We’ve been hearing a lot about the “new” mixed-method or hybrid market research techniques called “Quant/Qual” of late. Truth is, if you’ve been around marketing research for any length of time, you know that we’ve been doing “quant/qual” or “qual/quant” for decades.
What’s different – and noteworthy – is the way technology is being leveraged. Two companies come to mind, yet I’m sure there are others:
iModerate – Fields a larger quant study and then pulls off certain participants to have a one-on-one follow up with a professional moderator. As their site says: Research>iMpact provides a hybrid approach in which online qualitative sessions are incorporated into virtually any online survey, giving you qualitative insight that enhances and clarifies the quantitative data.
Invoke Solutions – Seemingly more quantitative in orientation, Invoke is leveraging their technology to obtain richer and deeper open-ended responses. They say that it’s like a focus group experience, but I’m going to need to learn more before I’m convinced. Having said that, I’ve seen enough that I’m intrigued and I want to learn more. The client-interface portion looks very powerful.
But are either of these “new”? I started this topic thinking, “No, they’re not really new at all. Just a new twist on an old approach.”
But the more I think about this, the more I believe these might be new approaches. The dividing line for me lies in the definition of “qualitative research.”
- Qualitative research explores.
- Great open-ended responses in quantitative research explains.
For now, I’m going to continue to think of these newer approaches in these ways – and make client recommendations accordingly. And, as always, I’ll continue to seek out more info. If you’ve got something to share on this subject, please do!
An earlier blog post highlighted my belief that market research is experiencing a paradigm shift; a simple matrix was created to summarize the trend. This month I’m focusing on “anthropologic” research, which falls in the lower left, “non-verbal/natural environment” quadrant.
One could argue that everything on the left side of this diagram is anthropologic. However, I contend that “discourse analysis” is so reliant on words that we must acknowledge techniques that rely equally much or more on physical observation.
The three types of approaches utilized in anthropologic market research which most immediately come to mind are:
Ethnography. From the Greek “ethos” (the character of a people and their distinctive culture) and writing. In short, to observe and document.
Semiotics. The original Greek meant “interpreter of signs.” Today, in business applications, it involves studying communication processes, signs and symbols. A British colleague pointed out the two main influencers of this discipline: Peirce and Saussure. (For a quick read, see Wiki). To me, semiotics is about cues and norms. For example, we tend to think of banks as “institutions” with strong edifices or tall buildings; we want them strong. “The friendly bank” sounds slightly oxymoronic. Clearly, it’s more complicated than this – and I hope others will weigh in!
Ergonomics. For the sake of brevity, this is about how people interact with things, either physically, mentally, or organizationally. Human factors and usability testing fall into this category.
The second thing to keep in mind about this quadrant, as with “sociologic” research, is that we can study people individually or in groups – a major consideration in study design.
This quadrant has been “trending” for the past decade or more. With the aid of technology, we’ve been pushing into the lower left of this area. There are dozens of new innovations and techniques, but the two that have stuck with me are the following:
Wireless cameras for individual ethnography and usability studies. People can create, with limited direction from the moderator/facilitator, mini-documentaries. Want to go along with a man when he’s trying to pick out a gift for his wife? You can do that. Want to see and hear how a woman works with a new appliance she just bought? You can do that too. I really don’t believe this is a gimmick or fad. While some might think a “con” of this method is that people will only show or discuss what they want, the clear upside is the natural setting. My experience: I’ve never done an in-home study where the bed wasn’t made, but I have done online sessions and seen unmade beds and messy rooms. So, like any other method, the pros and cons need to be assessed. Overall, this is a terrific advancement.
CCTV for merchandising. Several years ago I did interviews with executives in the corporate security business. One of the men I interviewed told me that his closed-circuit TVs were attracting the interest of major retailers; the software they had developed, for use at airports, looked for things that weren’t moving (e.g., bags with bombs). What the retailers wanted to know is if the software could be modified to assess what I call “merchandising wear-out.” That is, a display is put at the front of the store. Could the camera/software tell 1) if the display had “stopping power” (to get people to enter the store and/or look at the display) and 2) if the traffic flow patterns indicated it was time to change/modify the display? A bit creepy, perhaps – but realistically we know there are security cameras in stores. Net, net: this is a clear example of when the absence of behavior can represent critical learning.
