Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
- in which the “portable Internet” will provide researchers with more timely, comprehensive and accurate recall of consumer experience, and
- in which the combination of consumer and product data with occasion-based event information will provide a new way of data collection.
Monday, 1 December 2008
- Make the case: how to bring Web 2.0 concepts into your organization (including convincing upper management)
- Fail Forward Fast: how to create effective pilot programs without losing your head (or your job)
- Spread the gospel: The key ingredients that make a successful Web 2.0 evangelist
Friday, 24 October 2008
Monday, 6 October 2008
The Research Club is an open social event ( a real-one, not a virtual one !) for anyone involved in the market research industry. A free event to make new contacts, develop business opportunities and keep up to date with the latest industry developments.
With events held in London, Amsterdam and Hamburg, it is a way to meet with like-minded research professionals and an opportunity to create and maintain your own national and international networks - all within an informal setting whilst enjoying some drinks and finger-food.
For the Dutch readers: Amsterdam's next event is on Thursday October 9th in Amsterdam (in Café De Jaren). Anyone working in the Market Research Industry can join -- feel free to bring a colleague! For more information or to see pictures of the April "borrel" in Amsterdam, visit their site. See you there!
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Anyhow, like I already concluded here, the MR industry will not like anything like today, and I gues the point I am trying to make is: Every now and than, organisations like EFAMRO, CASRO, ARF and ESOMAR try to forecast the industry's revenue growth, yet they don't usually include the new companies who are new to the industry. Generally, I see three type of new entrants who we simply loose track off (but shouldn't, clearly) :
"Would these type of companies replace (part of) the need for traditional MR...?"
- MR companies who simply are not a member of industry organisations: e.g. Comscore or Gallup ...
- Market Research 2.0 companies, either still independent, (Compete, Communispace...) or already taken over (AC Nielsen's Buzzmetrics, TNS' Cymphony...)
- New Niche players (sometimes part of big companies) Experian's Hitwise, Google's TangoZebra, , ComScore's M:Metrics ...
The number new players in the MR field is dramatically increasing. New entrants and substitutes are becoming a major force of change, there are many players are out there… some big and well-known, others smaller.
Our competitive arena is rapidly getting tighter and tougher!
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Friday, 20 June 2008
- the relative importance of the region on the internet
- the average internet penetration in the region
- broad band internet penetration in the top-15 countries
- share of most important languages used on the internet
Should you wish to receive the original, just drop me line by clicking here and I'll be happy to forward you the high-quality powerpoint slide.
I used various sources, but the main source has been the often used Internet World Stats site.
I hope you'll be able to use it.
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Now he makes the comment on how one always end up what you pay for (basically his examples are all tools that are free) he and I share at least one thing in common (and I mentioned it also in a previous post here) those researchers who seriously think they'll be in the business of delivering added value to clients must be familiar with these new types of graphing research results and we should all make an effort to seriously think how these tools can be improved so that they'll be of added value to our customers.
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Monday, 26 May 2008
They encourage members and non-members from client companies, research companies, and our local universities to come join us to provide additional perspective to this lively discussion. With both Procter & Gamble and GE in that city, I hope they'll join too.
Should some reader of this blog have an opportunity to go there: let me know what it is all about, I would be very interested in hearing how the meeting was and what the outcomes may be. And I am sure, so are many of the readers of this blog...!
Click here if you have an opportunity to join, it's only 10US$ for non-members!
When: Wednesday,May 28th, 20087:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Where: Web Media Tools18. W. 7th Street, 3rd FloorDowntown
Cost: Members - Free! Non-Members - $10
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Saturday, 3 May 2008
Thursday, 10 April 2008
The system follows a three-step process:
- Checks of prospective panellists to ensure they are who they claim to be by verifying the information they provide against what MarketTools calls “extensive databases with objectively validated consumer demographics”. Tests have seen as many as 20% of people turned away from the panel at this stage, the company said.
- Digital Computer Fingerprint. This fingerprint allows panellists to be cross-checked against other panel members and other panels that have signed up to use the service, stamping out duplicate respondents in studies that utilise multiple panels, and preventing respondents from taking the same survey more than once. Use of TrueSample to date has seen around 3% of respondents fail this test at the outset of each survey, the company said.
- Data validation technology should spot fraudulent behaviour by correlating survey completion time and response patterns. Activity flagged as fraudulent includes the usual: speeding, straight-lining and ‘satisficing’, but in addition those found to have engaged in such activity will have their computers’ "digital fingerprints" blacklisted.
TrueSample would be available in the US this quarter and was on track for a release in the Europe during the third quarter. It is already in use on MarketTools’ own ZoomPanel and on panels operated by partners Luth Research and Greenfield Online. The TrueSample launch comes within a month of a similar product release from Peanut Labs, called OptimusID.
