the industry and helping to create a vibrant group of professionals

The thing that is most on my mind is the National Conference next year. It will be in Toronto. We already have a great slate of speakers that will deliver a very educational agenda. Plan to come. It’s important for you and for the industry.

As always, I’d love to hear from you. You can reach me anytime at [email protected].

Have fun creating what’s next.

pas membres de l’ARIM, contreviennent impunément à nos règlements et produisent des résultats trompeurs, qui mènent à de mauvaises décisions. Nous oeuvrons donc à convaincre les clients de l’importance capitale des normes de l’ARIM et de son agrément Sceau d’or, qui est une garantie d’intégrité et de conformité.

4) Nous ne recrutons pas assez de jeunes, qui semblent plus intéressés à l’argent du secteur financier qu’aux défis de la recherche marketing. Cela est particulièrement vrai chez les bols des chiffres. L’ARIM a lancé un programme de sensibilisation qui vise à mieux informer les étudiants au sujet des avantages et défis intéressants que leur réserve une carrière dans notre domaine. De plus, nous lancerons une initiative de promotion de notre image de marque dès le début de 2015, initiative qui visera à démontrer le rôle clé de nos professionnels dans le processus de prise de décisions, tant dans le secteur privé que public.

5) Nous sommes faibles au Québec. Heureusement, nous pouvons compter sur l’aide de Jean-Marc Léger et le congrès national qui aura lieu à Montréal en 2016 comme pistes de solution. Le précieux engagement du Québec au sein de l’ARIM nous manque. Nous sommes une organisation nationale et nous nous devons de mieux servir les membres du Québec. Je me rendrai d’ailleurs au Québec au mois de février prochain pour y rencontrer des membres de cette province et discuter des défis particuliers de cette section régionale et des façons que l’ARIM pourraient les appuyer.

6) Le déclin du bénévolat au sein de l’ARIM s’est avéré le grand sujet d’inquiétude des participants. L’ARIM est une association pour tous les membres du secteur. Elle nous unit, elle défend nos intérêts en matière de réglementation, nous forme et nous propose une raison d’être qui va au-delà de notre poste ou employeur. Si vous n’avez pas fait de bénévolat depuis quelque temps, je vous invite à le faire dès maintenant. Tout le secteur et ses professionnels ne s’en porteront que mieux.

Permettez-moi, en terminant, de vous rappeler que le congrès national de 2015 aura lieu à Toronto, où nous vous attendrons nombreux. L’événement, qui proposera une belle gamme de conférenciers, sera des plus instructifs. Soyez-en !

J’apprécie toujours vos commentaires et suggestions. Communiquez avec moi en tout temps à [email protected].

À vous de jouer, à vous de façonner l’avenir. Merci.

Shane Skillen, CMRP, CEO / PARM, PDG, Hotspex Inc. Chair, Marketing Research and Intelligence Association / Président du conseil, L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

Email: [email protected] • 416-487-5439

mailto:[email protected]


COMMENTARY / COMMENTAIRE

LETTER FROM THE CEO

Kara Mitchelmore

CHANGES ARE COMING, CHANGES ARE HERE As we say goodbye to another exciting year, we look towards manifesting our New Year’s resolutions. Some make resolutions to get in shape, to go back to school, or to find work life balance. At MRIA the New Year’s resolution is to advance the advocacy and value of the Association in the market research industry, and we are taking some serious steps to achieving these goals.

First, starting January 1, 2015, MRIA will be implementing completely revamped standards for the Canadian Marketing Research industry. The new standards, which are aligned closely with ESOMAR represent the first renewal of standards since 2007. Moving forward the standards will be refreshed annually, to ensure that MRIA is incorporating standards for the new methodologies in market research as they unfold. Next steps, once the standards have been socialized with the membership, will be increased enforcement amongst the membership and education to other stakeholder groups as to what they should expect from a market researcher in Canada.

Second, financial reporting will also be changing in 2015. Financial reporting is a key value added service to corporate members allowing them to trend their results against others in the industry, as well as to review how the Canadian market is performing relative to its global counterparts. In order for this information to be meaningful, relevant and timely, it is imperative that all of our corporate members participate. To facilitate this process and ensure that the information is as fulsome as possible, corporate members will be required to report on a monthly basis as well as on the annual financial health survey. The process is very simple, enter a secure portal, add your identifier number, fill in a few fields and voila – relevant reporting that

DU CHANGEMENT DANS L’AIR ET À L’HORIZON Dans le sillage d’une année des plus intéressantes nous contemplons aujourd’hui nos résolutions du Nouvel An qui approche. Certains s’engagent à retrouver la forme, d’autres à retourner aux études, d’autres encore à trouver un équilibre boulot-vie personnelle. À l’ARIM, notre résolution est de rehausser la valeur aux membres et de mieux défendre encore les intérêts de ces derniers, deux objectifs vers lesquels nous avons déjà fait de sérieux premiers pas.

De nouvelles normes entrent ainsi en vigueur dès le 1er janvier 2015, pour l’ensemble du secteur canadien de la recherche marketing. Ces normes, qui s’inspirent largement d’ESOMAR, constituent la première refonte des normes depuis 2007. Elles seront revues annuellement, de façon à incorporer toutes normes qui s’imposent suite à l’introduction de nouvelles méthodologies. La prochaine étape, une fois que les membres auront « digéré » ces nouvelles normes, visera à renforcer l’application de celles-ci et à informer les parties prenantes des attentes qu’elle devraient avoir à l’égard des chercheurs marketing canadiens.

Nous apporterons aussi en 2015 des changements à la communication de l’information financière, un service de grande valeur à nos membres corporatifs, qui comptent sur celui-ci pour comparer leurs résultats à ceux de la concurrence et pour évaluer la performance du secteur canadien par rapport à celle du secteur international. Le succès de cette initiative reposera sur la participation des membres corporatifs, qui devront nous fournir, mensuellement et annuellement, des données complètes, pertinentes et actuelles. Pour ce faire, il n’auront qu’à se rendre sur un portail web sécurisé, lui communiquer un numéro d’identification, et ensuite remplir quelques champs. C’est simple


commentar ycommentairewill give a solid barometer of the market research

industry in Canada. I am very excited about this

initiative, and am looking forward to providing

MRIA members reporting that will help them in

their business planning.

Third, with the implementation of the new

standards, MRIA will be reviewing its current

Gold Seal Certification process to ensure that it

is aligned appropriately. In this process there will

be changes made to the certification to be more

inclusive to evolving practices, and a solid plan

for implementation. Recertifications as well will

be held to the new process, to ensure that our

Gold Seal members are compliant with the new

standards, adding increased value to obtaining

and retaining the Gold Seal certification when

dealing with stakeholders.

2014 was a year of restructuring, 2015 will be

one of wide spread change for the MRIA and its

membership. The result will be a stronger voice in

the market research industry, both in Canada and

globally. I look forward to seeing it unfold and

as always, welcome feedback from you, our most

important stakeholder.

Happy Holidays!

comme bonjour. Ce processus mènera à la publication de données utiles qui seront autant de baromètres de la situation du marché de la recherche marketing au Canada. L’initiative, qui aidera les membres participants à mieux planifier leurs affaires, est capitale. Je fonde en elle de grands espoirs.

Enfin, l’ARIM compte revoir, dans le cadre de l’application de ces nouvelles normes, tout le processus qui mène à l’obtention du Sceau d’or, qui doit être actualisé. Ce processus devra se montrer davantage inclusif des nouvelles pratiques et comportera un volet application rigoureux. L’agrément sera de plus soumis à un examen périodique avant tout renouvellement, de façon à contrôler la conformité aux nouvelles normes. Ces changements ne feront qu’augmenter la valeur de l’agrément, tant aux yeux des membres agréés que de leurs clients potentiels.

Si 2014 a été une année de restructuration, 2015 en sera une de nombreux changements, tant à l’ARIM que chez ses membres. Ces changements nous donneront tous une voix plus forte qui porte plus loin, au Canada comme à l’étranger. J’ai bien hâte d’entendre cette voix, de même que vos commentaires et suggestions, qui sont toujours les bienvenus.

Joyeuses Fêtes !

Kara Mitchelmore, MBA, FCMA, Chief Executive Officer/Présidente-directrice générale Marketing Research and Intelligence Association / L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing

Email: [email protected] • (416) 642-9793 ext./poste 8724


FEATURE

New and better data collection methods are vital, but on their own they do not add up to a complete answer. In a landscape where open innovation is being applied in healthcare, publishing, education, not-for-profits, financial services, consumer goods and food retailing as well as high-tech and software development, we need research practices that are integral to the innovation process itself.

We can start with an understanding of whether innovation is happening through an inside-out or an outside-in strategy. The latter is the terra firma for marketing researchers going forward.

Outside-in strategies focus on absorbing innovative outside ideas, skills, technology and methods without taking on new fixed costs or suffocating them under rigid inside structures. A good deal of customer integration research aims to support

this process, but a critical dimension of outside-in innovation is finding the right outside to bring in – reinforcing existing design biases or business models can be wasteful and even damaging to the enterprise.