What are your favorite new methods or tools in this area?
In the first part of this series, I provided an overview of market research and how our tools are evolving. In this second installment, the focus will be on Quadrant 3 – Physiologic Techniques.
As shown in the diagram, physiological methods are all conducted with the knowledge of the test subject, and, for the most part, the focus is on the physical response (even when verbal responses are obtained). Whether for eye tracking, galvanic skin response, fMRI, or any other form of physiologic response testing, measurement equipment is involved.
People spend entire careers in this field of study. Many applications are borrowed and then modified from medical research applications. This has not been my primary professional area of focus, but it’s clearly an important field to watch and learn from as it evolves.
To use these methods, one must first know something about the basic brain structure. The brain is divided into three primary “levels”…
The brain stem is the first. It controls autonomic nervous responses, such as respiration, heart rate, perspiration, and reflexes. It keeps the body running and secure. It doesn’t think and it doesn’t feel – it responds; in humans, this response is often in response to something it is thinking or feeling (conditional reflexes, for example).
The second level to evolve was the limbic system. According to the NIH Medical Encyclopedia, “The limbic system of the brain is a group of structures which govern emotions and behavior [and]… is involved in the formation of long-term memory, and is closely associated with the olfactory structures.” There’s much debate as to whether the limbic system really is a distinct secondary level, but I bring it up here because the brain has many components, not all measured equally well by various methodologies.
The third level, of course, is the cerebral cortex. When we describe “left brain” (rational / logical / language) vs. “right brain” (emotional / artistic) activity, we’re most often talking about the cortex.
The Vest
I’ve always been a bit skeptical of marketing research methods that focus on measuring autonomic nervous responses because it’s often unclear what a participant is responding to. At a professional training event a few months back, Innerscope Research talked with us about its monitoring vest. A very impressive advancement in biometric monitoring as individuals no longer need to be “hooked up” to a machine with sticky electrodes or other sensors; all are embedded in the vest.
Let’s assume that a biometric company such as Innerscope really can tell the difference between a positive and negative emotion based on length of response time (which is what I remember being told) and that there is a way to quantify the differences between similar emotions, such as fear and anxiety or anger and frustration. And let’s further assume that reactions can be measured in milliseconds and don’t take multiple seconds to register – so that we can accurately correlate emotion to stimuli. Granted, that’s a lot of assumptions and I’m not sure I’m completely on board with this. But let’s assume we’re there. If we used this in ad testing or in shop-alongs or another method, we’d still be left wondering “why” someone had the reaction(s) they did – which requires us, as marketing researchers, to hybridize these approaches to include verbal probing.
For those who argue that people have trouble articulating their emotions, I’d argue that’s more often true with emotions on the extreme ends of the spectrum: love, happiness, depression. If we’re good at our jobs, we can probe our way to understanding most other reactions.
EEGs
An EEG, or electroencephalography, studies brainwave activity along the scalp – virtually in real-time. Over the years, the electrode configuration of the “caps” used have become more complex (as shown in the picture), but it still remains quite true that the EEG can’t measure deep limbic system functions. Having said this, there are some great applications, when used in conjunction with other techniques, such as copy testing. (See Quirks for an example.)
fMRI
Functional MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is at its earliest stages of being used by marketing researchers. In this quadrant, this method falls in the extreme lower / right corner. There’s no getting around the fact that you’re taking a test when you’re asked to take off all your metal (eyeglasses, jewelry, etc.) and go into a tube for 15 minutes to an hour. (While in the tube, the participant’s brain blood-flow is being monitored in response to what they’re seeing / hearing / smelling / etc.)
For general marketing research purposes, this (currently) seems too extreme and invasive to me. I appreciate the fact that fMRI can measure the whole brain, and just not certain parts. And I look forward to how marketing research applications will evolve into in the future. I hope my ethical and liability concerns can be addressed, but I’m not sure.
Eye Tracking
Of all the physiological research methods, the one I’m the most familiar with is eye tracking. Some might argue that it’s the least invasive and that it allows the participant to understand why the researcher is using this tool. Early applications in market research were in assessing outdoor advertising or print ads in magazines. The experiences were simulated (e.g., driving on a highway, flipping pages of a mocked-up magazine) and its application was almost always done as an adjunct to other ad-testing measures.