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
- Non marketing panel – so you avoid education effects from advertising campaigns influencing the results of research
- Diversely recruited panel – that sourced respondents are derived from a lot of different locations and in different ways to ensure an attitudinal spread in the panel population
- No excessively high rewards – as this tends to result in panellists that are money/discount sensitive, which in turn can affect their research responses
- Actively seek to exclude professional respondents – both through their recruiting (not using professional respondent sites) and through active management (screening and deleting straight lining respondents)
- Well managed to avoid sampling biases – regularly cleaned and scrubbed to remove non active panellists, consistently updated and profiled, panellists are not over-used, sample eliminations are available to avoid education effects from past research participation
As a general rule panels that include a combination of online and offline recruiting are more costly to develop and tend to attract a premium price in the market. This is because they minimise the biases associated with online recruiting alone.
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Monday, 31 March 2008
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Have you ever been there...? You did everything right: you convinced your client that online data collection is a valid method for the study, he seems ready to move his -- let's say -- offline tracker to an online method. You've prosed a parallel study to identify changes directly resulting from a shift in data collection method and to you will assess these findings when considering a move to online research. And now the data between the offline and online research does not line up. What to do? Here are four steps that will help you and your client...: 1) Understanding the type of difference The first step in dealing with the different results is to look for the type of differences:
- Type 1 difference: shift in results but no fundamental change in the overall conclusions and recommendations.
- Type 2 difference: shift in the results and a fundamental change in the overall conclusions and recommendations (e.g. different concept ranking, significant results in brand awareness between brands, etc). So as a first step we must check if the conclusions and recommendations differ between the offline and online results. Remember it's all about you supporting the client in their business decisions, and if the decision will be the same, the difference in data collection method does not matter, right?
2) Explain the difference You now have to interpret the differences found: in case of Type 1 differences you should comfort the user of the research that several reasons exist to explain the differences, but they are relatively little and did not influence business decisions. In case of Type 2 differences: we should distinguish between those type 2 results that we can easily "live with": they are not key-indicators and are not hugely important for business decisions, and those type 2 results that really differ and influence business decisions. Once we divided the Type 2 differences into two groups, we can move to the next step: 3) Which data is closer to reality? For those Type 2 differences that are really key for the project, we must now check which results (the offline or offline results) are closer to reality: which results are actually a better representation of the market? This could be a combination of variables: general ones such as age, gender and education or region, or more specific ones to the category: category use in the P3M. Perhaps you have actual market shares to compare? Perhaps sales figures? Is none of this available, well, together with the client you can evaluate which figures are more likely to be representing reality. 4) Calibration of results We will now have to decide how we are going to calibrate the results between the two methods. Generally speaking, the approach towards existing data is the following:
- before, or during the transition from offline to online data, parallel testing is done to measure discrepancies caused by the change of method.
- For a limited amount of time (couple of months, up to one or two years, depending on the old data available) the new online data will be weighted towards the old existing offline data for those variables where the parallel test proved a change in results.
- Once enough online data exists, once your client feels comfortable and has gotten used to the different new level of the online data, the above exercise will be done again, this time weighting the offline historic data towards the new online data. This should allow for the historic offline data to be still used in the future.
Drop me a line to let me know if the above is helpfull !
Thursday, 6 March 2008
- Disabling the use of the right click button to prevent the “copy,” “save,” and “print” functions.
- Restrict the ability to print from the User’s toolbar.
- Attempting to print a page results in a blank page printing.
- Security is delivered without requiring any specific view program.
But there simply is no way to completely prevent a respondent from saving images, there are limitations. A savvy internet user may still save the images: The respondent may use “Print Screen” to get a picture of the image. However, when using Print Screen the entire screen is saved, including template headers and footers, forcing the respondent to edit the saved image. The image may also be saved using the “Save As” from the browser toolbar. The tools do not prevent the respondent from viewing the source code which contains the link to the image. However, this function is disabled if the respondent is using an Internet Explorer browser to take the survey due to the use of a secure survey link.
So what to do?
Other non software related measures to secure graphics and video include:
- Excluding certain cities / zip codes / regions from your sample (perhaps those where competitor employees are living / working). E.g. should you be doing an online Kraft concept test in the US, why not consider to exclude the home-town of P&G
- Obviously you should always have the "security screening": excluding certain professions (e.g. marketing, press, certain industries related to the product)
- Excluding certain e-mail accounts (e.g. no panellists that enrolled in the panel using an e-mail address of the a certain company will be invited)
- Showing graphs and images for only a couple of seconds (to limit the time of actually taking a picture of the screen with a mobile device or photo camera)
I am not in favour of sending out Non-disclosure agreements to panellists prior to any certain research: this will only trigger more attention!