In fact, traditional marketing research is weak on precisely this score: it defaults to the average consumer – the centre of the bell curve – whereas the outside-in strategist is often interested in the outlier. To be relevant, marketing researchers need to be adept at finding relevant but divergent viewpoints to bring to the innovation table.

The Biggest Minority of All

There is a marketing segment out there that is also the right community to engage for the next wave of both economic and social innovation. People with disabilities.

John Willis, CMRP

DISABILITY IS ALREADY DRIVING OUTSIDE-IN INNOVATION, AND IT WILL ONLY GROW AS A

FORCE IN THE FUTURE

How does marketing research support innovation in industry, commerce and the public sector? This question is on many minds (not to mention blogs) and rightly

so: if ever the slogan “innovate or die” was appropriate, it is in regard to marketing research

today.

SPEC

IAL GOOGLE AND IBM GET IT. DO YOU?


SPECIAL FEATURE

And while you let your eyebrows fall back to resting

position, you’re thinking: “But aren’t people with

disabilities the exceptional consumer? Aren’t they

served by a specialist market of assistive technology?

And what the h#&! do they have to do with cutting-

edge innovation?”

Stay with me here: disability is driving innovation

already and it will only grow as a force in the

future, both in consumer and in producer markets,

in both products and services, domestically and

internationally.

First, let’s dispense with the quantitative issue – people with disabilities are the largest minority of all. Canadians with disabilities number about 3.8 million by Statistics Canada’s relatively narrow definition – more than the entire Canadian workforce in construction, resources, and manufacturing And in the U.S., it’s a market of nearly 40 million people. Worldwide? A billion.

And if people with temporary disabilities (illness, injury) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are included in the figures, this marginal group starts to approach one in five in people in size.

SHIFTING AGE STRUCTURE & DISABILITY IN CANADA, 2012 vs 2036

2012 2036 CHANGE

15-64 (‘000s) with disability 2,332 3,079 32%

without disability 20,854 23,466 13%

65+ (‘000s) with disability 1,429 3,419 139%

without disability 2,900 6,934 139%

TOTAL 15+ 27,515 36,898 34%

(Source: Canadian Survey on Disabilities, 2013 (Statistics Canada); Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories – Highlights, 2014 (Statistics Canada).


And disability is a growing phenomenon. StatsCan’s median estimates indicate that by 2036 we can expect that Canadians 15 and older with disabilities will number over 6.5 million, and the number over 65 will more than double, to nearly 3.5 million. This is based on only a 34 per cent overall increase in the population over 15, but the shift to an older median age means a ballooning of the population with functional limitations.

Is this a Disaster in the Making?

Not according to Google and IBM, and other progressive firms that are establishing innovation hubs around inclusive design to support our aging population. Apple’s VoiceOver app on the iPhone is a built-in screen reader that may have been targeted at blind users, but it’s lodged right in the operating system, indicating the centrality of accessibility to the Apple development ecosystem.

These leaders in the tech sector are making the leap from seeing disability as a matter best left to the health and charity sectors, and instead seeing it as a dynamic commercial segment and a lens through which to develop high-value services. There are signs that large consumer-facing sectors – notably the banks in Canada – are taking a similar approach.

Important though the discovery and creation of new customers is, it is only scratching the surface of this new innovation space.

The key insight about aging and disability is that within a few short decades, large numbers of investors, working professionals, taxpayers, decision-makers, caregivers, developers, job creators, educators – and marketing researchers! – will be living with low vision, loss of hearing, mobility and dexterity challenges, chronic pain, cognitive decline and episodic mental health issues, or a combination of limitations. And we need them to remain engaged and productive for the sake of our economic and social well-being.

The days of declaring the disabled non-functioning members of society and pushing them into the arms

of overstretched charities are ending. We need to get to work transforming our workplaces, universities and colleges, hospitals and transportation, as well as financial services, retail spaces, consumer products and digital infrastructure technologies because it is a necessity to make them all more accessible and inclusive of people with disabilities.

In Canada, Ontario is the petri dish. Reporting in 2010 on the economic uplift from new accessibility legislation there, the Martin Prosperity Institute noted, “Our research clearly indicates that there are large pools of untapped human capital that could help drive Ontario’s prosperity [if accessibility is enforced across the province].” The province could see a net GDP boost of up to $800 per capita, resources that would rebound to the benefit of the private sector in healthier retail and tourism sectors, growth of accessibility-related export clusters (for example, software), and high-value intellectual property in universities and colleges.

Social Innovation and “The Curb Cut Effect”

So this is as much about social innovation as it is about market opportunities. Things are going to look very different in the decades ahead. Unless we want to watch our economy deteriorate as millions of talented, hard-working Canadians get pushed to the margins, we need to start focusing on the biggest outside of all, people with disabilities.

Government standards for accessibility are important, since they provide a level playing field, but how does marketing research support business models to take advantage of the opportunities?

People with disabilities are a long-tail market challenge, i.e., there are many relatively small consumer segments to serve. One of the key strategies is to seek out what experts call “the curb cut effect,” named after the now-common wheelchair ramps on public sidewalks, which benefit people with strollers, crutches, rollerblades, wagons, dollies, buggies and tricycles. This means developing new technologies

SPECIAL FEATURE


or processes that meet the needs of people with disabilities (the outside), but that directly benefit the broader (and much larger) community.

This is a critical pattern that enables much larger investments in markets that are initially quite small. The humble telephone (inspired by A. G. Bell’s affinity to his local deaf community) and typewriter (invented in 1808 to help a blind countess write legibly) are two marquee examples. But more recent innovations such as flatbed scanners, optical character recognition (OCR), and semantic HTML are also curb cuts that have clear, large-scale impacts beyond those whose needs inspired their creation.

Consider some of the emerging trends from accessibility research that may turn out to be game changing on a much wider scale:

• Wearable computing and research on cognition and sensory inputs. People with complex disabilities are excellent “edge personas” helping radical designers explore the untapped potential of these new technologies.

• The possibility of a universal digital “preference set” that would make every screen understandable is inspired by the cognitive decline and loss of eyesight among older consumers, but could produce global infrastructure that helps everyone connect.

• The EU and the US government are funding research into publicly-owned cloud computing, designed from the start to enable global open technology innovation so that people with complex or unusual requirements can access knowledge, investment, and markets around the world.

• Research on how to create images with sound instead of pictures is underway to give greater access for the blind to complex charts and tables. This audio-ization of data could support knowledge transfer in any environment where the use of visual imagery is less than optimal such as hospital emergency rooms or operating theatres, the cockpits of aircraft and construction sites.

A Research Opportunity Knocks

Mapping this vast new terrain is a classic marketing research problem. Traditional disability statistics focus on health-related demographics and/or social services. But little effort has been put into understanding these markets from a design and innovation perspective.

Statistics Canada’s Canadian Survey on Disability (referenced above) contains too little granular data about the varieties of functional types of disabilities or their distribution across the population. That survey is still rooted in the old medical model of disability – which treats disability as an inherent flaw in the individual – to the new, design-oriented social model, which focuses on the mismatch between individual abilities and the affordances of a given environment or service or product.

For example, each of the many varieties of vision impairment may have distinct design implications, and these may differ by which product or service under consideration. We know surprisingly little about how different disabilities influence consumer markets, the workplace, education, entertainment, media, arts, technology, commerce or culture. As the advocacy network Raising the Floor puts it: “We need to understand how people with disabilities respond to their functional limitations – what do they do, what do they buy, what activities do they avoid, what activities do they substitute?”

For example, many blind people use a screen reader to access computers and the Internet. But less than half of low-vision consumers (who have some sight) use a screen reader, so what are they doing instead? Is this an underserved e-commerce market that mainstream technologies are already adapted for, or is there a whole new niche growing without significant investment to meet it?

Or think about media consumption. How will the evolution of broadcast and cable TV affect media access for people with disabilities, and how will their consumption preferences influence technological choices? How does social media play into this dynamic, particularly as we plan for many more

SPECIAL FEATURE


people with disabilities to stay in the workforce? Or, consider that mild cognitive impairment

(MCI) affects between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of adults over 65 (according to the U.S.-based Alzheimer’s Association). How is this influencing the delivery of value to customers in service-oriented sectors? Do Canadians with MCI have different consumer behaviours and preferences, and if so, what are the opportunities? For example, a certain percentage of people with dementia have all of their freedom to purchase taken away, because caregivers fear for their security and safety. Can another model of inclusive commerce be put in place that safeguards these customers while giving them some freedom? That’s an innovation that can be extended to children, who are just learning about money and consumer judgements.

The truth is, much of our future is very uncertain. How the Internet of things will intersect with other trends is as yet unclear and the advances of medical science are also hard to predict. But we do know that digital technology will continue to grow as a powerful influence on our lives and that the prevalence of functional limitations in mind and body will grow. Seeking innovation in this unique and growing space is as close to a certainty as we are going to get. What are we waiting for?

Marketing research has a very obvious role to play in foregrounding the experiences of people with functional limitations, and it is in our interest to do so because these outside perspectives can spark radical thinking that is, literally, unthinkable through so-called normal means. Marketing research can act as a midwife for this historic shift in markets, public services, and national well-being.