Advances today are pretty impressive. Doing a usability test? The eye-tracking cameras are built into some monitors so the user has no “extra presence” or unusual equipment in the room. In fact, the interviewer can be out of the room, watch the usability exercise, and use the video from the test as a discussion springboard.
Another application I like is having participants shop wearing a special pair of eye tracking glasses. In a real store, not a simulation, we can see their entire shopping experience; again, we can use the video to follow-up with them in a post-shop interview.
Closing
There are other methods to be sure. My hope was to provide a flavor of what’s currently going on in this quadrant. Further, the point must be made that research in this quadrant, in my view, needs to be contextualized; I wouldn’t conduct any of these methods alone without some means of probing potentially less-than-clear reactions.
What would you add to this discussion?
Online market research methods continue to evolve. Here’s what I’m thinking about the most common qualitative methods right now. They’re being presented as stand-alone ideas, but certainly can be used as part of mixed-method designs.
Focus Groups (with or without webcams)
How it works: Focus groups happen in real-time and are moderator-directed. Clients view online while sessions take place and can send messages to the moderator throughout. Webcams make viewing sessions more interesting for all involved. Written exercises or anchoring thoughts can be done using (private) chat features. “Whiteboards” are available for showing materials. Some projective techniques may be harder to employ.
When to use: When you have a geographically-dispersed or hard-to-find target and you need the interaction of a traditional focus group discussion.
Bulletin Boards
How it works: Boards are set up, most typically, for a 3-5 day period, although they can certainly go longer. Participants know they need to logon 2-3 times a day (or less depending on study design), at their convenience, to answer questions posted by the moderator; answers are typed. (Participant time commitment might be 20 minutes to an hour per day.) The moderator can control whether people need to respond to a question before seeing others’ responses. Participants are encouraged to review others’ answers, make comments, etc. Fostering interaction is critical to the success of this approach. “Whiteboards” for showing materials are also available in this setting.
When to use: Especially good for hard-to-reach targets (IT professionals, doctors, etc.), when materials presented may evolve over the course of the board, when there’s broad geographical requirements (such as international studies), and/or when added privacy will allow for more candid responses.
Video Diaries
How it works: Over the course of the study, participants view pre-recorded moderator questions at their convenience. Talking to the webcam, they can take their time answering with their thoughts, feelings and opinions. Follow-up questions can be sent to participants by the moderator, although there is less probing by the moderator in this method than in focus groups or bulletin boards. There is no participant interaction; this is another form of an in-depth interview. It can also be viewed as a more updated, richer approach to man-on-the-street interviews.
When to use: When you think participants will find this format the best way to open up on a subject. Can be useful in conjunction with focus groups to help make participants more aware of their thoughts/feelings on a subject prior to exploration of a related issue (e.g., new product launch in an existing category or brand repositioning).
Journaling
How it works: A cousin to video diary, although journaling happens in a written format and there is even less moderator involvement. Guidelines are set-up by the moderator at the start and then they take a back-seat. (As with bulletin boards, reminder emails to encourage participation and to keep them on task can be sent, but typically this is kept to a minimum.) Participants can journal from anywhere they have Internet access, and are encouraged to do so on a regular basis for the full study period (which can go for a couple of weeks to months). This method is somewhat closer to ethnographic research than other methods.
When to use: For more open-ended assignments, where there’s a general topic or two. Good for “know the consumer” research and/or for topics where people’s reactions might vary by time of day (such as how they decide what/where to eat or childcare issues).
Blogging
How it works: A private, project-specific blog community is set-up. Each participant has their own blog, where they can write, upload images, videos, etc. They are given topics/issues to blog on (again in general terms). Participants are encouraged to comment on each others’ blog postings. The moderator can ask follow-up questions. Blogging is a cousin of journaling, although there is more participant interaction; it’s also a cousin of bulletin boards, although in this case the interactions are less moderator-directed. Because participants need to get into the swing and spirit of the project, the length of the project should be longer (at least a few weeks in my opinion).
When to use: When a hybrid method is needed that can combine some of the benefits of journaling and bulletin boards – which can create a synergy all its own.