In the end, should you have found the perfect software, it is still possible for malicious respondents to simply take a picture of the screen with their camera or mobile phone!
Fact remains that no 100% guarantee can be given, but remember: this is valid for other field work modes too, right? Any ideas?
Monday, 3 March 2008
- Ensure minimum response rates. Your panel provider should require their recruitment partners to provide willing, active panelists who will secure a minimum response rate for your research studies.
- Pay only for good panelists. Your panel provider should not compensate their recruitment partners for fraudulent panelist registrations. They should have systems in place to track which recruiting partners provide fraudulent panelists, and strictly enforce contractual measures to demand a refund of the recruiting fees paid.
- Review panelist redemption files. Your panel provider should regularly create and thoroughly review panelist redemption files to detect any suspicious member account activity.
- Engage panelists with profiling surveys. Your panel provider should regularly revamp each of their profiling surveys, and provide an incentive to their panelists for completing each one. This not only contributes to keeping panel profiling information up-to-date for future research studies, but also helps continuously engage the panel.
CHECK 2: PANEL REGISTRATION
- Enforce panelist login restrictions. Your panel provider should require their panelists to log in using their email address, and create a strong password with a particular type of / minimum set of characters.
- Prevent panelists from changing personal information during registration. Your panel provider should not allow their panelists to change some of the personal information they provide during the registration process. This will prevent fraudulent panelists from creating accounts in multiple geographic regions with varying demographic attributes.
- Store and compare account creation and changes. Your panel provider should be in a position to record a snapshot of every account created upon registration, and store that information in a secure database. Subsequent account changes made by panelists to their personal information should prompt another snapshot, so information can be compared between the two steps.
- Strictly enforce panelist account removal policy. Your panel provider should decrease the rating of panel members who have incurred an infraction, and remove those fraudulent panelists from the panel after a set number of infractions. Block fraudulent panelists without warning. Your panel provider should delete those panelists who act in an egregious manner from the panel, and block them from opening a subsequent account.
- Remove suspicious email addresses, domains and IPs. Your panel provider should permanently block a panelist suspected to use multiple email addresses, domains or IPs from accessing the panel.
- Detect speedsters. Your panel provider should have checks in place to filter out responses provided by speedsters – panelists who complete a survey faster than the established minimum time threshold.
- Keep bots and scripts at bay. Your panel provider should have technology solutions in place to prevent bots, scripts or other programs from creating or editing panelist accounts. This technology should also be used during account registration, account login and before a panelist submits changes to the personal information stored in their account.
Monday, 4 February 2008
Some are highly centralized — the global decisions are made in one or two locations. For those companies, they probably want to deal with a supplier who could mirror that. It is possible to deal with someone who doesn’t have a global network but I think there is a level of reassurance in working with a group. Would these be best served by TNS or GfK?
There are other clients who have a decentralized approach but they still might have preferred or recommended suppliers so although it’s not strictly leveraging the global power of a research group, it’s that sort of reassurance again that they’ll be able to do the same kind of job. Probably smaller local research shops would be the first choice for these clients...
The ideal is, a client wants to work with a local boutique where he knows everybody and he has a very strong personal relationship and that boutique somehow magically has global capabilities.
And that last situation in a sense is that what Synovate is trying to create, that level of service and that level of intimacy, not just with client relations but for staff. In fact Synovate is cited in the marketing's guru 2007 edition of "Marketing Management" (by Philip Kotler) as a successful example of branding and building a global business. The fact that Synovate has no global head office is mentioned too:
Synovate's identity doesn't emanate from a central head office but involves and reflects all of our people across the world. Ask any of my colleagues where our headquarters is and the reply will be "we don't have a HQ" ... "We can work in any location"... "We have Centres of Excellence all over the world"...
It's this type of believe that makes us believe that we are the biggest small research company in the world and this will help us build our business. So what do you think, will our strategy eventually work out to service clients best by offering the best of a global company and of the small...?
Drop me a line...
Friday, 1 February 2008
Thursday, 31 January 2008
Isn't it great to be in Market Research? For now, all of you who are reporting quantitative data to your clients can, and should start exploring these graphic possibilities. From today, consider me a "Many Eyes Junky"....
Monday, 28 January 2008
Inspired by 2.0 application Fleck, Ruigrok decided to do a pilot with tagging. When the company conducts tagging research, panellists receive an invitation to make leave digital notes. These notes can have a positive or negative emotion. The idea is simple, participants can tag for example websites by placing colored tags and comment on it. This can be done alone or in a group process, moderated by a researcher.