ResourcesReleasing Constraints: Projecting the Economic Impacts of Increased Accessibility in Ontario, 2010 report commissioned by the Government of Ontario, by the Martin Prosperity Institute, Adaptive Technology Research Centre, and Institute for Competitive Prosperity, martinprosperity.org/2010/06/14/releasing-constraints-projecting-the-economic-impacts-of-increased-accessibility-in-ontario.

Google Accessibility, google.ca/accessibility. An exhaustive listing of apps for accessibility, as well as information on Google’s research programs and scholarships for work in the field of digital inclusion.

IBM AbilityLab, www-03.ibm.com/able/accessibility_research_projects/#Projects.

Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC), idrc.ocadu.ca. An international, open-source R&D centre at OCAD University (Toronto) that is “Working to ensure that emerging information technology and practices are designed inclusively.”

Raising the Floor, raisingthefloor.org/needs-and-numbers. Includes some sample surveys that go deeper into the technology experiences of blind, low-vision or hard-of-hearing consumers.

Web4All Conference 2015, w4a.info/2015. The next iteration of the preeminent global gathering on web accessibility.

John Willis, CMRP is senior associate, research &

engagement at Strategic Communications, Inc.

He tweets at @TOjohnw and can be reached at

[email protected].

SPECIAL FEATURE


http://www.smres.com

http://martinprosperity.org/2010/06/14/releasing-constraints-projecting-the-economic-impacts-of-increased-accessibility-in-ontario/

http://www.google.ca/accessibility/

http://www-03.ibm.com/able/accessibility_research_projects/#Projects

http://raisingthefloor.org/needs-and-numbers

http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2014/10/w4a-2015-improving-accessibility-of-the-web-mobiles-and-wearables/


QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CONFERENCE

March 26 & 27, 2015 | Hotel Novotel Toronto, North York

Mark your Calendars for 1.5 days of highly interactive learning!

Calling all Qualies!

We will be showcasing:

Qualitative Reports Evaluated by a Client Panel: Opportunity for everyone to submit questions

Mobile Research in Action: Everyone will have the opportunity to participate in a mobile research project

Roundtable Breakouts: “Hot topic” roundtable discussions

Applied Learning Workshops: Learning workshops facilitated by industry leaders

and held on the afternoon of Day 1 (March 26)

For conference updates and to view our Call for Speakers, visit http://qrc2015.mria-arim.ca/


Ranking Questions

Their key advantage is that they force respondents to differentiate between a given set of items. However, the data resulting from this type of question is ordinal in nature, meaning that it does not capture the distance between items (see Figure 1). Moreover, research has shown that respondents have difficulty ranking more than six or seven items at a time, and respondents are quite poor in accurately ranking items in the middle of their rank order.

Figure 1 – Although both respondents give the same answer, their opinions may in fact differ –the two items may be perceived as very close for one respondent, while they may greatly differ according to another respondent. Ranking questions do not capture this differentiation.

Chip allocation questions

In a chip allocation question, respondents are asked to allocate a certain amount of points (usually 100) to each item, such that the item with the most points is the most preferred or valuable. This has the benefit of using compositional data,

rather than ordinal data, meaning that the distance between items is now captured for each respondent. Yet, this approach is quite difficult for respondents, as it requires them to calculate their answers across items. In fact, respondents end up placing more thought on making their answers add up to 100 than on properly evaluating the given items. This problem is exacerbated when there are more than six or seven items to evaluate.

Rating Scale Questions

This commonly used method is much easier for respondents to answer for more than six or seven items, since each item is answered independently. However, this also leads to low discrimination across items. Researchers can eliminate straight-liners (respondents who always give the same rating across items) from their sample, but it can be difficult to spot respondents giving random answers through a rating grid. More perniciously, respondents interpret scales differently – an issue called “scale-use bias” (see Figures 2A and 2B). This phenomenon is commonly found when running studies across different cultures. Anecdotally, Canadian researchers often find that Quebec respondents tend to give higher ratings than respondents in the rest of Canada. Disentangling true differences in opinion across subgroups of respondents from differences in scale interpretation is extremely difficult.

A Solution

In 1987, Jordan Louviere, at the time a researcher at the University of Alberta, inspired by Dan McFadden’s invention of choice modeling, proposed a new type of question format to answer these weaknesses: Maximum Difference Scaling, more

FEATURE

Phil Straforelli, CMRP

“Rating scales are the worst form of measurements for preference and importance, except for all the others.”

Now, no one as far as I know has actually stated the quote above. It is, of course, a paraphrasing of Winston Churchill’s famous quote regarding democracy as a form of government. Yet this statement encapsulates the love-hate relationship that researchers have with traditional questionnaire design methods to measure stated preference or importance across multiple items.

What are the pitfalls of traditional question methods? Let’s cover each of these in detail.

AN INTRODUCTION TO MAXDIFF SCALING


commonly known as “MaxDiff” and sometimes called “Best-Worst Scaling.”

MaxDiff solves all the problems listed above: it ensures discrimination across the items measured (with far more than six or seven items), it provides compositional data (a form of ratio data that allows flexible analysis) and employs a method that is easy to understand and leaves no room for misinterpretation, regardless of respondents’ cultural or educational background.

How does MaxDiff Work?

A MaxDiff exercise consists of taking a subset of the given items, and respondents select the item they consider the best (or most preferred/important) and the item they consider the worst (or least preferred/important; see Figure 3). This task of selecting the best/most and worst/least of a subset of items is repeated multiple times, with the full list of items appearing and disappearing from task to task.

How many tasks should appear in a MaxDiff exercise depends on several factors: the total number of items we wish to evaluate (ranging from four to preferably 30), the length of text describing each item, the sample size, and the need for more precise measurement.

If the sample size will be low, or more precise measurement at the individual respondent level is desired to differentiate across subgroups, one can decrease the number of items shown in each task, and/or increase the number of times each of the items would appear throughout the exercise, as well as increase

the total number of tasks. Depending on the number and the length of the items shown, a task can take anywhere from 10 to 30 seconds to answer. MaxDiff exercises should not take more than five minutes of respondents’ time to complete to avoid fatigue.

Methodologically, MaxDiff is a form of discrete choice modeling (DCM). Although DCMs are prized for offering more realistic questionnaire designs, they are also inefficient in the sense that the data captured is sparse. To make up for this inefficiency, Hierarchical Bayes (HB) regression is employed to estimate results at the individual respondent level. This computationally intensive method runs a model on two levels – a low level where each respondent’s answers are modelled, and a high level in which a model is determined across the sample. Each individual model’s inconsistencies and gaps in knowledge are filled by borrowing information across the rest of the respondents. This leads to stable estimates of the value placed by each respondent on each item measured. These estimates are then rescaled to ratio-based probabilities adding up to a scale (usually 0 or 100) for ease of interpretation and analysis. An added bonus of this approach is that each respondent is provided a fit statistic – that is, an estimation as to how well the model predicts each respondent’s answers. If the MaxDiff exercise consisted of subsets of four items and a respondent’s fit statistic is near 1/4 = 25 per cent, then it means that the model is unable to accurately predict the respondent’s answers more than random chance. Such low-fit statistics are the telltale signs of respondents randomly answering through the exercise. Bad respondents are thus much easier to spot and eliminate than with other forms of question design.

The Downsides of MaxDiff

Of course, every tool has its advantages and disadvantages, and MaxDiff is no exception. MaxDiff exercises are lengthier for the respondents to complete. They typically take from two to five minutes, whereas other question designs could be completed in a shorter amount of time. However, one must consider the pros and cons of the various methodologies at hand. If the research results lead to critical marketing and managerial decisions, it would be worth investing more of the respondents’ time to get more accurate results.

Despite its usage of the HB regression procedure, MaxDiff remains an exercise in stated preference/importance. It is therefore no substitute for derived-driver analysis, which may

FEATURE

Figure 2A – One outcome of scale-use bias: two respondents hold different opinions regarding an item, but their interpretation of the scale may result in both respondents answering “8” to that item.

Figure 3 – An example of a typical MaxDiff task is shown on the right, in which a subset of pre-determined items listed on the left are presented for respondent evaluation.

Figure 2B – Another outcome of scale use bias: two respondents hold the same opinion, but a different interpretation of the scale may result in different answers given.


FEATURE

uncover further insights in consumers’ underlying motivations.The data output from MaxDiff is compositional in nature,

meaning that results must add up to a predefined amount (usually 0 or 100). Therefore, the results across items are perfectly correlated with one another. If one wishes to use MaxDiff data for further multivariate analysis, one of the items will need to be removed from analysis to avoid an issue known among statisticians as “linear dependency.”

Since MaxDiff is scale-free in its approach, results across items are purely relative of one another. That is, it does not ask respondents whether the items are absolutely good/important or bad/unimportant. One must therefore be careful when running a tracking study, as a change in any of the items being evaluated across waves nullifies the ability to track results. More generally, it may be troublesome to interpret should there be a need for an absolute evaluation of the items.