Mobile Research
How it works: Questions are sent via text message to participants’ cell phones. Answers tend to be short given text-messaging restrictions (approximately 160 characters – slightly more than a Tweet). Participants do not interact with one another. The moderator may ask follow-up questions.
When to use: When we know we’d get a better quality answer by having someone text as something is occurring vs. waiting for them to get back to a computer and relying on memory. Currently cost effective for multi-question studies.
Communities
How it works: A large number of people (N=400+) are invited to participate in a community; typically participants know the sponsor. (They might even be recruited from a Facebook fan page.) Participants are strongly encouraged to interact with one another absent any formal research project in social-network type areas of the community; reports on these activities can be sent to clients on a regular basis. Sub-groups of community members are recruited to various studies during the course of the community’s life. This qualitative method represents a blend of directed and less-directed research activities, with the potential for great creativity in research design. Once the community is established, quicker timelines on individual projects are possible (recruiting is very fast).
When to use: It’s recommended that if a company can construct at least a six-month research plan, with frequently scheduled projects, an online community should be considered. (Example: when developing a new product line from ideation to product roll-out.)
Your thoughts? Any experiences you’d like to share?
PSGWMUKXJDY8
Last week I attended the annual Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA) conference in Palm Springs. It was a great event and I learned a lot. One of the sessions I found of particular interest was on mobile market research; that is, using cell phones to conduct market surveys.
A bit of background from the April 2009 Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project report:
- 85% of adult Americans have a cell phone and, of this group, fully 81% of them have at one time used it for a purpose other than making a phone call
- On a typical day, more than half of cell users (52%) have used it for a non-voice data activity, such as texting, emailing, snapping a picture, etc.
- 65% of all cell/PDA users have ever sent or received a text message; 43% do so on a “typical day”
- 50% of those age 50-64 have ever sent/received a text message (compared to 76% of those age 30-49) and 23% of those age 50-64 send/receive texts on a typical day (vs. 51% of those age 30-49)
- 40% of whites send/receive texts on a typical day, that number rises to 47% for African-Americans and 59% for Latinos
It’s no wonder that mobile research is of great interest to marketers! The primary benefit of this method is collecting real-time reactions as they happen. Highlights from the presentation made by Shaili Bhatt and Shamsu Bhaidani at the conference:
- Mobile research is best used with short questions and when trying to reach “on the go” participants
- If daily responses are needed on a specific topic, mobile research can be used as a quick journaling tool (e.g., “was it a good hair day today or a bad one and why?” or “how’s your hair today?”)
- Mobile research can be used for pre-session homework to support other forms of research
- Questions can be pushed out to participants (e.g., after a TV show they’ve been asked to watch has aired or during the lunch-hour about how they decided what to eat) and/or participants can answer on their own as the activity happens (e.g., doctors sending in short messages when/why they prescribe a particular drug)
- For those with web-enabled phones, participants often can choose to link to a website to enter their response, which allows them to write a message longer than SMS text limits (often 136-160 characters)
- New formats are coming, such as EMS, MMS, and MIM. All allow for greater content sharing, such as the use of images, audio, animation, and in the latter case, two-way communication (on-the-spot follow up questions – wow!)
A few issues for consideration, from my point of view:
- Privacy is a concern. Company-owned phones or phones synched with company systems may be monitored for legal compliance reasons, even when the employee pays their own bill. This might be fine for general interest topics, but certain subjects need careful screening to help protect the participant.
- Since this isn’t something that’s cost effective if you only have a single question that you need to ask, I hope the time comes soon when a company offers an omnibus text service. If we can do this online effectively, having a mobile omnibus should be a snap and would be great for those harder-to-reach audiences. (Note: omnibus studies are typically quantitative, and I imagine that would be the case here too. Although, there’s no reason why someone couldn’t commission follow-up questions with a sub-sample.)
- Someone in our session asked a question about mobile research’s ability to work in conjunction with GPS systems. (That is, the GPS on the phone would tell the system when you were, for example, at the drug store and time the question push or reminder to that event.) We’re not there quite yet, from what I understand; however, I believe this will take mobile to a whole new level.
There are several services available we can work with that have the infrastructure to conduct surveys via mobile devices. Any questions? Let’s discuss.