Using heatmaps ('tagclouds') the tool will show what elements of tested concepts trigger the most attention.
A first pilot showed that the data was comparable with their more traditional quantative and qualitative methods. The new research tool showed that this method could get open response, quick feedback, easy to analyze, visual attractive and fun for the participants. But above all, it seems to be an interesting new tool that is fun to do: an experience itself.
Friday, 25 January 2008
- When it involves a lot of non-standardized research projects If your research firm is in the business of ad-hoc customized market research, every survey will be more or less different, which makes outsourcing them risky. Communication with local programmers is difficult enough, won’t it be impossible with a non-native English speaker living half-way around the world in another time-zone? These scripts are best handeled in house by researchers who have first hand knowledge of the research objectives.
- When the questionnaire is the core-source of success for your research project If it is critical to the success of your project, outsourcing is probably not the best solution. A lot of back-and-forth between the scripter and researcher will take place and again time zone differences impede the relationship when frequent discussion is needed to communicate requirements and last-minute changes.
- When experience is required (know-how) If a manual can replace the briefing to the programming or DP department than send the job abroad. If expertise is needed from the scripter, if scripting is another quality check in the process of getting the best suited online survey programmed, think twice before you decide to do it abroad. How can they perform a task the way I want it done without asking a lot of questions…the questions will drive me nuts? I remember hard it was to convince an Indian programmer that chocolate sprinklers in Holland are used for sandwich filling (nice: with lot's of butter!) and it really did not belong to the Cake / Pastry category!
An additional concer has always been retention of employees at the vendor. And now it's a widespread one: Staff churn is absolutely increasing. At first it looked as if it was just the programmers which college kids. These kids get a few months of experience and move on to greener pastures in their country. But we're seeing it across all staff levels now. It's a big issue.
Once a MR firm starts to outsource, it will take months (if not a couple of years) to realize that outsourcing may not be the best approach for efficient and seamless scripting. By the time the company realized this, the people who had the knowledge of doing it in-home would already have been laid off. And it will cost double the effort to obtain this business critical knowledge back in the company.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
- Ultra mobile PCs
- Mobile VoIP
How will these technologies be able to contribute to the Market Research industry?
1. Web-to-go One of the biggest drawbacks of online survey is that most of them can only be used when there is an internet connection. But according to the BBC there are tools that are beginning to blur the online and offline worlds. Three new technologies were introduced in 2007: Google Gears, Adobe's Air and Microsoft's Silverlight.
These applications will influence how we use the Internet: these three applications enable us to use web content offline. For example Adobe has shown off an Ebay desktop application built using Air that would allow users to do much of the legwork required in setting up auctions offline. The next time the user connects to the internet the listing would be posted to the website.
Could the same apply to online surveys?
2. Ultra mobile PCs Various devices have tried to fill the role between a PDA and a full-blown laptop over the years, but none has taken off. But 2008 could be the year when the Ultra Mobile PCs (UMPCs) finally have their day.
But towards the end of 2007 a series of new products started to hit shelves. The Asus EEE may be able to close the gap with its relatively cheap notebook (~300 Euro). It's about the size of a hard-covered book. Apple is supposed to launch an ultra-thin Macbook later this year.
Will these ulta mobile PCs close the gap between "cheap" paper-and-pencil and "expensive" CAPI research?
3. IPTV Internet TV has been hampered in the past and so have questionnaires based on ITV technologies. But with the increasing popularity of IPTV services as Joost (or for Holland Mine tv what will these bring to our industry?
4. WIMAX Wimax is a wireless technology that can deliver high speed broadband over long distances. It is already big in the US with companies such as Sprint and Intel backing the technology. The BBC predicts that Europe is next (they probably refer to UK only, I assume). Not sure what the relevance for our industry may be...
5. Mobile VoIP VoIP is a technology that allows users to make cheap phone calls over the internet. Skipe is probably the best known provider. Although some firms such as Jajah and Truphone have offered VoIP on mobiles the technology is still relatively nascent.
However, 2008 could be the year the technology takes off. Towards the end of 2007, network operator 3 launched a Skype phone that allows users to make calls using the service, already popular for making calls from PCs. Handset-maker Nokia also offers four phones with the ability to use the technology. Mobile VoIP is still at a very early stage but how may this reshape the way we organise CATI telephone interviewing? How may it decrease costs? How will we be able to connect to the increasing population of those who are not having a land-line telephone?
I am sure that in 2008 in the research industry we will have our usual mix of heartbreak and triumph but it makes for an interesting job! I look forward to 2008 and I hope so are you. I wish you all my very best for the New Year!