In such cases, one can use a variant of the exercise called Anchored MaxDiff. Anchored MaxDiff is a supplement to “regular” MaxDiff, in which respondents answer additional questions where they indicate if the items evaluated are important or preferred in an absolute sense. This supplement allows researchers to draw a line in the proverbial sand to determine whether an item is important or unimportant (or preferred or not preferred, etc.) for each respondent. While Anchored MaxDiff provides further information, it also comes with a further cost: it adds more time to the respondent to complete. Most importantly, the tendency for some respondents to be more positive or agreeable in their response than other respondents brings us back to the issue of scale use bias that led us to MaxDiff in the first place.

What do we do with MaxDiff Output?As mentioned earlier, a regular MaxDiff exercise results in each item receiving a share of importance or preference for each respondent. Results are simply reported by providing the average of these shares across the sample (see Figure 4), or between specific subgroups to compare differences. Since the results are ratio-based, t-tests or ANOVA can be used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant. An item with a share of 10 per cent is half as important or preferred as an item with a share of 20 per cent. Results from Anchored MaxDiff are shown somewhat differently: a threshold is set (usually at 0 or 100), and each item receives an index score. A score above the threshold indicates that the item is important or preferred in an absolute sense, while a score below the threshold is unimportant or not preferred. Results otherwise remain ratio-based, and analysis can be performed in the same way as regular MaxDiff results.MaxDiff output can also be used for TURF analysis to determine what combinations of items measured in a MaxDiff exercise maximize the reach of a product or service. Simulations could be run to estimate what respondents’ share of preference or importance would be for a pre-defined subset of items.

MaxDiff is particularly useful for segmentation analysis. Segmentation analysis is used to group respondents such that respondents within each group hold similar opinions, while stark differences arise from one group to the next. It is a dirty

secret that segmentation analysis derived from traditional rating scales often lead to a segment that is strongly positive on most or all of the items measured. Such instances are a manifestation of scale-use bias, since these segments are comprised of respondents that utilize the more positive end of the scale than other respondents. Using Latent Class Analysis as the clustering technique, MaxDiff segmentation solutions ensure meaningful differences in opinions across the segments. There remains some debate, however, whether segmentation analysis should be run on regular MaxDiff or Anchored MaxDiff output. Advocates of running segmentation analysis with regular MaxDiff are concerned about the possibility of a segment still being defined due to scale-use bias instead of a true differentiation in opinions. Proponents for using Anchored MaxDiff output remind that regular MaxDiff only provide the relative differences across items. Therefore, while members within each segment may hold similar relative opinions across the items, they could very well hold very different absolute opinions of the items measured. In the midst of this debate, it is advisable to run segmentation solutions with both types of output and determine which solution best fits the research needs.

Phil Straforelli, CMRP, has been in research for 10 years on the supplier side, both in Toronto and Vancouver. He has worked for a variety of research companies, including MD Analytics, Synovate, Environics Research Group, Research Strategy Group Ltd., and Globescan Ltd. He has taken a keen interest in multivariate analyses and questionnaire methodologies, and has conducted research for a variety of sectors, including social values, automotive, tourism, packaged goods, financial and pharmaceuticals. He can be reached at [email protected].

Figure 4 – An example of reporting results from MaxDiff and Anchored MaxDiff exercises.


FEATURE

Megann Willson

Are you focused on your customer? “Of course,” you’re probably thinking. “Who doesn’t focus on the customer?” More specifically, is your marketing research or customer-understanding work customer-centric? Consider the number of times you’ve heard a client, friend, colleague or relative complain about a survey they’ve received. Their concerns include questions that are completely irrelevant to their situation, multiple-choice answers in which none of the choices apply, or batteries of check boxes that make them feel like they’re being bludgeoned with a blunt instrument. Perhaps this is because they are. And let’s not put this problem solely at the doorstep of the quants. There are plenty of in-depth interviews and focus groups out there that are anything but focused when it comes to whose needs are actually being served.

WHO DOESN’T FOCUS ON THE CUSTOMER? THOUGHTS ON THE SELFISH SIDE OF RESEARCH


When we build our questionnaires, discussion guides, or other instruments on questions about the product, the brand, or the concept, we’re not being customer-centric. We’re being self-serving. We’re asking the questions we want answered. In doing this as researchers, as product managers, as brand managers, or as user-experience explorers, we are applying our own filters and assumptions to the questions that need to be asked. This approach doesn’t leave the customer much room to tell us about their needs, their pain, or their wants. But what if we let them take the reins? One way to do this is to use projective techniques or serious games. In our own practice, we’ve used Innovation Games with a broad range of clients to help them step out of the confines of their context and view ideas and problems from a different viewpoint. In our experience, the perspective that clients gain by spending more time observing and less time asking is that they actually come up with insights about more than the brand, and frequently even draw conclusions about themselves and their own organizations. This institutional learning can have a beneficial effect on their approach to product development.

Getting the customer to play a game called Product Box is one way we get them to tell us more than which features are important. In this game, a common product package, such as a cereal box, is used as a metaphor for the key aspects the players will need to describe their product or service to a customer. We recently played Product Box with a group of young entrepreneurs preparing for a pitching competition. In this case, the objective was to get them to describe their start-up ideas more succinctly, and to stop selling based on features. Using the metaphor of a product package let them step out of their comfort zone and describe their products in a way that would appeal to their customers. They intuitively understood that their “package” (or product description) needed to be eye catching, with differentiating colours and fonts, an ingredient list of what’s inside (features) as well as health or other claims like “New!” “Fat-free!” or “Now Bigger than Ever!”(benefits). Even nebulous concepts became easier to understand using the Product Box metaphor.

If we really want to make the customer a partner in innovation, we need to spend more time listening than talking. In fact, sometimes even listening falls short, and observation is the most important activity. Using tools that allow the customer to lead the conversation isn’t necessarily easy. It might not feel like we are getting where we need to go. But in truth, it’s not only important but essential to let someone else take the lead if we really want to take an approach to product management and brand-development strategy that is focused on the most important person: the customer.

For us, moving our clients to a more customer-centric approach begins by getting them in the room with their customers. That’s an interesting challenge for some clients – they’re used to having the one-way mirror or an online moderator or a research vendor between them and the person who buys or uses their product or service. The first way this helps is that distractions are minimized. Getting in a room with the customer means that checking email, chatting on the phone, or having too many delicious backroom snacks is

difficult to accomplish. Secondly, the mirror, the moderator, or the remote data collection instrument can mean that clients have a convenient “shield” that lets them distance themselves from the customer as a person with independent ideas, thoughts and feelings. It lets them take less responsibility if the customer has a negative opinion, or is disappointed or upset with the options being presented. Those shields make it easier for teams to deflect bad news, or to refute opinions that don’t support their hypotheses. So getting these teams “in the room” means they have to consider the story from the customer’s perspective, whether that’s an exciting discovery, or a hard truth. (Serial entrepreneur Steve Blank calls this, “Telling them the baby is ugly.”) As researchers and consultants, we can help our clients get comfortable with this process by making the event itself very structured. Making sure the space is comfortable and there’s room to work is important. Sending invitations that are carefully crafted to let the customers know they will be participants and co-creators (not just respondents) is also a key success factor. More obvious “respect tools” are needed when there’s nowhere to talk about the customer behind his or her back. In our shop, we use the “but jar.” We explain that the word “but” tends to mean, “I’m not listening to you, I only want my idea to be heard.” Each person who says “but” gets their name written on a slip of paper in the jar. We get the ball rolling, and pretty soon everyone joins in on calling “b for but” on their colleagues and customers. Barriers start to break down. At the end of the day, the person with their name in the jar the most times is named the Big But of the Day.

For customers, being face-to-face can also be a learning experience. While they may be willing to complain about a feature, a message, or a marketing tactic to their friends and colleagues, they are much more likely to be judicious in their responses when asked to deliver them directly to the product or brand owners. Our observation is that as they find a “nice” way to share less-than- favourable responses and they make more of an effort to explain the “why.” On the positive side, they are also more conservative in their assessment of brands or ideas that don’t truly resonate with them, and make a real effort to be helpful in telling what they do want. The game called Buy a Feature has players prioritize and pool their insufficient shares of fake money to be sure they get the features they want in a product, a service, or even a municipal budget. In one session, participants put their money together with one another to buy a more powerful motor and a glass jar (both relatively expensive features that none could buy alone) in the next iteration of a blender – because both things were necessary to make the best frozen margarita.

Assigning roles and responsibilities to the client-team members who are in the room also helps provide a richer research outcome. When they are asked to listen, observe and take notes, knowing that they will have to share these with their colleagues, we find they pay more attention to detail. Less effort is spent on coming up with another probe, and more is invested in watching body language, understanding the why, or gleaning meaning from what’s being said between the lines. Asking a couple of members of the team to go to a customer’s office (in a B2B context) or home in advance of the session,

FEATURE


FEATURE

and use as many “why” questions as possible, allows them to share their observations with their colleagues back at head office, spotting discrepancies, or false assumptions. This can help uncover where problem areas may be being glossed over by the team.

Combining the findings with a home game to show how the research discoveries might translate into a product feature, or what benefit the customer described, compared to the assumed benefit, a more holistic approach to research questions is frequently the result.

In one instance, we asked one team of managers to take the ideas developed in their customer session and create possible line extensions or new-product offerings. They built their own Product Boxes of their ideas, and we held a tournament where their colleagues voted on which of these would be explored for future development. This helped them see where their ideas were falling flat, and whether the idea was weak, or if the problem was their description of the next step. Going beyond concept exploration and considering the ramifications of actually introducing the customers’ ideas (in terms of time, infrastructure, investment or effort) can help draw team members who are not marketers, but who are vital to the product (or campaign’s) success into the process. A game like Prune the Product Tree employs a tree metaphor to take a more holistic approach to thinking about the next iteration of a product. Each part of the tree that is altered has a consequence on the rest of the organism. This can make both product teams and customers realize that all the new leaves and blossoms (new releases or added features) on a tree may result in an unsustainable canopy if the root system (infrastructure, manufacturing capability, or engineering capacity) isn’t broadened at the same time.

Lastly, as researchers, the intimate nature of the customer-and-client-in-the-room approach forces us to stretch our comfort zones as well. We no longer have the same level of control over the process. Some of the mystery and theatre can be eroded, and the role we play is different than we’re used to.

We need to work harder on briefing and preparing the client in advance. Preparation time can be longer and the recording tools and techniques we are using to need to be adapted for this new context. And convincing them that stickers, markers, glitter, glue, and modeling clay are real tools of discovery can be a challenge. But when we see clients and their customers working together to co-create products that serve them both more adequately, the elasticity required is well worth it. When we see teams engaging in discussions of, “Remember when that customer said ‘x’ wasn’t the reason he loved our product at all?” or “Wow, when I mapped out what it would take to deliver that, I realized we didn’t have nearly enough resources to make it happen,” we know the customer-centric approach has won them over.

Megann Willson is a Partner at Panoptika Inc., a Halifax-based consultancy specializing in customer understanding, marketing strategy, facilitation, planning and mentoring. She tweets at @panoptika and can be reached at [email protected].

Innovation Games were largely developed by the founder and CEO of Conteneo, Luke Hohmann. They are simple and flexible enough to be adapted to different situations depending on the question the company is working to solve. Panoptika uses these, and a wide variety of customized approaches, to help clients get the most from their customer discovery activities.

2015 Membership Renewals are underway – To view the new corporate fee structure http://mria-arim.ca/membership/join-mria/corporate-memberships/corporate-dues-fees

For Individual Members http://mria-arim.ca/membership/join-mria/individual-memberships/individual-dues-fees

Questions? Contact [email protected]

TO view all MRIA events online, visit

http://mria-arim.ca/events-awards/calendar

Calendar of

Events

December 22, 2014 Prairie Chapter=

January 27, 2015Net Gain 2015 Toronto, ON

March 26–27, 2015 QRC Conference North York, ON

May 24–26, 2015 Marriott Eaton Centre, Toronto, ON

DECEMBER 2014

JANUARY 2015

MARCH 2015

MRIA NATIONAL CONFERENCE


FEATURE

Part II: Who’s Using Gamification?

The winter 2013 GRIT Report from GreenBook found that only seven per cent of respondents don’t “ever expect to use” research gamification in the future, and that 15 per cent of researchers surveyed see themselves definitely using research gamification in the future. The report says: “It’s worth noting that, among the techniques we asked about, research gamification has the biggest hurdles to overcome, with 41% of respondents feeling constrained in using this class of techniques. Much like social media monitoring, respondents feel that gamification is an unproven technique (37%) that they don’t know enough about (50%)” (GreenBook Research Industry Trends Report, 23). As

mentioned in the last issue of Vue, there are many limitations to adopting gamification as a trusted methodology at the moment. However, being that only a small percentage of respondents do not see themselves using, or at least associating, with the technique in the future, it appears it is starting to emerge as a valid methodology.

In his blog The State of Gamification in Market Research, Jason Anderson notes that “the recent GRIT Report survey of research practitioners says 49% of researchers are either using or considering gamification.” Thus, it is apparent that industry professionals are open to the idea of using games for research and that many believe research gamification will play a large role in marketing

In my previous article for Vue magazine, I discussed what gamification means for marketing research. Now, I’m turning to the issue of which companies are using gamification methods, how are they being utilized and, most importantly, are they successful? The answers to these questions could have a profound effect on whether the industry will adopt more gamified methodologies and what can be garnered from using a methodology such as gamification for future applications.David Wiszniowski

GAMIFICATION IN MARKETING RESEARCH: INTEREST, CURIOSITY AND MISCONCEPTION


FEATURE FEATURE

research as reports establish its validity. While only 15 per cent see themselves using gamification, almost half of those surveyed are considering it or have considered it before.

But which companies are exploring gamification and which are specializing in it? Apparently everyone. The term gamification has taken on the attributes of a buzzword in the marketing research industry. Companies like to imply that they are keeping on trend and exploring different gamification methods and practices. Whether these games are constructed properly or not is an issue. As no guidelines exist on how to make a truly engaging and relevant research game, some researchers are providing surveys similar to the one utilized in a case study conducted by Theo Downes-Le Guin. These types of surveys limit the reputation of gamification, making it something that companies are exploring, but not wholeheartedly embracing.

The ESOMAR research directory states that there are 29 research companies that specialize in gamification. From the websites of many of these companies, however, it is clear that while they may have chosen gamification as an area of specialization, they are predominantly operating under the guise of “survey-tainment” (making surveys more graphic and flashy).

GreenBook lists a total of 17 companies that are specializing in gamified methodologies and this listing seems to be more accurate in terms of what the companies are providing. It should be noted here that both directories charge research companies to be listed, sometimes even more for distinct specializations. As such, there may be some bias in terms of what the companies listing gamification on said directories are doing. Companies in the GreenBook directory seem to have a good idea of where gamification is going. By using game mechanics to construct their surveys in a more engaging manner, companies like PlayScience and Fresh Squeezed Ideas are truly exploring the applications for gamified research and developing the theory behind it. In an excerpt from its website, Fresh Squeezed Ideas mentions that, “The method of gamification has shown to be useful for igniting passionate and involved responses as well as improving respondent participation. Through creating fun environments, we observe people collectively seeking to achieve defined goals, where their actions and discourses in play uncover fundamental truths about contemporary human desires and needs.”

It appears that in the gamification arena, it is the smaller marketing research organizations that have the advantage. Whereas bigger companies may be interested in gamification

practices, it is the smaller companies that are willing to take the step away from online surveys to their gamified counterparts. This is due in part to the greater freedom of movement smaller companies embody. It is these companies that can experiment with their methodologies with no worries about pleasing shareholders. As such, there are companies in existence that cannot be found on the major research directories. Research Through Gaming Limited is one such company, and is currently the only company specializing in creating games for research. The company is unique in offering gamification as its sole and primary methodology. Its progress can be viewed as an excellent case study for the success of gamification as a methodology within the industry.

Debatable SuccessGamification comes with claims that it can tackle the problems facing marketing research by offering increased engagement, less straight lining, fewer dropouts and even more accurate data. But is this truly the case? Deborah Sleep, director of Engage Research, says yes, and that “almost everyone will respond to game mechanics, and, given the right sort of mechanic, tailored to your audience and research needs, these techniques really deliver.” The companies primarily working within gamification agree with Sleep. Research Through Gaming states that it uses “game mechanics to create more stimulating and immersive surveys.” It says these surveys lead to more honest and in-depth answers that provide better understanding for its clients’ businesses. While no definitive, comparative or undeniable data exists on the success of gamification practices compared with traditional methodologies, those who operate at the forefront of the gamified movement do see the evidence required to make gamification a reliable and valid methodology.

The future of gamification can be easily compared to the future of the marketing research industry. No one knows for sure where it’s going. While some researchers see the industry expanding into mobile devices and social media networks, others remain skeptical and will continue to carry out standardized focus groups and CATI surveys. Likewise, some researchers believe that gamification will be an industry standard methodology within the next fifteen years. Others say it will happen much sooner. Still others still believe that gamification will never be accredited within the industry. Until the methodology behind making games for research provides evidence of its reputed consumer engagement superiority, its future in the industry will remain one of challenge and debate.

What lies ahead for the future of gamification in research? As technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace, becoming more and more incorporated into daily life, there is an array of gaming technologies that could be of relevance to the marketing research industry. In an article written for NewMR, Betty Adamou of Research Through Gaming explains five possible ways in which gaming technology will become applicable to research methods of the future. The first, “avatar-based” research games, have respondents create an avatar – to look like themselves or a “fantasy image” – and then do the survey. She writes: “Once the Avatar has been created, the respondent could be placed into a number of virtual


FEATURE

environments and data can be collected on what the respondent/player/avatar does within that environment.” Second is “gaming as the incentive.” Here “playing the games becomes the incentive to do the survey.” The third she calls “questions as mini-games.” In these games, “each question is like a little game in itself.” Adamou sees this type of gaming as stemming from today’s Flash programs. The fourth is “social media based” research games – games that are played using prominent social media networks as a conduit. The final approach is “augmented reality-based” research games. Using immersive technology similar to the Xbox Kinect, Adamou believes “the way a respondent plays [an augmented reality based research game] can tell your clients even more about their consumers.”

While these ideas are presented as future projections, and may not seem practical in the current era of marketing research, it is clear that Adamou, along with many others, sees an encompassing future for gamification within the industry.

ConclusionIt is evident by the ideas mentioned above that yes, the marketing research industry is going through a period of change. Regardless of how fast or slow the rate of change has become throughout the industry, it is happening. With this change comes the development of new methodologies. While these methodologies are being created, it is difficult to place a value on what they can achieve. Such is the plight of gamification in marketing research. While still considered a new methodology – even though the first marketing research company that specialized in games started up in 2011 – gamification is gaining traction within the industry. Researchers are seeing it as a more viable way of conducting research.

What is the marketing research industry looking for right now? The answer to this question, other than research, of course, is respondent engagement and a desire to make research

exciting. Respondents are changing the course of the industry. No longer do they want a miniscule incentive. Instead, they are searching for something exciting, engaging and fun. These are the inherent traits of a game. Games are exciting, sharable, competitive, relevant and most of all engaging. Respondents may not be interested in being incentivized by prize draws or points or vouchers. Games offer a thought-provoking experience, a sense of achievement and a learning platform that has shown to be very valuable.

The introduction of gamification is more than just exploring a potential methodology, it is about how researchers communicate and interact with their respondents. It’s about fundamentally changing the way surveys are designed and making research seem less archaic. Most importantly though, the state of gamification in marketing research is about the industry’s ability to change, adapt and grow alongside its researchers, participants and respondents.

ReferencesAdamou, Betty. “T.E.S.S.A. Undercover Agents and Dubious: Two ResearchGames to change MR forever.” ASC Conference, University of Winchester, Hampshire, Winchester, September 6, 2013.

Adamou, Betty. “The Future of Research Through Gaming.” RWConnect. ESOMAR, April 13, 2011, http://rwconnect.esomar.org/the-future-of-research-through-gaming.

Anderson, Jason. “The State of Gamification in Market Research.” GreenBook, April 8, 2013, http://www.greenbookblog.org/2013/04/08/the-state-of-gamification-in-market-research.

Downes-Le Guin, T., Baker, R., Mechling, J., & Ruylea, E. “Myths and realities of respondent engagement in online surveys,” International Journal of Market Research, 54(5), 1-21. doi: 10.2501.

“Gamification.” State of the Art Methods, Fresh Squeezed Ideas, November 7, 2013, http://www.freshsqueezedideas.com/state-of-the-art-methods/gamification.

“GRIT Report Winter 2013.” GreenBook Research Industry Trends Report. December 2013, http://www.greenbookblog.org/grit.

Malinoff, Bernie, and Jon Puleston. “How Far Is Too Far?” 3D Digital Dimensions. (2011): 1-21. November 13, 2013.

McGonigal, J. Reality is broken, why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Paperbacks, 2011.

“Research Through Gaming.” Research Through Gaming. November 2013, http://www.researchthroughgaming.com.

Sleep, Deborah. “Improving online market research through gamification.” Digital Marketing Hub. The Guardian, August 15, 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/aug/15/online-market-research-gamification.

Van Laere, Sebastien. “Gamification in Online Research Communities.” Get Inspired. InSites Consulting, September 16, 2013, http://www.insites-consulting.com/gamification-in-online-research-communities.

David Wiszniowski is an award-winning researcher and research analyst. He can be reached at [email protected] and tweets at @dWiszard.

http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/aug/15/online-market-research-gamification


INDUSTRY NEWS

Academica GroupAdvanis Inc.Advitek Inc.BBM AnalyticsBBM CanadaCampaign ResearchCanadian Viewpoint Inc.Cido ResearchConsumer Vision Ltd.Corporate Research AssociatesCRC ResearchEKOS Research Associates Inc.Elemental Data Collection Inc.Environics Research Group LimitedForum Research Inc.Fresh Squeezed Ideas

GfK CanadaGreenwich AssociatesHay Research InternationalHead CountInsightrix Research Inc.Ipsos ReidLeger, The Research Intelligence GroupMaritz Research CanadaMarket Probe CanadaMarket Pulse Inc.MBA RechercheMD Analytics Inc.MQO ResearchNanos ResearchNielsen Consumer InsightsNRG Research Group

Opinion Search Inc.PRA Inc.Quorus Consulting Group Inc.R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.Research DimensionsResearch House Inc.Research NowResearch Strategy Group Inc.SmartPoint Research Inc.Tele-Surveys Plus / Télé-Sondages PlusThe Logit Group Inc.TNS Canada (Canadian Facts)Trend Research Inc.Vision Critical

GOLD SEAL CORPORATE RESEARCH AGENCIES

BASIC CORPORATE RESEARCH AGENCIESBureau des Intervieweurs Professionnels Inc.Dialogue Research Inc.Goss Gilroy Inc.Nexus Market Research Inc.

Qualitative Coordination Inc.Quality Response Inc.Trampoline Marketing

GOLD SEAL AGENCY - PENDING Illumina Research Partners

MRIA’s Research Registration System (RRS) has long been a cornerstone self-regulatory mechanism for the marketing, survey and public opinion research and market intelligence industry in Canada.

The following companies have registered research projects with the Research Registration System Up to December, 2014

Rules of Conduct and Good Practice For Members of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (2007):

Section A (5)Members must uphold the MRIA Charter of Respondent Rights.

Charter of Respondent Rights, Article 2 You can verify that the research you have been invited to participate in is legitimate in one of two ways. You can either obtain a registration number and the MRIA’s toll-free telephone number for any research registered in the MRIA’s Research Registration System or you can obtain the contact information of the research director who is conducting the study.

RESEARCH REGISTRATION SYSTEMSince 1994, the RRS has allowed respondents to verify the legitimacy of a research project; helped legislators

and regulators differentiate between legitimate survey researchers and unscrupulous telemarketers, phishers and scammers; and protected the industry from unnecessary and unwanted regulation.

http://mria-arim.ca/about-mria/research-registration/research-registration-overview

Combined with other self-regulatory initiatives such as our Code of Conduct and Good Practice and our Charter of Respondent Rights, the RRS has paid huge dividends in protecting the industry’s positive reputation and good name with Canadians.

All Gold Seal and Corporate Research Agency members of the Association are obligated to register all of their research projects with the RRS, and Client-Side Corporate members are encouraged to require their agency suppliers to do so. Starting in 2015, RRS fees are included in MRIA Corporate Membership Fees.

MRIA’s Research Agency Council provides strategic, policy-level oversight of the Research Registration System, and receives aggregate data-only on the System’s performance.

Questions about the Research Registration System should be addressed to Erica Klie, Manager, Member Support Services, at 1-888-602-6742 or (416) 642-9793, ext. 8727 or [email protected].


INDUSTRY NEWS

CALL FOR SPEAKERS – DEADLINE IS JANUARY 15 2015

CALL FOR SPONSORS – EXCITING NEW OPTIONS AND BENEFITS ANNOUNCED!

EXHIBITOR HALL – 40 BOOTHS TO CHOOSE FROM!

Do not miss out on what promises to be the largest gathering of MR professionals since the 50th Anniversary bash in 2010!

http://conference2015.mria-arim.ca/news/index.php

Questions? Write us at [email protected] http://conference2015.mria-arim.ca/news/index.php

Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuilliez nous contacter au 416-642-9793 x8723 - merci !

WHAT’S NEW FOR 2015?

• National Student Competition, 12 teams competing for $6,000 in prizes!

• “Elevator Pitch” competition among exhibitors!

• “Swag Bar”, Let’s Make a Deal, and many other exciting contests!

• Over 40 exhibitor booths!

• Baristas, dessert bars, live entertainment and door prizes!

Storytelling in business is becoming an important skill. Ever more effort goes into presentations and business stories. How can organizations acquire storytelling expertise? And what does a good story look like, now that interactive media have altered this age-old form of communication for good?

Join us in Toronto next May, and hear from international speakers and authors – all great storytellers.

Follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/hashtag/mria15 #mria15 and on this website, as we provide exciting updates on what promises to be a unique – and rather large – gathering!

http://elementaldci.com


INDUSTRY NEWS

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REGISTRYIn accordance with federal privacy laws, MRIA’s Qualitative Research Registry (QRR), or Registre de la recherche qualitative (RRQ) in French, was created to provide an ongoing, user-friendly vehicle for tracking those who do not want to be contacted or should not be contacted for qualitative research studies.

Rules of Conduct and Good Practice for Members of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (2007), Section C Rules Specific to the Conduct of Qualitative Research:

20. Recruiters should provide accurate data to the Qualitative Research Registry, where such exists, on a consistent basis and check all respondents against the Registry.

21. Moderators buying recruiting services should give primary consideration to recruiting agencies which submit to the Qualitative Research Registry, where such a service exists, on a regular and ongoing basis.

THE FOLLOWING CORPORATE MEMBERS HAVE SUBMITTED NAMES TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REGISTRY

Research House Inc.Quality Response Inc.Opinion Search Inc.I & S RecruitingDawn Smith Field Management ServiceConsumer Vision Ltd.Barbara C. Campbell Recruiting Inc. (BCCR Inc.)

MBA Recherche

Trend Research Inc.Barbara C. Campbell Recruiting Inc. (BCCR Inc.)

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

WEST

QRR is a comprehensive do not call list of those who have recently participated in qualitative research studies, those who have asked not to be contacted further, and those felt by recruiters and moderators to be best served by not being contacted. These respondents are marked as “do not call” in accordance with established MRIA Standards.

All field and full-service companies are encouraged to submit a list of their qualitative respondents for entry into the QRR system each month, including those who do not wish to be contacted.

Participating firms will receive monthly updates of respondents to be screened from qualitative recruitment samples. QRR works effectively to increase the quality and integrity of the qualitative research process, by serving as a control to ensure respondents are not contacted more frequently than is necessary.

However, the ability of the system to function effectively is directly related to the co-operation received from firms who provide recruitment services. If you are a full service research firm or field supplier that is currently participating in the Qualitative Research Registry program – thank you very much and keep up the good work!

If you are not currently participating, please get involved! If you are interested in submitting to QRR, please visit the MRIA website at http://mria-arim.ca/about-mria/qualitative-research-division/qualitative-research-registry for further explanation and guidance on how to submit qualitative research participants’ names, along with the required electronic forms.

Up to December, 2014

If you have any questions about or wish to submit to the QRR please send an e-mail to: [email protected]

Information regarding the QRR can be found at http://mria-arim.ca/about-mria/qualitative-research-division/qualitative-research-registry

Starting in 2015, all QRR fees are included in MRIA’s Corporate Membership Fees. To view the fee scale, visit http://mria-arim.ca/membership/join-mria/corporate-memberships/corporate-dues-fees


INDUSTRY NEWS

NEW FOR 2015:RBG HAS GONE

DIGITAL!The Research Buyer’s Guide (RBG) is a comprehensive directory that lists companies and organizations that provide marketing research services and products. This Directory is the only one of its kind in Canada, created exclusively for members of MRIA.

RBG 2015 is an entirely digital edition, fully searchable on the MRIA website with a few value added features that will help you market your services more effectively, including:

Best of all, you can update your information online, 24/7 and year round – your listing purchase is effective until January 9, 2015.

Listen to Joseph Chen as he talks about the value of RBG to his decision making.http://mria-arim.ca/publications/research-buyers-guide/overview

SOCIAL MEDIAAdded fields on the listing pages for Blog, Facebook,

Twitter, LinkedIn so that potential buyers can easily connect

with you and share your listing content in social media

BANNER ADSStarting at $1,500 have your

company banner ad on RBG for an entire year!

COMPANY LOGOAbility to upload Company Logos, to help promote your company through easier

brand recognition

DEADLINE TO RENEW IS January 9, 2015

But you must act before year end, as all listings that are not

renewed by this year-end will be removed from the database

on January 15, 2015.

To renew your Listings, buy new ones or to view Banner Advertising offers, visit http://mria-arim.ca/publications/research-buyers-guide/renew-edit-buy-listings

Write us at [email protected] or call 1-888-602-6742 x 8723?

*NEW*


INDUSTRY NEWS

Early Bird Ends January 9, 2015 Net Gain Toronto: The Business of Insights

Net Gain 2015 promises to deliver on insight and inspiration:

Register today at http://netgain2015.mria-arim.ca/REGISTRATION/index.php

PROGRAM AT A GLANCE9:00-9:10 Welcome and Introductory Remarks Cam Davis, Kara Mitchelmore, Sandy Janzen

9:10-10:00 What’s Hot and What’s Not Hot Ray Poynter, Director of Vision Critical University

10:00-10:30 Emerging Technologies – Are They Still Emerging?

Lenny Murphy, Editor-in-Chief of GreenBook Blog and GRIT Report

10:30-11:00 Break

11:00-11:30 Brand Building in a Digital, Social and Mobile Age

Joel Rubinson, President and Founder of Rubinson Partners Inc.

11:30-noon Wake Up or Die. Research Automation – The Future of Market Research

Corinne Sandler, CEO of Fresh Intelligence

noon-1:15 Lunch

1:15-1:45 ESOMAR and World Trends Dan Foreman, President of ESOMAR

1:45-2:15 Prediction Science Jon Puleston, VP of Innovation at Lightspeed GMI

2:15-2:45 Break

2:45-3:05 Understanding Olympic and World Cup Audiences across All Platforms: What the CBC Learned by Unifying TV and Digital Data

Kristin Wozniak, Manager of Television Research at CBC and Greg Dinsmore, Manager of Digital Research at CBC

3:05-3:25 Ad Reaction 2014, Marketing in a Multiscreen World

Cesar Zea, Director of Client Management at Millward Brown

3:25-3:45 Mobility Enabled: Effects of Mobile Platform on Non-response and Substantive Measures

Frances M. Barlas, Senior Research Director at GFK Custom Research

Education and Skills3:45-4:15 Reg Baker, Executive Director of MRII

4:15-4:30 Dan Foreman, President of ESOMAR - ESOMAR Talent Survey

4:30-4:45 Stephen Popiel, VP of GFK Research Dynamics

4:45-5:00 Summary by Keynotes – What Was Learned

5:00 Thanks and Summary Cam Davis, Kara Mitchelmore, Sandy Janzen

5:00-7:00 Networking Reception


Did you catch the MRIA ads in Marketing Magazine?The MRIA’s mission is to promote a positive environment that enhances the industry’s ability to operate effectively and to the benefit of the public and members. To promote MRIA, the

Research Agency council worked with Marketing Magazine to place both big box and text ads in the October 28 – 31 and November 4 - 7 online issues. The ads link to an article that focuses on the MRIA’s standards of conduct and to the MRIA website and the list of Gold Seal Members.

NEW CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURENow all companies can become Corporate MembersBeginning in 2015, a new corporate membership structure will be introduced. In the past, Corporate Membership was comprised of Basic Corporate Members with less than five employees or Gold Seal members. Companies with more than five employees only had the option to become Gold Seal or revert to an individual member status. As of January 2015, any company is eligible to become a corporate member and receive the benefits of Insurance discounts and industry data from the Annual Financial Health Survey. Another major change in 2015 involves the costs required to support the Research Registration System (RRS) and the Qualitative Research Registry (QRR). These costs have now been integrated into the corporate membership pricing. The RRS and QRR are important tools that protect our respondents and the public interest as it relates to market research. These processes provide public-facing credibility for our industry and are now supported by all corporate members. In 2015 MRIA Corporate members will see additional added value including credits for Gold Seal members and incentives for companies to pursue their Gold Seal certification.

GOT GOLD? MRIA Gold Seal Members are committed to high standardsAt the 54th annual conference in Saskatoon the MRIA recognized 29 corporate research agencies that have continuously held the MRIA Gold Seal since its inception in 2006.

MRIA’s Gold Seal Members are committed the highest national standards for the practice of market research. Organizations displaying the Gold Seal go above and beyond the MRIA’s Code of Conduct and Good Practice, adhering to an audit every three years. The Gold Seal certification signals the commitment these organizations have to delivering world-class professional research standards.

The MRIA and RAC look forward to recognizing future five and ten year milestones for our Gold Seal organizations.

Be part of the MRIA’s gold standard and get Gold Seal certified in 2015!

OFF THE RACUpdates from the MRIA’s Research Agency Council

COUNCIL UPDATES

Academica Group ACCE Inc. Advitek IncBBM Canada/BBM AnalyticsBond Brand LoyaltyCorporate Research Associates CROP Inc.EKOS Research Associates Inc.Environics Research Group Limited Focal Research Consultants Ltd.Greenwich AssociatesHotspex Inc.Ipsos ReidLang Research Inc.

Leger, The Research Intel-ligence GroupMD Analytics Inc.Millward BrownMustel Group Nielsen Consumer InsightsNRG Research Group Inc. Opinion Search Inc. POLLARAResearch & Incite Research House Inc. Tele-Surveys Plus Inc. TNS Canadian Facts Trend Research Inc.

T he MRIA’s Research Agency Council (RAC) is focused on identifying opportunities to increase the visibility, value and importance of the MRIA and support the Gold Seal as our industry’s symbol of best practices. RAC members represent MRIA member suppliers, big and small across Canada.

INDUSTRY NEWS

CO

LUM

NIS

TS


CO

LUM

NIS

TS It’s a Qual World

Ruth Corbin, CMRPCorbinPartners Inc.

“In light of recent events reported in the news, will MRIA be developing a standard regarding sexual harassment in the workplace?”

Hassled in the hallway

Dear Hassled:

MRIA’s Code of Conduct lays out broad-scale principles of professionalism, ethical behaviour, and respect for others. Early in 2015, MRIA will launch an updated set of standards. If you believe that a specific guideline or standard is missing from what you see, and if you believe it essential and appropriate that MRIA address it, then you are invited to address all such requests care of this column.

To all readers, once you begin using the new standards, please send along any requests for clarification, care of this column. We will publish your comments and ideas (without attribution, should you wish to remain anonymous), and let you know how they will be addressed in the ongoing review of industry standards to ensure continued relevance and clarity.

The two options for where to send communications for this column are as follows: [email protected] or anonymously via the MRIA blog, https://mriablog.wordpress.com/ask-dr-ruth/.

And of course the column will continue to address all other work-related issues that may be on your mind. Have a safe and happy holiday.

Please submit your forensic research and standards questions to [email protected] or anonymously via the MRIA blog, https://mriablog.wordpress.com/ask-dr-ruth/.

Rock the objectives; rock the project

The most obvious foundation for success in research is having clear objectives. Like flossing your teeth, it may be unpleasant, but it is important.

Having crisp research objectives is the foundation of the project. At the end of the project, you should be holding your researcher to account for whether they answered those objectives. Good objectives should fit into a few bullet points, ideally with one main objective, and a few supporting questions. You may have a lengthy wish list, or a ton of background information, but you still need to settle on a few clear questions. As a client said to me once, “they might have a wish list as long as your arm, but there’s usually one thing the executive really wants to know.”

True confession: If I can’t get clear objectives from the client, I try to think them up myself, because I need them to design the project.

You shouldn’t really finish the recruiting specs if you don’t have those clear objectives because one follows the other. Why these people? They are the ones that know about the objectives! Here’s a clarity test for you: If you couldn’t describe the target group to your spouse, you’ve overcomplicated things.

A common mistake with recruiting screeners is attempting to recreate the averages of a prior survey. For example: people that use product A 65% of the time and product B 35% of the time, are one-third downtowners and two-thirds suburbanites, and have two children

under the age of 10 in the household. If you use product A 50% of the time, you don’t qualify. Real people will have vastly more variability in their behavior than is captured by the average of any given group.

When your researcher takes issue with this kind of thing, you should not assume it’s because we are looking for an easier path. More likely we think this approach is not a good idea, and will be costly, even if it does not create a different problem. Lengthy screeners with a lot of precision in the questions will not replicate your survey, and might give you fairly atypical participants. It’s scary to make recommendations in that context.

Once you get to the guide, every single activity should be linked – directly or indirectly -- to the project objectives. Anything not linked should be there because it is necessary (e.g. disclosure), or is needed for rapport building.

The linkage is not always obvious, so if you can’t see it, definitely ask. Good qualitative generally comes at a topic sideways. If I want to know if you wash your hands before starting food preparation, I would not likely ask that direct question. I might have you video the process, identify all the steps or all the equipment used in the process, or observe you doing the process.

Objectives can shift during the project, of course. But you should still push hard for clear objectives at the start. You’ll get better research, and have more confidence in the findings. Now go rock that project!

Ask Dr. RuthSusan Abbott, CMRPAbbott Research & Consulting


https://mriablog.wordpress.com/ask-dr-ruth/


https://mriablog.wordpress.com/ask-dr-ruth/


‘Good Enough’ is not OKDonya Germain, CMRPPearl Strategy and Innovation Design

Death by Powerpoint? I think not!In June 2013, Gongos wrote

“5 Things That Will Become Obsolete in MR Sooner Than You Think”. The second item was “PowerPoint Reports”. This may be true but it is not the point. What should become obsolete in MR are long, endless reports full of numbers, tables, and words that lack interpretation and recommendations, and simply just report on the results of the questions asked. Whatever you use to present results to your audience, the tool is not the problem.

Why does everybody beat up on PowerPoint? I acknowledge, I have seen too many 100 plus paged PowerPoint reports with endless tables, circles, and arrows going every which way. However, I have also sat

through multiple Prezi presentations where at least half the audience was seasick. Apple users swear by Keynote, which is just another presentation app. Others make unreadable Infographics. Some even believe all reporting can be done in Excel. Before you prepare a presentation, you need to look in the mirror. You are more than likely the problem.

Who is your audience? What are your objectives? What does your client need from you? Better still, before you start your MR project, look ahead into your presentation and then ask yourself if you should design it differently, ask different questions, target different people or not do it at all. The problem is definitely not the tool you use to report your findings.

That being said, once you have conducted your research and have your data tables spread out in front of you, try a new approach. Do not rely simply on your out-of-country produced or template-based collection of charts. Go back to the objectives and pull out the actionable insights. Your client needs your recommendations and interpretation to prove value. Value is not defined by the weight of the paper you place in front of them or the size of the file you send them.

Our challenge is in a quote from Seth Godin “PowerPoint could be the most powerful tool on your computer. But it’s not.” Why not turn it, or your preferred method of presenting, into your most powerful tool? Don’t be satisfied with good enough! Your client won’t be.

CO

LUM

NISTS


CO

LUM

NISTS

2014-2015 COURSE OFFERINGS CORE AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES

102 – ETHICAL ISSUES AND PRIVACY IN MARKETING RESEARCH Introduces participants to the key ethical concerns that arise throughout the research process.

202 – QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN Examines the types of questions that should be asked and the best way to ask them.

204 – QUALITATIVE MARKETING RESEARCH Examines the latest theory and application of some of the most common qualitative research methods.

301 – COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE, MYSTERY SHOPPING AND BENCHMARKING Learn to conduct competitive intelligence to anticipate your competitor’s next moves, interpret their strategies and assess their threat.

302 – MARKET INTELLIGENCE Learn the purpose of market intelligence (MI), how to integrate MI disciples, MI models, and building MI teams.

303 – MARKETING MANAGEMENT FOR RESEARCHERS Provides students with a solid understanding of the marketing function in business decisions.

401 – ONLINE RESEARCH, BEST PRACTICES AND INNOVATIONS Examines various online methodologies while covering their applications, pros, and cons.

402 – ADVANCED ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES (2 days)This introduction to multivariate analysis covers a range of techniques and explains their uses.

403 – ADVANCED QUALITATIVE MARKETING RESEARCH Provides an in–depth examination of qualitative techniques, methodologies, and analysis.

TORONTO: January 20, 2015Instructor: Jordan LevitinOTTAWA: May 8, 2015Instructor: Rick Hobbs

TORONTO: February 9, 2015Instructor: Kelly Adams

TORONTO: March 11, 2015Instructor: David Lithwick

TORONTO: January 27 & 28, 2015Instructor: Jordan Levitin

TORONTO: March 5, 2015Instructor: Jordan LevitinOTTAWA: April 16, 2015Instructor: Abhay Tiwari

TORONTO: February 5-6, 2014Instructor: Chuck Chakrapani

TORONTO: February 10, 2015Instructor: Kelly Adams

CORE COURSES

Visit our web site, www.mria-arim.ca/education, for course details, registration deadlines and pricing.Our in-class courses are available in simulcast for your convenience.

Core courses are available online, and please visit our web site for details.If you are interested in taking any of our listed courses that are not yet scheduled please send an e-mail to

[email protected].


CATEGORICAL DATA ANALYSISAn introduction to an array of methods and modeling techniques for categorical data analysis.

COMMUNICATING WITH HIGH IMPACT GRAPHSLearn how to produce effective reports, presentations, and impactful, persuasive graphs.

CONJOINT ANALYSISAn in–depth examination of conjoint analysis, its applications, and interpretation.

CREATING WINNING RESEARCH PRESENTATIONSLearn how to craft a presentation that tells a story, engages, and impacts your audience.

CROWD SOURCING **NEW**Learn the basics of crowd sourcing and the marketing research crowd sourcing spectrum – from ideas, to insights, to innovation.

MARKET SEGMENT RESEARCHCovers the various methods used for market segmentation and evaluates the pros/cons of each.

MEASURING CUSTOMER STATISTICS: INTRODUCTIONLearn the ins and outs of properly measuring customer satisfaction, loyalty, and retention.

MEASURING CUSTOMER STATISTICS: ADVANCEDBuilds on the introduction by providing an in–depth analysis of the techniques used to measure customer satisfaction

METRIC MADNESSLearn about evaluating digital and social media datasets, what tracking tools to use, and how to communicate these results.

MODERATOR TRAINING: BASIC (3 days)Learn core moderating skills including preparing for a focus group, introducing and warming up the group, questioning and listening skills, and dealing with difficult respondents.

MODERATORS TOOL BOX: ADVANCEDAn intensive workshop where participants learn the intricacies of a variety of moderating techniques such as when to (or not to) use them, how to use them, and how to analyze them.

SEMIOTICS: HOW SYMBOLS, PACKAGING AND ADVERTISING COMMUNICATEExamines the fundamentals of semiotic analysis with workshops to allow participants to see how the methodology works in the ‘real world’.

SPSS: INTRODUCTIONThis workshop will quickly help you learn the basics of SPSS for analyzing the types of data that results from most surveys.

SPSS: ADVANCED (2 days)Work through more advanced analyses that are capable of providing significant insights into consumer behaviour and motivation.

WRITING THAT GETS RESULTSLearn how to write persuasively to different audiences, avoid common mistakes, and hone your ability to summarize complex materials.

TORONTO: To Be RescheduledInstructor: Sharon M. McIntyre

TORONTO: May 6-8, 2015Instructor: Margaret Imai-Compton

TORONTO: March 12-13, 2015Instructor: Margaret Imai-Compton

CALGARY: To be Rescheduled TORONTO: To be Rescheduled Instructor: Charles Leech

TORONTO: April 22, 2015Instructor: Ken Deal

TORONTO: April 23-24, 2015Instructor: Ken Deal

TORONTO: February 24, 2015Instructor: Patricia Davies

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES

mria vue magazine - december 2014

Documents

chief research officer

vue magazine

mria website

vue editorial team

mria office

recherche et

advertising material

notice of advertising